Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello David,

You know that, I know that, Trevor knows that, infact many know that- but some don't look at it in that way.

The ONLY verification of any of the marginalia is the name KOSMINSKI- which is memtioned in Step 2- the Macnagthen Memoranda
Step 3, the MM, mentions Kosminski in 2 main ways, firstly in company of 2 other names more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and secondly, when in the writer's opinion (Macnagthen) Koswinski is exonerated of this title and crime (i.e. Being Jack the Ripper) .

And there, simply, it stops.

NOWHERE is 'Aaron' mentioned.
NOWHERE is there corroberation for this event with a KOSMINSKI being identified shown.
NOWHERE has there been shown ANY proof of WHICH Seaside home was used.
NOWHERE is there evidence of the SUGGESTED Seaside Home being used for identification purposes.
NOWHERE in known police AND Home Office Records is there mention of the alleged event.
NOWHERE in any known AARON Kosminski story is there any mention of ANY official link to the RIPPER murders.
NOWHERE has this marginalia story been corroberated despite 25 years of searching from just about every researcher, historian or expert,

The answers to all of this has been primarily based on two arguments,

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there werent
2) we dont know any of the events didnt happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.

From the point of view of the facts, they do NOT lend themselves to giving any credance to the marginalia ever having occured re AARON Kosminski, and very very little if any to ANY Kosminski.

The simple conclusion is, from this poster's viewpoint, that the time has come to put the AARON Kosminski link to the marginalia to bed. Any other Kosminski link MUST be backed up with facts that correspond with the marginalia's details.

The argument that because there isnt corroberration doesnt mean it didnt happen is a weak one, in the light of 25 years of frantic searching with no result.

It is high time to draw a line.

Aaron Kosminski was NEVER suspected of being Jack the Ripper.
A Kosminski was mentioned and exonerated.
A Kosminski was mentioned in the marginalia, none of which can be shown to have happened.
NO NAME was mentioned in Anderson's book.

The above tells me that all four wheels have fallen off the wagon, and 'it ain't rollin' along- 'the chrokees are after it- but its singing a happy song'

NO DISRESPECT to Paul at all. I humbly respect his admirable devotion to the marginalia. But the facts speak for themselves here.

Kindly

Phil

Phil
You are right I am right others are right but Pinky and Perky cant seem to grasp it i think the time is right to just leave them alone to their own devices or vices !

[Jeff Leahy]

You are wrong I dont need to prove it exits the burden of proof lies with you because you are saying it did and you are using that to corroborate your theories about all of this. I am on the outside saying I dont belive you and so prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

"[/I]

Another historian thought like you Trevor his name was David Irving

"The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary."

[Trevor Marriott]

The points you make do not just arise from your police experience, they have also occurred a very long time ago to other people and for the most part they have been satisfactorily answered. For example, the absence of corroboration in the official files is meaningless because only a fraction of the official files exist. They also don't refer to any suspects except in passing, and despite your efforts to argue that suspect files didn't exist, we know they did. You make not like it, you may not want to accept it, but if you don't know what a bag of sweets contained you can't say it didn't contain any soft centres. If you don't know what the files contained, you can't say what they didn't contain.

I have never said that lost, stolen or destroyed papers are not an option. I have simply and accurately stated that the case papers have been severely culled and that what we possess is a fraction of what once existed.

But if what you argue is correct its mighty convenient that what is now no longer in existence just so happens to be one of the most important parts of this mystery and all the insignificant material got left behind. I am sorry I cant accept your argument that clearly props up you rapidly diminshing theories. No one would clear out such important information in any cull, if anyhting all the insignificant material we are left with would have been the first to go.

I have looked at many files in great detail and if I were culling there is much which could be safely culled i.e files relating to police manpower, expenditure etc etc why keep this ?.No one in their right mind would dream of destroying (culling) such an important file as you suggest it is.

Are there any other importants documents in this case which you can suggest were culled ?

