Seaside Home?

[PaulB]

In stating my posiition, you will note that at no time have I used personal comment directed at your style of reasoning, have not offered my opinion of your manner of debate, and have not questioned at any time what I term your degree of common sense is nor logic, nor have I questioned your experience, in any way. For some, in debate, that "just ain't done" either. That is my view. Other individuals decide for themselves on the matter, and not for me to tell them what is "done" and isn't.

You haven’t overtly made comment about my thinking, my reasoning, my manner of debate. That's probably true. You have instead done it by innuendo and you have done it rudely and offensively. I draw your attention to post 121.

In contrast, I have explained that you cannot call the marginalia “worthless” because any document which sheds light on what a senior, intelligent and informed policeman thought about the case is hugely valuable, even if what he thought was wrong. I have explained the fallacy of reaching any conclusion about the marginalia story based on what the official records don’t say, especially when those records are incomplete and don’t say anything about any suspect.

This isn't my opinion, it isn't my thinking, it's the way things are: one argument put forward by those who don't think that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him is that there is no evidence that Shakespeare ever owned a book. But as Bill Bryson pointed out in his admirable little biography of Shakespeare, there's no evidence that Shakespeare owned pants either, but we don't assume he spent his life without leg coverings. I think Bryson's response is slightly flippant (one might have expected Shakespeare's will, which famously bequeathed his second best bed to his wife, would have mentioned some books) but it makes the point.

In response, you state that Aaron Kosminski should have been laid to rest years ago, and you assert that he’s kept alive by people with a vested interest in keeping the “Magic Roundabout” turning, who churn out the same argument like an organ grinder’s monkey. You call the marginalia unproven, and you express sadness that people are so naive that they are still willing to buy into it.

Neither have I engaged on the Swanson personality, family beliefs nor actions. I have not entered into questioning any failing memory or suchlike.

If I deem the term "worthless" to be appropriate, so be it. If you do not like it, or are offended by it, the offence is noted and the dislike noted, and of course, the reply is that any unintentional offence is not personal. If you deem the term inappropriate, then so be it. On that basis I accept your thoughts on the matter as of a contrary opinion to my own. If you have a problem with my terminology, I cannot force you to approve of it, and would not even suggest it either.

However, telling me that I cannot use the term "worthless" is not, I view, your call. You can offer your opinion about the terminology, but I will continue to use whatever words I deem appropriate. What I judge to be of little or no value, is MY concern. Fernando Torres cost Chelsea £50million. Many many football lovers would say he is "useless". You hear that in everyday speech often. Clearly, the man is not "useless", in the general sense, as he is, in fact, a highly gifted football player having reached the pinnacle of his art through winning the greatest prize for any footballer o this planet. He is a World Cup winner. But he is still deemd "useless" in context of what people think of him. That is their right. As is mine. You have the right to disagree with the terminology, but cannot tell me I cannot use it, based on your interpretation of how a person uses the English Language. We live with what people deem to be worthless, useless and any other term they wish to use about something every day, and as long as it doesn't affect me personally, so what? The world isn't going to fall apart. Let them say it if they wish to. I might not agree, but...it doesn't matter whether I do or I don't. I have no need to force my opinion, but reserve the right to give it. There is a difference.

So, your describing the marginalia as "worthless" is as accurate as someone calling a very gifted football player "useless". Sorry, I hadn't realised that you were misusing the word in that way. Stupidly I thought when you called the marginalia "worthless" that you actually thought it was "worthless", rather than as a football fan describing Torres as "useless" when he in fact meant that Torres was a highly gifted football player who was among the very best in the world but wasn't performing to expectations or to the amount paid for him.

Come on, Phil, we're not talking about an opinion expressed from the terraces here, but about an authentic historical document written by a senior policeman who was in a position to know the facts, who was more than capable of assessing the accuracy of the story, and who may actually have had first-hand experience of it.

I deem the marginalia worthless on the basis that after careful thought, and weighing up all the pro's and cons, the problems it leads to are too many to accept it as correct in relation to other comments of supposedly equal footing. If Swanson wrote this out of his own beliefs, (and that bas also been questioned, for it CAN be that he is expanding upon Anderson's own writings and detailing Anderson's thoughts on the matter) we do not know- then he has been plainly contradictory to earlier comment. He is contradicting many others and their comments. Including himself. I have no need to list them again.

