Originally posted by Phil Carter
View Post
Hello Paul,
Without engaging in endless verbal jousting over the Seaside Home comment, for which neither of us will move from our interpretations it seems, and for some would only lead to a never ending tiresome debate, I would like to politely comment on the following...and leave it at that. I hope that is acceptable.
My position is not to prove nor disprove anything, but to try to show doubt and reasonable doubt of the matter. This I believe I have done in many ways, you have the right to believe otherwise, as have you in answering. I am not expecting, nor I am trying, to solve anything. It is for others to weigh up what they see, read and think, and for them to decide.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You have the right to ask, yet the fact that neither can prove or disprove adds no weight to Swanson's pencilled annotation being correct.
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.
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.
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.
I will now retire from the debate happy with my conclusions and views pertaining to this subject. Others can believe what they wish to..your good self included.
kind wishes
Phil
Without engaging in endless verbal jousting over the Seaside Home comment, for which neither of us will move from our interpretations it seems, and for some would only lead to a never ending tiresome debate, I would like to politely comment on the following...and leave it at that. I hope that is acceptable.
My position is not to prove nor disprove anything, but to try to show doubt and reasonable doubt of the matter. This I believe I have done in many ways, you have the right to believe otherwise, as have you in answering. I am not expecting, nor I am trying, to solve anything. It is for others to weigh up what they see, read and think, and for them to decide.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You have the right to ask, yet the fact that neither can prove or disprove adds no weight to Swanson's pencilled annotation being correct.
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.
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.
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.
I will now retire from the debate happy with my conclusions and views pertaining to this subject. Others can believe what they wish to..your good self included.
kind wishes
Phil
This is the same old inuendo without substance that you have continued to post for months..your withdrawl from reasonable debate can only be seen as a blessing to those of us concerned with the facts of the case..
Yours Jeff
Comment