Look, I pointed out many posts ago that one argument advanced by those who do not think Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him is that there is no reference to him ever having owned a book. Bill Bryson's response was to point out that there is no evidence that he ever wore trousers either, but we don't assume he spent his life naked from the waist down. With certain caveats, Bryson is right and his example not only points out why we can't base conclusions on an absence of corroboration in paucity of evidence, it also shows that reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the basis of probability. You know and I know as a fact that any investigation of a suspect would have generated paperwork, so there would have been paperwork in the files relating to suspects, if only a summary of the results of the investigation, so just as it is reasonable to assume Shakespeare wore leg coverings, so it is reasonable to deduce that there would have been paperwork about Tumblety, Kosminski, Druitt, Ostrog and so on. When it is logical and probable that something existed you need to prove that it didn't, hence it is not enough to say Shakespeare never owned a book or that files on the suspects never existed simply because the sparse records we possess don't corroborate it.

This is history, not police work.

You are wrong I dont need to prove it exits the burden of proof lies with you because you are saying it did and you are using that to corroborate your theories about all of this. I am on the outside saying I dont belive you and so prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You quote reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the basis of probabality well in my opinion the reasonable conclusion I draw is that there was never a main suspect file which included Kosminki which was culled.

You also have to look at it another way what was it that brought Kosminski onto the radar, whatever it was there would have been a police report. Now that report and any follow up reports would probablay have not formed any part of any subsequent suspect file so we would have expected to see somewhere in a general police occurence files some entry relating to this. Even the CID crime register for that period of time shows no mention of Kosminski.

In the absence of this it only adds to the fact that there was nothing. I stand to be corrected but it seems that so called incident invloving his sister with a knife was also never reported to the police. If that is correct then where and how did the suspicion fall on Kosminski for him to suddenly be public enemy No 1 several years later, did he win a raffle ?

I guess you will be quoting shakesapere next can we expect to hear "friends ripperologists and countrymen lend me you ears for I wish to tell you a story of great magnitude surrounding a much maligned suspect in a murder mustery"

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello David,

You know that, I know that, Trevor knows that, infact many know that- but some don't look at it in that way.

The ONLY verification of any of the marginalia is the name KOSMINSKI- which is memtioned in Step 2- the Macnagthen Memoranda
Step 3, the MM, mentions Kosminski in 2 main ways, firstly in company of 2 other names more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and secondly, when in the writer's opinion (Macnagthen) Koswinski is exonerated of this title and crime (i.e. Being Jack the Ripper) .

And there, simply, it stops.

NOWHERE is 'Aaron' mentioned.
NOWHERE is there corroberation for this event with a KOSMINSKI being identified shown.
NOWHERE has there been shown ANY proof of WHICH Seaside home was used.
NOWHERE is there evidence of the SUGGESTED Seaside Home being used for identification purposes.
NOWHERE in known police AND Home Office Records is there mention of the alleged event.
NOWHERE in any known AARON Kosminski story is there any mention of ANY official link to the RIPPER murders.
NOWHERE has this marginalia story been corroberated despite 25 years of searching from just about every researcher, historian or expert,

The answers to all of this has been primarily based on two arguments,

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there werent
2) we dont know any of the events didnt happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.

From the point of view of the facts, they do NOT lend themselves to giving any credance to the marginalia ever having occured re AARON Kosminski, and very very little if any to ANY Kosminski.

The simple conclusion is, from this poster's viewpoint, that the time has come to put the AARON Kosminski link to the marginalia to bed. Any other Kosminski link MUST be backed up with facts that correspond with the marginalia's details.

The argument that because there isnt corroberration doesnt mean it didnt happen is a weak one, in the light of 25 years of frantic searching with no result.

It is high time to draw a line.

Aaron Kosminski was NEVER suspected of being Jack the Ripper.
A Kosminski was mentioned and exonerated.
A Kosminski was mentioned in the marginalia, none of which can be shown to have happened.
NO NAME was mentioned in Anderson's book.

The above tells me that all four wheels have fallen off the wagon, and 'it ain't rollin' along- 'the chrokees are after it- but its singing a happy song'

NO DISRESPECT to Paul at all. I humbly respect his admirable devotion to the marginalia. But the facts speak for themselves here.

