Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

Come on Jeff I didnt think even you would stoop so low as to suggest that. You really should read previous posts you keep asking me questions which i have answered in previous posts.

The identity of my expert is irrelevant at this stage whether they be the best in the land it is academic because you would still question their qualifiacations because you are one of those who want to belive the marginalia is genuine.

In fact if my expert were the best in the land then there would be absolutley no chance then of Nevill giving it up for re examination

Trevor I very much doubt that you could find a decent hand writing expert willing to risk his reputation on such a fool hardy acessment..

I there fore conclude that your bluffing..

If you genuinely have any evidence what so ever then bring it forward and let it be judged..What exactly are you scared of...more failour?

What you are doing is deliberately miss leading the public who dont fully understand the implications of what your doing and saying, by trying to discredit perfectly honourable people with your lies.

Either bring forward and present or shut up and apologize

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course I understand the difference a hand writing expert can only give a probability of something being written by the same person..

You can claim that probability is conclussive...as one could be reading the Davis report that it is conclusive. However Davis examine the original.

You have not stated the identity of your expert , so his credencials cant be judged, and you have not shown us what it was that he examined? Was it the real marginalia were they actual examples of Swansons hand writing?

I presume from your comments you sent someone some photocopies and slipped them a Fiver and got a tacky brown envelope back in the post...hardly criminal investigation..

And what the hell do the ledgers have to do with the marginalia surely they are completely seperate. Not remotely related?

Will you name this expert now please so I can run checks?

Yours Jeff

Come on Jeff I didnt think even you would stoop so low as to suggest that. You really should read previous posts you keep asking me questions which i have answered in previous posts.

The identity of my expert is irrelevant at this stage whether they be the best in the land it is academic because you would still question their qualifiacations because you are one of those who want to belive the marginalia is genuine.

In fact if my expert were the best in the land then there would be absolutley no chance then of Nevill giving it up for re examination

[Trevor Marriott]

Internet troll: (definition from wikipedia)

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

"Trolls aspire... to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure."

So now I am a troll as well as a buffoon I think you would be well advised to button your lip you are very brave hiding behind the keyboard.

I am entitled to air my views on here just as much as the next person if they are not what you want to hear tough maybe its because the truth hurts and you like Monty can only retailate by name calling etc. Its time for you and some of the others to escape from the cocoon you have all being living for the past 20 years and face the real world and come to terms with reality.

You and the others who you run with on here have nailed your various colours to the mast now its time for those to be questioned and challenged and if there are other plausible explanations they should be given a fair hearing, something they dont get on here, and I am not just mentioning the issues with me many other persons have joined casebook and attempted to air their thoughts and views only for the same individuals to use what can only be described as bully boy tactics in trying to destroy these peoples views and opinions and forcing them to leave.

Welll its time someone stood up to you and your other cronies and make you understand that just beacuse of who you all are thinking you are the bees kness of ripperology you are automatically right well you are not and I am sure other people are seeing through you all now, lets hope the trend continues you are already in the minority.

If all of you had a £ for every time you include in a post the words "What if" "I think" "Maybe" "Perhaps" "Might have" "Could have" "Probably" all words used to prop up flagging theories. You would all be very rich men

I have no doubt everyone has used those words at some time but some have used then to the extreme and still continue to do so as the posts from Messrs Begg and Leahy show.

Face it over the past 4 years Ripperology has changed more people have become involved new ideas new evidence and even new suspects, have been introduced. much of which goes totally against the grain of what had been readily accepted by some.

Now you people with your Tumblety and Kosminksi and Druitt suspects and others for some reason cant bear the thought that you might have to kiss then goodbye, well we may well be now left with a situation where there are no likely suspects left just mere suspicion against a small minority. If that happened you and others on here would have to go out and get a proper life, frightening thought isnt it. ?

[robhouse]

Internet troll: (definition from wikipedia)

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

"Trolls aspire... to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure."

[mklhawley]

On the subject of making money since 1987/88 there have been a lot of people who have made a lot of money out of Kosminski and this Marginalia and Andersons book. Reputations have been put on the line and now in the light of new developments and other lines of thinking those reputations are in danger of crumbling, arent they Mr Begg ? and they dont like that thought .

Completely uncalled for. This is merely an opinion based upon one's perception of the world. Completely uncalled for.

[PaulB]

The difference in thinking is that I apply logic and reasoning you would appear lack those attributes along with others.

Yeah, right.