No, you don't need to list them again. Many were recognised and considered two decades ago, and have been endlessly pondered and argued over since. However, one of the first things anyone does is to compare what a source says to what other sources say, and if what a source says differs radically from what the other sources say then one asks questions of the source, one investigates further, one tries to make sense of it, and one does this within the parameters set by the other sources. One does not conclude that it is worthless and flush it down the toilet.

I do not "dimiss" this marginalia because it is "awkward". Those are your words and a wrong interpretation of my thoughts on the matter. I "dismiss", (your terminology), because I find it to be far too contradictory and with far too much weight put on to Swanson's annotations. The comments from other policemen, equally involved in the case, do, in my, and clearly other people's opinions, outweigh Swanson's. Perhaps for differing reasons, like Jonathan's for example.

It is rather difficult to think of a word other than "dismiss" to describe your attitude towards a document you have described as "worthless". Similarly, you find the marginalia "too contradictory" and "too much weight placed on Swanson's annotations", and you think the opinions of other policemen outweigh Swanson's. "Awkward" seems a gentle enough way of summing up your position on the marginalia. The point, though, is that these problems are what make the marginalia intriguing, are why the marginalia needs to be investigated. They are not reasons for discounting it or dismissing it or declaring that it is worthless.

I will not list and go through all of these counter comments from all the other policemen. We all know them. Or they can be looked up elsewhere. I cannot see the point in debating just to win the debate, and have had no intention of "winning" any debate either. I take part and offer things up for perusal. Nothing more. That includes my personal final opinion on the matter, whether you or others deem the terminology appropriate or not. That is all I am doing.

That's what everyone is doing, sans organ grinders, monkeys, Magic Roundabouts, and insinuations that people like me are interested in Kosminski because we have a vested interest in "milking" it. But in a broad sense what we are trying to do is to establish the truth as best it can be established, and we don't achieve that by claiming that the marginalia is worthless because it isn't corroborated in severely depleted files that don't mention anything about suspects at all.

This thread is about the Seaside Home. I asked if you can provide any additional indication that this place was used for any further identifications from this era. For me, and perhaps others, this legitimate question is important. For if there be indications that this place was used on other occasions for such purposes, then the weight of belief in the position Swanson presents would be infinitely stronger. However you could not, and only countered that I need to prove that it wasn't used for such police work.

There is no evidence I know of that the Seaside Home was ever used for other identifications or for any purpose other than the care and welfare of convalescent policemen, but no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from that because nobody has looked. I have gone through a lot of material about the Seaside Home, but it doesn't in the main deal with such details. We again face a severe paucity of surviving material, especially in the case of case papers where such a detail might be recorded. Furthermore, identifications have taken place in odd places, such as hospital wards, if the circumstances dictated it. The point being that sometime circumstances dictated a specific action, as would almost certainly have been the case with the Seaside Home, and there is no reason to suppose that those circumstances would necessarily repeat themselves. Furthermore, why would the Seaside Home records them anymore than a hospital would? So, whilst it would be nice to have confirmation that the Seaside Home was used for identifications, we don't have such confirmation, and the surviving documents wherein that information might be found either haven't been fully checked (other case papers, for example) or haven't survived.

You have the right to ask, yet the fact that neither can prove or disprove adds no weight to Swanson's penciled annotation being correct.

You are correct, but the point is that the information on which a conclusion could be based doesn't exist, therefore no conclusion can be based on it. You, however, are trying to base a conclusion on it.

It was the Swanson family that originally presented this book to the world claiming it to be as the answer to the "Who was Jack the Ripper problem". The family claimed that Cheif Inspector Donald Swanson knew the name, and wrote it down in Anderson's book. Lady Aberconway made a similar type of presentation albeit through Dan Farson and Tom Cullen, that her father knew the name as well. And how strange, he came to other conclusions. He dismissed "Kosminski" outright.

Now, as Macnaghten did this seemingly in an official capacity, do we take HIS words to be of greater value than Swanson's pencilled notes made in a margin and on the end paper of another person's life biography? That is for others to judge.

Therefore when assessing Swanson's pencilled annotations , one has to see if they contain known fact. In the case of the Seaside Home, 60 odd miles from London, it has no known use for interrogation purposes, and is, as far as I am aware, only ever been used for rest, recuperation and holidaying for serving, sick, retired and ex-policemen. Until evidence is produced to the contrary, then this is what I quite reasonably take to be the sole use of the Seaside Home. As this is the only known use for the Seaside Home, it is now up to researchers/others to show that this is logical interpretation of the Seaside Home is incorrect, and that it was indeed used for interrogation purposes.