Kindly

Phil

Yes Phil your theory that if you scream long and hard enough that the world is FLAT that everyone will believe you is an admirable exercise in self delusion. However I believe Abraham Lincoln Said:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

PS Give your humble greeting to Master Copperfeild

[Phil Carter]

If the marginalia is authentic, then the only corroboration of Anderson are some few, personal and private words, quickly scribbled on a slow day.

Hello David,

You know that, I know that, Trevor knows that, infact many know that- but some don't look at it in that way.

The ONLY verification of any of the marginalia is the name KOSMINSKI- which is memtioned in Step 2- the Macnagthen Memoranda
Step 3, the MM, mentions Kosminski in 2 main ways, firstly in company of 2 other names more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and secondly, when in the writer's opinion (Macnagthen) Koswinski is exonerated of this title and crime (i.e. Being Jack the Ripper) .

And there, simply, it stops.

NOWHERE is 'Aaron' mentioned.
NOWHERE is there corroberation for this event with a KOSMINSKI being identified shown.
NOWHERE has there been shown ANY proof of WHICH Seaside home was used.
NOWHERE is there evidence of the SUGGESTED Seaside Home being used for identification purposes.
NOWHERE in known police AND Home Office Records is there mention of the alleged event.
NOWHERE in any known AARON Kosminski story is there any mention of ANY official link to the RIPPER murders.
NOWHERE has this marginalia story been corroberated despite 25 years of searching from just about every researcher, historian or expert,

The answers to all of this has been primarily based on two arguments,

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there werent
2) we dont know any of the events didnt happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.

From the point of view of the facts, they do NOT lend themselves to giving any credance to the marginalia ever having occured re AARON Kosminski, and very very little if any to ANY Kosminski.

The simple conclusion is, from this poster's viewpoint, that the time has come to put the AARON Kosminski link to the marginalia to bed. Any other Kosminski link MUST be backed up with facts that correspond with the marginalia's details.

The argument that because there isnt corroberration doesnt mean it didnt happen is a weak one, in the light of 25 years of frantic searching with no result.

It is high time to draw a line.

Aaron Kosminski was NEVER suspected of being Jack the Ripper.
A Kosminski was mentioned and exonerated.
A Kosminski was mentioned in the marginalia, none of which can be shown to have happened.
NO NAME was mentioned in Anderson's book.

The above tells me that all four wheels have fallen off the wagon, and 'it ain't rollin' along- 'the chrokees are after it- but its singing a happy song'

NO DISRESPECT to Paul at all. I humbly respect his admirable devotion to the marginalia. But the facts speak for themselves here.

Kindly

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

1. No records or files or entries in any official document or documents..

On interviewing Don Rumblow I was described a story when Don was asked to go up into a Police Attic and simply throw everything away. There was no conspiracy in this. No one was trying to cover anything up, just get the place tiddy..And like Monty my own experience researching the Stripper case which isnt even 50 years old is that 90% that is available has been destroyed.

2. Nothing written recorded or said anywhere at the time or in the ensuing years
from any police official,

Its been pointed out to you on several occassions that this isnt TRUE. Both Cox and Sagar gave interviews to News Papers claiming that they followed suspects. Cox's story gives details about a big police surveylance operation.
The idea that this opperation produced no paper work is quite frankly in the world of fairyland..it simply must have done so. And the only logical conclusion is that it is now missing

3. There is nothing to corroborate what Anderson wrote in his book other than
perhaps the marginlia..

Yes but it is corroborated by the Marginalia which has been examined by Two Home Office experts and declared 'Probably written by Swanson' getting Paul the Octopus to state 'conclusively' if you pay him enough money will mean absolute diddly squat. Indeed it would be a simple matter to find another graphologist to counter your claims. At least I have decent copies.

4. With regards to the marginlia because of the doubt there is in my mind at this
time I personally cannot rely on its autheticity to corroborate any of the
above as far as my own personal investigation is concerned which I have been
conducting from a police persepctive.