My answer to the back pedalling has already been answered, Kosminski,Kaminsky, Cohen and the ridiculous suggestion that the police got the names mixed up et etc. Those are the type of comments and to be expected from historians, I dont see the likes of Stewart or Rumbelow coming out with anything like that beacuse we know that although this took place in 1888 there would still have been proceedures etc in place.

Except that isn't Martin back-peddling. That was his theory back in 1987. As for your disparaging observation about historians, it isn't even worthy of being dignified with a response.

I am not wanting to take anything away from Matin Fido he is obvioulsy an excellent and well respected resercher and historian but even the best dont alway get it right. and just because of who they are are we not allowed to challenge their commnets and views.

I see, so you don't want to take anything away from Martin Fido, but you think it's okay to come here and say, "Martin Fido has backpedalled so many times Fords have presented him with a new car its got one forward gear and 10 reverse." That trite little attempt at humour was rude and insulting and wrong - Martin hasn't back-peddled at all. So, sure you can challenge Martin, but it's always a good idea to have some understanding of what it is you are challenging. You clearly don't. That's why you are ridiculed.

On the subject of making money since 1987/88 there have been a lot of people who have made a lot of money out of Kosminski and this Marginalia and Andersons book. Reputations have been put on the line and now in the light of new developments and other lines of thinking those reputations are in danger of crumbling, arent they Mr Begg ? and they dont like that thought .

Sadly, that's total crap. Just because your thinking on the subject is wrong and ignorant and gets slapped down by practically everybody, you have to search around for a face-saving excuse and the best you can come up with is that people are frightened by the new information you allegedly posses and are trying to save what you perceive as their "crumbling" reputations. My reputation, such as it is, doesn't depend on Kosminski or Anderson or the marginalia, and as it is manifestly obvious that you don't know or understand or care what my thinking actually is, you don't realise just how wide of the mark you actually are. You don't understand Martin's thinking either, hence you have consistently misrepresented him. I still doubt that you've actually read his book. You show no sign of it. Your ignorance about what other people think and why they think it is so profound that it is far from surprising that you flail around being silly and rude and offensive remarks and deluding yourself that anybody gives a damn about any new information you've uncovered, let alone that they fear their reputations are going to suffer because of it.

By way of example, Martin Fido is 70-years-old, a former Oxford don, a professor at Boston University, something of a polymath, and frightening intelligent. The author of books on numerous subjects such as Dickens and Shakespeare, plus a crime historian of note and distinction and considerable knowledge, and a lifelong academic with a knowledge of what historians do, how they do it and why they do it, who 20-years ago wrote a ground-breaking book about Jack the Ripper. His reputation doesn't depend in any way on whatever new information you've got. He doesn't believe Kosminski was the Ripper, he wouldn't be bothered if Cohen was shown tomorrow not to have been the Ripper, and it wouldn't matter to him if Anderson was shown to have been talking through his bottom. And neither would I. And that would be if we actually thought you had anything, but on your track record not even that seems likely enough to cause so much as a tremor of concern.

In fact, what you don't realise is that if you do have new information, if you are able to put Kosminski, Druitt, et al into the bin, that would be great. There would be a new piece in the jigsaw, we'd be getting closer to seeing a meaningful picture. You see, Martin and I and Rob House and Monty and Debra Arif and Rob Clack and Caz and so many other people, we are interested in the truth, not in reputations.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nobody asked you to spend thousands of pounds, Marriott (as you insist on using surnames), nor, as far as I am aware, was anyone asked to contribute. I certainly wasn't. So don't come that. As for you making money, nobody blames you for that, or at least I certainly don't, but I do object to pushing yourself forward as an authority when, by general agreement it would seem, you are short on facts and accuracy.

Any answer yet on what my thinking is, and do you have those examples of Martin Fido back-peddling that you so confidently asserted he's done a few posts back?

The difference in thinking is that I apply logic and reasoning you would appear lack those attributes along with others.

My answer to the back pedalling has already been answered, Kosminski,Kaminsky, Cohen and the ridiculous suggestion that the police got the names mixed up et etc. Those are the type of comments and to be expected from historians, I dont see the likes of Stewart or Rumbelow coming out with anything like that beacuse we know that although this took place in 1888 there would still have been proceedures etc in place.

I am not wanting to take anything away from Matin Fido he is obvioulsy an excellent and well respected resercher and historian but even the best dont alway get it right. and just because of who they are are we not allowed to challenge their commnets and views.