This has not been done to date as far as I am aware. I stand corrected if this has been done.

And this is where we differ, in that simple observation that you want to be shown evidence before you will accept that the Seaside Home was ever used for any purpose other than the care of recuperating policemen (holidaying policemen perhaps shows an improper idea of what it's actual purpose was). However, that information doesn't exist (or if it does it hasn't been found yet) because the records have been destroyed, lost, or remain unexamined (in the case of case papers concerning other, unconnected crimes), and the example of Shakespeare's trousers has illustrated the pitfalls of basing conclusions on the absence of information.

Swanson's one example, is not enough, as Macnaghten's example of who was more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, Druitt, is, for me, not enough either.

Swanson COULD have written the old pier at Brighton, he COULD have written The Olde Cream Tea shop in Tintagel. He COULD have written the police station in Kingston Upon Thames. Without us knowing that ANY place was used for interrogation purposes as well as the KNOWN purposes, the place named by Swanson, which is infact, not certain as to being the one presumed to be the Policeman's Home anyway, must be considered for what it is. A retirement, rest and holiday home for policemen of the Metroploitan Police Force. If indeed this place is the place he meant. We cannot assume it to be so, beecause it may or may not be more likely than any other Seaside Home else.

Okay, so we don't certainly know that "the Seaside Home" meant the CPSH. That means that even if we were able to show certainly and without doubt that no identification ever took place there, the conclusion would have to be that CPSH wasn't the place Swanson meant or that Swanson was lying about it or Swanson was mistaken about it. Each of these present problems of their own. But, of course, we don't know.

On another thread, Stewart Evans stated that upon visiting Mr.Swanson to see and photograph the marginalia, he was told upon arrival "my grandfather knew who it was".. or words to that effect. Lady Aberconway may well have said the same thing to Dan Farson about Melville Macnaghten (we are not told). If so, thenone of them must be wrong. Littlechild said Tumblety. Reid said no known person was known to have been the Ripper and denounced all Polish Jew theories, as did Abberline who added an idea of his own. Other policemen have made comments too in their books. Far too much contrary opinion against Swanson's "Kosminski", no certainty of which particular Seaside Home was meant when mentioned, no known use for identification of any said Seaside Home, and all the additional problems connected with the rest of the annotations with much else are enough for me to "dismiss" this particular offering.

Ignorance is never a good foundation on which to dismiss something. You don't know that the Seaside Home wasn't the place Swanson's meant, you don't know that it wasn't used for this identification or used for other identifications or for any other purposes whatsoever. So much of your argument is based on what is not and perhaps never can be known, and you argue and state that the marginalia is "worthless" because you raise questions which cannot be answered.

There is no point in continuing this argument. You are right about that.

[lynn cates]

tantalising

Hello Jonathan. Tantalising indeed. Unfortunately, once certain aspects are admitted to be fictionalised, the value seems a bit diminished--especially, given that it is at second hand.

Obviously, this needs further investigation.

Thanks!

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Tantalizingly, Druitt's cousin was eventually Vicar of Whitchurch-Canicorium in Dorset, and therefore this second clergyman's 'substantial truth under fictitious form' may refer not to the content but just to the awkward title: Whitechurch replacing Whitechapel

.

It was called Whitchurch Canonicorum last time I went there (which was actually out of curiosity after repeatedly seeing the road sign!)

Dave

[Phil Carter]

*head bows, spotlight fades, curtains drop, waits for audience applause....not a sausage......exit stage left.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Thank you for your important little input...

It is nice to know you have opinions too.. I found this from 2009, on jtrforums-

Stewart,

What puzzles me is that this incident was not recorded in any official file.

Surely if they intended to act on this then the proper procedure should have been taken, chain of evidence and all that.

And if they didnt intend to act upon it then there is no reason not to note it, even if its purely for future reference.

Basically, what I am saying is that the whole incident to me is farcical and highly unlikely.

Monty

You are referring to the marginalia.

The thread is here...

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=7494&highlight=marginalia

your post is post No.3.

It is interesting to see that you believe the "whole incident" as described in the marginalia to be "farcical".

Some could call this irreverence, in talking of a senior policeman's wording on such an "important historical document".



Have an enjoyable Sunday Monty.

regards

Phil

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Thank you for your important little input...

It is nice to know you have opinions too.. I found this from 2009, on jtrforums-




You are referring to the marginalia.