.

Well that is your Prerogative.

However you did the same thing on the apron when you claimed Cathrine Eddows had torn the discovered apron in Goulston Street to use as a sanitary towl or bottom wipe. And you didn’t know that Kate was carrying small pieces of clothe probably for that very purpose. The only reason you made this claim was because you didn’t want Jack heading East after the Eddows murder.

So is it a case of come up with a theory and make the evidence fit?

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

I was just trying to be objective, and let people see whether the values outweigh the limitations.

To do that you have to to try and see how this source measures up against other primary sources.

If Swanson is repeating what Anderson told him, trying to clarify the discrepency between the two versions of his memoirs, then much makes sense -- at least to me.

The melodramatic pantomime of the suspect, the sectarian witness refusing to send to the gallows a fellow member of the tribe, the irritated criticism of somebody with 'with difficulty', the telescoping of the events of 1891 into 1888/9 -- all sure sound Like Anderson's voice, and what he wrote elsewhere.

The counter-argument that two good cops are not going to misremember the same events cuts both ways, a factor not fully appreciated by those who advocate 'Kosminski'.

If this is Swanson's own opinion then he too suffered from a memory malfunction: that Kosmsinki' was not safely caged soon after Kelly. In fact, he himself thought Coles two years later was likely to have been murdered by 'Jack'. That Sadler might even be the fiend?

Swanson too, arguably, suffered from the memory malfunction that 'Kosminski' was deceased.

Anderson writes, sincerely but wrongly, as if the Ripper saga was wrapped up in early 1889. In an entirely private notation to himself, Swanson does not disagree with this mistaken notion.

Either because his memory is also mistaken, or he is simply repeating his beloved ex-chief's opinion.

Or, were one or both men misled by somebody else on that score ...?

Except for the last flat, provisional line, which sounds like the writer's implied criticism of what has come before.

After all, he maybe adding to what Anderson has written with more words from Anderson -- ones which were spoken.

That's why Swanson wrote them down. Anderson had amplified, and Swanson went to the relevant section of Anderson's book and added them, followed by the anti-climactic 'Kosminski' was the suspect. Because if he did not there would be no record of them.

With no first name for the mere 'suspect', exactly like Macnaghten had recoded it in his Report(s).

Yes, the same police administrator who had backdated the incarceration of 'Kosminski' to early 1889. The same one who knew that 'Kosminski' was really alive, and knew that tiny detail about 'self-abuse'.

The same one who knew that he had an egocentric, puritanical boss who had proudly brought the full force of the law against a man for masturbating on a train (to Macnaghten, the eternal Old Etonian, they were merely 'solitary vices' whereas to Anderson they were 'unmentionable vices' which utterly degraded and brutalised the perpetrator).

[PaulB]

You have hit the nail on the head you are looking at all of this as an historian I and others are looking at it from a police perspective which you agree are as different as chalk and cheese.

As an historian you argue issues about corroboration and use the marginalia and Andersons book as your own personal corroboration.

My corroboration from my own police perspective for suggesting it didnt take place is,

1. No records or files or entries in any official document or documents.

2. Nothing written recorded or said anywhere at the time or in the ensuing years
from any police official, convalescent home official, or asylum official as I
have said previous something of this magnitude done under this scale would
have resulted in someone talking then and one or some of their relatives
talking in the interim time. This suggests to me that Para 1 in itself
corroboartes the suggestion that it didnt take place.

3. There is nothing to corroborate what Anderson wrote in his book other than
perhaps the marginlia.

4. With regards to the marginlia because of the doubt there is in my mind at this
time I personally cannot rely on its autheticity to corroborate any of the
above as far as my own personal investigation is concerned which I have been
conducting from a police persepctive.