On the subject of making money since 1987/88 there have been a lot of people who have made a lot of money out of Kosminski and this Marginalia and Andersons book. Reputations have been put on the line and now in the light of new developments and other lines of thinking those reputations are in danger of crumbling, arent they Mr Begg ? and they dont like that thought .

[Jeff Leahy]

I

And in case you cant grasp it "probably" and "conclusivley" are totally different.

!

Of course I understand the difference a hand writing expert can only give a probability of something being written by the same person..

You can claim that probability is conclussive...as one could be reading the Davis report that it is conclusive. However Davis examine the original.

You have not stated the identity of your expert , so his credencials cant be judged, and you have not shown us what it was that he examined? Was it the real marginalia were they actual examples of Swansons hand writing?

I presume from your comments you sent someone some photocopies and slipped them a Fiver and got a tacky brown envelope back in the post...hardly criminal investigation..

And what the hell do the ledgers have to do with the marginalia surely they are completely seperate. Not remotely related?

Will you name this expert now please so I can run checks?

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

We will, as ever, agree to disagree.

I think your position is so unlikely that he knew anything about Druitt at all because Abberline could not have answered the reporter: I am puzzled by that story of the drowned man? I am not sure where it comes from? Im anot too sure about the locked-up lunatic either? But please believe me that Chapman is likely to be the killer ...

He was out of the loop but it would have undermined his argument to say so. I am not suggesting he was a deceiver. I just mean he thought that both [the un-named] Druitt and 'Kosminski' were just press beat-ups, to be swatted away.

Abberline even says, as evidence that they are nothing, that if the police knew who the murderer was they would have announced it.

Again, he does not realise that Macnaghten had done exactly this via Griffiths and Sims, and Anderson -- much more honestly and forthrightly -- had done it himself starting in 1895, to Griffiths too.

Abberline is talking about a Home Office Report, which was not definitive, about a medical student suspect who vanished from his place of residence, or so he thought.

That all matches Sanders, not Druitt.

Druitt was not a suspect at the time of the Kelly murder, or for years afterwards because the police had no notion that it was the last murder at the time. Police thought other subsequent murders might be the final one.

So how could Abberline know anything about Montague Druitt from 1888? He couldn't know, just as he did not know at the time that Kelly was the final murder -- a point he himself makes in the same interview.

What we actually see is that not only does Abberline not know about Druitt he is not even familiar with his fictional counterpart in Griffiths, who was a middle-aged physician.

Historical methodology says to map out what is similar and what is different about contradictory sources, and then try and come up with a theory as to why?

John Sanders

Ripper police suspect -- 1888
Young, medical student
rumoured to be dangerous, possibly homicidal?
Subject of a non-definitive Home Office Report
Vanished, wrongly believed to have gone abroad

Montague Druitt

Drowned himself in Thames 1888
Died soon after Mary Kelly's murder
Ripper 'police' suspect (Mac only) -- 1891
Young barrister/teacher
family 'believed' he was the murderer
Was 'sexually insane'
Not subject of a Home Office Report that gets there.
Vanished, wrongly believed to have gone abroad.

Abberline's 1903 Suspect

young doctor or medical student
drowned himself in the Thames
Died soon after [presumably] the final/Kelly murder
No other evidence whatsoever pointing to his guilt
Was the subject of a non-definitive Home Office Report

Finally, since I certainly did not originate this theory, I quote from the A to Z, p. 454:

'Some garbling of Sanders may lie behind the the frequent suggestions that Scotland Yard believed the Ripper to be a medical student ... apparently sometimes confusing him with M. J. Druitt in the suggestion that he drowned in the Thames.'

[PaulB]

I dont resorst to bully boy tactics unlike some on here. When my expert gave me the results I made them known to Nevill and gave him the option of having it re examined himself or allowing my expert to examine it he declined both offers.

End of story I have no intention of having any further dialogue with him on the matter. At the end of the day now its for the public at large to make up their own minds now as to the evidential value of the contents of Andersons book and The marginalia having regards to the authenticty issue, and the fact that there is no corroboration with regards to the contents of both.

And in case you cant grasp it "probably" and "conclusivley" are totally different.

As far as the SB ledgers and my work in trying to secure their release and what I did and didnt do, or did and didnt find at this time I choose not to disclose fully the full results of that three year fight to gain access.