The thread is here...

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=7494&highlight=marginalia

your post is post No.3.

It is interesting to see that you believe the "whole incident" as described in the marginalia to be "farcical".

Some could call this irreverence, in talking of a senior policeman's wording on such an "important historical document".



Have an enjoyable Sunday Monty.

regards

Phil

Re-enters stage left, expecting rapturous applausing, experiencing nervous cough, decides to take cheap shot.

And thank you for your input Phil,

I don't know whether to be amused or disturbed at the fact you felt the need to trawl back, what? 3 years of my posts (on a different forum) to find that particular one.

Obviously its a snide attempt to embarrass me, however I stand by that post as it is correct.

However it was pointed out to me (either on that thread or elsewhere, I cannot recall) that records may have existed. What you see is a snapshot, not that I have to justify myself to you.

Now carry on this pathetic attempt to belittle (which is something you do- that jibe to Paul about you not partaking in personal insults gave me real fits) if you must. The jig is up as the majority have your card marked.

It really doesn't phase me Phil.

The sun is out, the garden is fresh and I'm enjoying my Sunday thanks. Now you enjoy yours, trawling through old internet posts, trying desperately to keep a grip of your dignity and last sheds of respect.

I'm gonna have another Pimms old boy.

Monty

[PaulB]

Hello Monty,

Thank you for your important little input...

It is nice to know you have opinions too.. I found this from 2009, on jtrforums-




You are referring to the marginalia.

The thread is here...

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=7494&highlight=marginalia

your post is post No.3.

It is interesting to see that you believe the "whole incident" as described in the marginalia to be "farcical".

Some could call this irreverence, in talking of a senior policeman's wording on such an "important historical document".



Have an enjoyable Sunday Monty.

regards

Phil

Actually, the story is farcical. I don't think anybody has or would seriously deny that. And it is puzzling that no mention of it has been made on the official files, although that ceases to be such a puzzle when it is properly understood that most of the files don't exist, including the files concerning all the suspects. And what bearing does what Monty thought several years ago have on what he thinks today? Aren't people allowed to make mistakes or change their minds in your world? Anyway, being puzzled by the absence of something is a million miles away from claiming that that is good reason for discarding a source as "worthless".

Sorry, Phil, but your post to Monty and the organ grinder and monkey stuff
are tacky, cheap shots that are beneath you.

[PaulB]

I'm gonna have another Pimms old boy.

You know, it's very easy to go off people.

[Phil Carter]

Re-enters stage left, expecting rapturous applausing, experiencing nervous cough, decides to take cheap shot.

And thank you for your input Phil,

I don't know whether to be amused or disturbed at the fact you felt the need to trawl back, what? 3 years of my posts (on a different forum) to find that particular one.

Obviously its a snide attempt to embarrass me, however I stand by that post as it is correct.

However it was pointed out to me (either on that thread or elsewhere, I cannot recall) that records may have existed. What you see is a snapshot, not that I have to justify myself to you.

Now carry on this pathetic attempt to belittle (which is something you do- that jibe to Paul about you not partaking in personal insults gave me real fits) if you must. The jig is up as the majority have your card marked.

It really doesn't phase me Phil.

The sun is out, the garden is fresh and I'm enjoying my Sunday thanks. Now you enjoy yours, trawling through old internet posts, trying desperately to keep a grip of your dignity and last sheds of respect.

I'm gonna have another Pimms old boy.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Actually "old boy".. I wasn't trawling back.. I was looking for differing input on the marginalia subject on the boards as a whole, and came across this thread.

An attempt to belittle you, a snide attempt at embarrassment??.. Not at all Monty, just honestly very surprised at a very seldom example of you giving opinion on the subject... if you think otherwise, then you are wrong.

I have no need nor desire to pick holes in your personality.

I just genuinely thought it nice to see your opinion on the marginalia, so openly and descriptively written! It was a genuine surprise to me. Especially the word "farcical" and "highly unlikely". I respectfully suggest you accept it as such.

Your derogatory comments of me have been noted. But there you go.


regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

You comment of "tacky, cheap shots".. I suggest you read my reply to Monty. They are genuinely not. And my reply shows a genuine surprise. The use of them as "tacky, cheap shots" would indeed be beneath me. You are correct. However, they were not used in that way, see above.

I would have thought that you would have waited for the explanation instead of attacking before finding out the truth.

It isn't good to jump to conclusions Paul. I try not to. You normally don't.
I don't think you have call to do so here either.