There have been so many theories discussed about this Komknski issue and the "
difficulty involved and the question where he was taken from his home or an asylum. If it be the latter I think you can rule that out because if he had been in an asylum it is unlikley that the doctors whose care he was under would have allowed him to be removed, especially if he was as mad and homicidal as is suggested. The more likely scenario would have been to go and bring the witness to London and conduct an ID parade either at a room in the asylum or at a police station. If he had have been removed from the asylum he would have been taken straight back to the asylum not to his brothers house

I seem to recall in the case of Ischensmidt that the doctors would not allow the police to do something with him whilst he was under their care.

I think we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree and let those who want to look at it from an historical viewpoint agree with you and those who want to look at it from a police perspective agree or disagree with me.

You ask what corroboration there is to show that the documents never existed I would ask if they did as you suggest then what happned to them, there are only three answers lost stolen or destroyed, yet you say these are not options worthy of consideration what do ou say happened to them ?

There is no point in continuing to constantly argue the same points over and over again at the end of the day what will be will be.

The points you make do not just arise from your police experience, they have also occurred a very long time ago to other people and for the most part they have been satisfactorily answered. For example, the absence of corroboration in the official files is meaningless because only a fraction of the official files exist. They also don't refer to any suspects except in passing, and despite your efforts to argue that suspect files didn't exist, we know they did. You make not like it, you may not want to accept it, but if you don't know what a bag of sweets contained you can't say it didn't contain any soft centres. If you don't know what the files contained, you can't say what they didn't contain.

I have never said that lost, stolen or destroyed papers are not an option. I have simply and accurately stated that the case papers have been severely culled and that what we possess is a fraction of what once existed.

Look, I pointed out many posts ago that one argument advanced by those who do not think Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him is that there is no reference to him ever having owned a book. Bill Bryson's response was to point out that there is no evidence that he ever wore trousers either, but we don't assume he spent his life naked from the waist down. With certain caveats, Bryson is right and his example not only points out why we can't base conclusions on an absence of corroboration in paucity of evidence, it also shows that reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the basis of probability. You know and I know as a fact that any investigation of a suspect would have generated paperwork, so there would have been paperwork in the files relating to suspects, if only a summary of the results of the investigation, so just as it is reasonable to assume Shakespeare wore leg coverings, so it is reasonable to deduce that there would have been paperwork about Tumblety, Kosminski, Druitt, Ostrog and so on. When it is logical and probable that something existed you need to prove that it didn't, hence it is not enough to say Shakespeare never owned a book or that files on the suspects never existed simply because the sparse records we possess don't corroborate it.

This is history, not police work.

[PaulB]

Swanson Marginalia

Values:

- A primary source by the operational policeman in charge of the Whitechapel murders, one renowned for integrity, diligence and competence.
- An entirely private notation, and therefore nothing to prove to anybody. It's candour can thus be assumed to be 100%. Potentially free of self-serving bias.
- Essentially supports his chief, Anderson, about the controversial story the latter told in his memoirs and therefore is confirmation of the Polish Jew as the fiend. 'Kosminski' becomes the only suspect who is backed by two senior policemen, arguably the two key senior cops of the case.

Limitations:

- A late primary source in which a fading memory might come into play (the flyleaf section may have been written even later, by an even more aged Swanson?)
- Potentially biased and self-serving as the Ripper case was a public failure, but now it's a secret success?
- Entirely private and therefore not only not official, but not even an opinion tested in the public arena. He can write what he likes.
- Not definitive if this is Swanson's opinion or the replication of his ex-chief's and therefore maybe repetition rather than confirmation of Anderson's tale?

There is nothing much to add to that, except, of course, that fading memory may or may not have come into play, but we have no evidence to support it and memories of Donald Swanson in later life, for whatever value they have, are of a man who was nimble minded and retained his faculties. Also, other marginal writings by Swanson can and have been checked for accuracy and there is the fact that Anderson also refers the same event. It was potentially self-serving, but the marginalia is a personal document so who is Swanson kidding. Yes, entirely private, but that works in favour of the authenticity of what Swanson is saying. As for the last point, the story is an extraordinary one and one which it is difficult to imagine that a man of Swanson's intelligence would have accepted without question. Common sense alone dictates that one must suppose that Swanson would have asked questions of himself and others and to have indicated uncertainty in the marginalia if there had been any. Whether Swanson was reporting first-hand experience or Anderson's account or someone else's account, if there was any doubt in his minds why didn't he express it clearly?

[DVV]

If the marginalia is authentic, then the only corroboration of Anderson are some few, personal and private words, quickly scribbled on a slow day.

[Jonathan H]

Swanson Marginalia

Values:

- A primary source by the operational policeman in charge of the Whitechapel murders, one renowned for integrity, diligence and competence.
- An entirely private notation, and therefore nothing to prove to anybody. It's candour can thus be assumed to be 100%. Potentially free of self-serving bias.
- Essentially supports his chief, Anderson, about the controversial story the latter told in his memoirs and therefore is confirmation of the Polish Jew as the fiend. 'Kosminski' becomes the only suspect who is backed by two senior policemen, arguably the two key senior cops of the case.

Limitations:

- A late primary source in which a fading memory might come into play (the flyleaf section may have been written even later, by an even more aged Swanson?)
- Potentially biased and self-serving as the Ripper case was a public failure, but now it's a secret success?
- Entirely private and therefore not only not official, but not even an opinion tested in the public arena. He can write what he likes.
- Not definitive if this is Swanson's opinion or the replication of his ex-chief's and therefore maybe repetition rather than confirmation of Anderson's tale?

[Trevor Marriott]

You state that in your estimation the paperwork concerning the identification never existed. Fine, but on what evidence do you base that personal estimation? Now, as explained several times, it is not being claimed that the documentation has or could have been stolen or lost, but that one cannot conclude that it never existed because it isn't in or otherwise corroborated in the case papers. Most of the case papers no longer exist. We don;t know what was in them. They might have contained corroboration of the identification or they might not have. Nobody can say. As for provenance, it is essentially a line of existence from the originator to the present. An event, such as an identification, therefore doesn't have provenance. What the identification story lacks is not provenance but independent corroboration, but it is far from uncommon to have uncorroborated or contradictory stories in history and historians have developed techniques for dealing with these. Let's not forget that history is a discipline, a craft that is taught. If you feel these techniques are wrong or faulty or have been wrongly applied in this case then you are free to explain why. Whether or not police training in and of itself qualifies someone to be a historian is up to you and others to decide, but I don't see historians being called in to assess a crime or policemen being asked to offer their opinions on how Edward II died or whether the Pelagian heresy played a role in sub-Roman British politics. And with over 100 years separating us from Jack the Ripper, we're dealing with history here. However, what we should all be doing is trying to establish the facts and as far as the current argument is concerned, when there is a lack of documentation, as with the case papers, it isn't possible to draw conclusions about what the lost papers did or didn't contain. You are, of course, at liberty to say why that isn't the case.

You have hit the nail on the head you are looking at all of this as an historian I and others are looking at it from a police perspective which you agree are as different as chalk and cheese.

As an historian you argue issues about corroboration and use the marginalia and Andersons book as your own personal corroboration.

My corroboration from my own police perspective for suggesting it didnt take place is,

1. No records or files or entries in any official document or documents.

2. Nothing written recorded or said anywhere at the time or in the ensuing years
from any police official, convalescent home official, or asylum official as I
have said previous something of this magnitude done under this scale would
have resulted in someone talking then and one or some of their relatives
talking in the interim time. This suggests to me that Para 1 in itself
corroboartes the suggestion that it didnt take place.

3. There is nothing to corroborate what Anderson wrote in his book other than
perhaps the marginlia.

4. With regards to the marginlia because of the doubt there is in my mind at this
time I personally cannot rely on its autheticity to corroborate any of the
above as far as my own personal investigation is concerned which I have been
conducting from a police persepctive.