As far as the monkey and organ grinder comments are concerned.. where is this associated to YOU personally??? I do not believe I did. How do you know I wasn't using a form of humour? You do not. I do not feel the need to explain the comment further. Thank you. Also, the comment referring to irreverence was humouristic as well.

Now kindly attack another person's personality and stick to calling me a "nice man" instead--- Which is a kind compliment I will gracefully accepted.

I have made no bad comment on your personality. I do not feel the desire nor the need to do so.

I respectfully suggest you get back to the subject. The Seaside Home within the marginalia itself.

regards

Phil

[Monty]

Yes Phil,

Sure.


I'm on my last one Paul,

My opinions have indeed developed, but not massively. When I wrote in 2009 I had not seen reports which though were non related, did draw certain conclusions I misinterpreted certain aspect of Anderson and the marginalia.

I can see the flip side now but still find it highly irregular.

The bacon cob analagy (sic?) helped.

Monty

[robhouse]

"Aaron Kosminsky should have been left to rest in peace years ago. But you can bet your backside some will carry on milking it for all it is worth as long as they think they can get away with it to keep the Magic Roundabout turning. Cue the organ grinder and his monkey. Roll-up! Roll-up! Come see the 8th wonder of the world. The ultimate freak show- without evidence nor confirmed presence of the freak. The saddest thing is that people are still willing to pay to buy into this unproven story. Cue the organ grinder and the monkey. They play SUCH a pretty tune! Roll up! Roll up!"

I admit I took offense at this myself. I am obviously one of the chief organ grinders.

Rob H

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

You comment of "tacky, cheap shots".. I suggest you read my reply to Monty. They are genuinely not. And my reply shows a genuine surprise.

I would have thought that you would have waited for the explanation instead of attacking before finding out the truth.

It isn't good to jump to conclusions Paul. I try not to. You normally don't.
I don't think you have call to do so here either.

As far as the monkey and organ grinder comments are concerned.. where is this linked to YOU??? I do not believe I did. How do you know I wasn't using a form of humour? You do not. I do not feel the need to explain the comment further. Thank you.

Now kindly attack another person's personality and stick to calling me a "nice man" instead--- Which is a kind compliment I will gracefully accepted.

regards

Phil

Phil, if you were surprised by Monty's post, you didn't express it. Intended or otherwise, it came across as an attempt to belittle Monty. As for the organ grinder and monkey comments, who was it aimed at if not at me - at everyone who gives the marginalia credence, which would include me, or were you targeting other specific individuals. Rob House? Martin Fido? Whoever it was, it was tacky and cheap. And what type of humour were you using, the unfunny sort? I'm not the only one who read it as rude and offensive. And finally, I didn't attack your personality, I said cheap shots were beneath you - in other words that as a "nice man" you are or should not sink to that level. So, sorry, but both those posts look like you taking a cheap and tacky swipe at people, both posts were interpreted as such by more than one person. Maybe you should try to make your intentions clearer. However, this thread is supposed to be about the Seaside Home and specifically the proper handling, treatment and assessment of historical source materials.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

What is read as rude and offensive can be a matter of personal judgement. Should I read that of Monty's reply? I will not because I do not think that way. Perhaps he is trying to be funny? Derogatory remarks were noted, that was all. I commented not upon them. As far as "targeting" specific individuals... I think you need to see the context in another light. Cynicism is all well and good. Comes with age, as is well known. As far as making my intentions clearer, I am human, and I do things in my way. Not always the way others do things. I have failings, as you do. I explained completely in the 2nd post to him. Using the words GENUINELY , and "surprised". If that isnt good enough for you, then that is for you to deal with, not me.

I also noted that the thread was being ignored.. actually.

Hello Rob,

Did YOU also feel offended? Personally? Well now, that does surprise me.. because you are well aware that I genuinely looked forward with great interest to your book and told you so many many times, also wishing you all the best with it.

For the 2nd and final time, I will not be commenting on the remark further. It has been explained sufficiently to my satisfaction. And I made it. So I should know.

I suggest that this side topic is rested, for everyone's sake.

regards

Phil

[Rob Clack]

Actually "old boy".. I wasn't trawling back..

This is a first, but I actually agree with you here Phil. I think the word should have been 'trolling'.

Calmly and respectfully.

Rob

[Monty]

For the record,

My posts are exactly what they say on the tin.

You poke the tiger Phil, don't feign surprise when he bites.

Monty