There have been so many theories discussed about this Komknski issue and the "
difficulty involved and the question where he was taken from his home or an asylum. If it be the latter I think you can rule that out because if he had been in an asylum it is unlikley that the doctors whose care he was under would have allowed him to be removed, especially if he was as mad and homicidal as is suggested. The more likely scenario would have been to go and bring the witness to London and conduct an ID parade either at a room in the asylum or at a police station. If he had have been removed from the asylum he would have been taken straight back to the asylum not to his brothers house

I seem to recall in the case of Ischensmidt that the doctors would not allow the police to do something with him whilst he was under their care.

I think we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree and let those who want to look at it from an historical viewpoint agree with you and those who want to look at it from a police perspective agree or disagree with me.

You ask what corroboration there is to show that the documents never existed I would ask if they did as you suggest then what happned to them, there are only three answers lost stolen or destroyed, yet you say these are not options worthy of consideration what do ou say happened to them ?

There is no point in continuing to constantly argue the same points over and over again at the end of the day what will be will be.

[PaulB]

What Trevor and I are insisting,is that an identification parade,if it was fact,whether positive or negative,would have been the subject of written reports that would have been entered on file.Such reports seem not now to exist.and the possibility,or probabity in my estimation,are that they never did.Suggestions have been made that such documentation could have been lost or stolen.Argueably,I would say,if that is the solution,and it seems the only one that is repeatedly thrown up, then it must have happened before June 1913.

But that is not all we have said,and Trevor saying most, has argued his case from a position of police training and experience,and that counts.I have not been a policeman,but I understand the value of provenance,and to date there has been no provenance that an identification took place.Trevor is correct on that.

Like Trevor,I get irritated when someone tells me what I should believe and what I should enter on these threads.

You state that in your estimation the paperwork concerning the identification never existed. Fine, but on what evidence do you base that personal estimation? Now, as explained several times, it is not being claimed that the documentation has or could have been stolen or lost, but that one cannot conclude that it never existed because it isn't in or otherwise corroborated in the case papers. Most of the case papers no longer exist. We don;t know what was in them. They might have contained corroboration of the identification or they might not have. Nobody can say. As for provenance, it is essentially a line of existence from the originator to the present. An event, such as an identification, therefore doesn't have provenance. What the identification story lacks is not provenance but independent corroboration, but it is far from uncommon to have uncorroborated or contradictory stories in history and historians have developed techniques for dealing with these. Let's not forget that history is a discipline, a craft that is taught. If you feel these techniques are wrong or faulty or have been wrongly applied in this case then you are free to explain why. Whether or not police training in and of itself qualifies someone to be a historian is up to you and others to decide, but I don't see historians being called in to assess a crime or policemen being asked to offer their opinions on how Edward II died or whether the Pelagian heresy played a role in sub-Roman British politics. And with over 100 years separating us from Jack the Ripper, we're dealing with history here. However, what we should all be doing is trying to establish the facts and as far as the current argument is concerned, when there is a lack of documentation, as with the case papers, it isn't possible to draw conclusions about what the lost papers did or didn't contain. You are, of course, at liberty to say why that isn't the case.

[Monty]

Tea choker warning for Mr Marriott

Harry and Trevor,

Sit down Trevor, I've some bad news.

I completely agree with you and Harry. There should be some documentation noting the event. However having been through police records, I can understand if it has gone missing. I've experienced big gaps in records where ist been obvious they have been destroyed.

That said, as Trevor points out, there would have been more than just Anderson and Swanson party to this information, though I question if ALL parties involved knew the real reason why.

Monty

[harry]

What Trevor and I are insisting,is that an identification parade,if it was fact,whether positive or negative,would have been the subject of written reports that would have been entered on file.Such reports seem not now to exist.and the possibility,or probabity in my estimation,are that they never did.Suggestions have been made that such documentation could have been lost or stolen.Argueably,I would say,if that is the solution,and it seems the only one that is repeatedly thrown up, then it must have happened before June 1913.

But that is not all we have said,and Trevor saying most, has argued his case from a position of police training and experience,and that counts.I have not been a policeman,but I understand the value of provenance,and to date there has been no provenance that an identification took place.Trevor is correct on that.

Like Trevor,I get irritated when someone tells me what I should believe and what I should enter on these threads.