So I would ask people not keep speculating and raising concerns and posting defamatory comments in relation to my work on this topic. I dont think anyone else could have done what I did to try to gain access. However as I have said before all was not in vain new material was obtained in many different ways and from different sources, some has been made public, the remaining material wil be released in due course as an when I feel the time is right.

As to the suggetion that I am looking to make money out of this could anyone blame me I spent mnay thousand of pounds over that three year period to try to gain access. I didnt see the likes of you or Begg or others offering to contribute. But now at the conclusion you and others are quick in attempting to highlight the flaws in all of that etc etc.

Its a funny old world !

Nobody asked you to spend thousands of pounds, Marriott (as you insist on using surnames), nor, as far as I am aware, was anyone asked to contribute. I certainly wasn't. So don't come that. As for you making money, nobody blames you for that, or at least I certainly don't, but I do object to pushing yourself forward as an authority when, by general agreement it would seem, you are short on facts and accuracy.

Any answer yet on what my thinking is, and do you have those examples of Martin Fido back-peddling that you so confidently asserted he's done a few posts back?

[lynn cates]

Dna

Hello Jeff.

"There is no scientific test of certainty (Like there is for DNA) that can be done on hand writing, as far as I know anyway."

You are right about handwriting; but, EVEN DNA is not certain and is given with a certain probability attached (eg, 1/1000000; 1/10000000; etc.)

The reason for this is based on the possibility that 2 different people could have the exact same DNA. Notice that, even if such a case has never been found, that does not rule out the possibility. Compare this to all the years in which no 2 snowflakes had been found which were alike. That has now changed--2 such WERE found.

Certainty? No. Strong likelihood? Yes.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Paul

Yes I'm aware the book is in poor condition. I can confirm that what you say is exactly what happened, I didnt touch it, I only helped with the photography.

I'm assuming that the only test Trevor could try would be a hand writing analysis and as you correctly point out that would be utterley useless.

I think what I was saying is that if there was a test that could be done that could add anything I'd be interested in knowing what those possibilities are.

Science and Technology do move on, I'm just not aware of anything at present that could make a difference.

My fear about Trevor's position is that he might use such a hand writing test to bully and threaten Nevill. I'm sure that is something we would both deplore..

I have no problem with its authenticity but can only quote Davies 'Probably writen by Swanson' as with the current technology that is all that can be said, as far as I understand.

Another sunny day in Kent!

Jeff

I dont resorst to bully boy tactics unlike some on here. When my expert gave me the results I made them known to Nevill and gave him the option of having it re examined himself or allowing my expert to examine it he declined both offers.

End of story I have no intention of having any further dialogue with him on the matter. At the end of the day now its for the public at large to make up their own minds now as to the evidential value of the contents of Andersons book and The marginalia having regards to the authenticty issue, and the fact that there is no corroboration with regards to the contents of both.

And in case you cant grasp it "probably" and "conclusivley" are totally different.

As far as the SB ledgers and my work in trying to secure their release and what I did and didnt do, or did and didnt find at this time I choose not to disclose fully the full results of that three year fight to gain access.

So I would ask people not keep speculating and raising concerns and posting defamatory comments in relation to my work on this topic. I dont think anyone else could have done what I did to try to gain access. However as I have said before all was not in vain new material was obtained in many different ways and from different sources, some has been made public, the remaining material wil be released in due course as an when I feel the time is right.

As to the suggetion that I am looking to make money out of this could anyone blame me I spent mnay thousand of pounds over that three year period to try to gain access. I didnt see the likes of you or Begg or others offering to contribute. But now at the conclusion you and others are quick in attempting to highlight the flaws in all of that etc etc.

Its a funny old world !

[Jeff Leahy]

It won't be retested. At least I hope not. The fragility of the book worried me greatly and the writing is becoming fainter as it is rubbed. Also, as far as I am aware Trevor hasn't stated what fresh tests he wants undertaken and it is difficult to imagine any. I don't know that there are any tests to show when the pencil was put on the paper and the book dates from 1910 so the paper is authentic. If all Trevor wants to do is run yet another handwriting analysis, what's the point? Also, again to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't stated what qualifications his expert would bring to the table which would advance on those of Dr Davies, and if Trevor's got a graphologist, which I don't honestly don't think he'd be so dumb as to do, then whatever he or she says won't count for diddly. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that Neville's not let him near the book, the more so when Trevor wants to prove it a fake.
As you know, when the book was in my care I didn't let anyone else touch it and only handled it myself when wearing appropriate gloves. Invasive tests would have to be forbidden, but even so it was worryingly fragile.

Hi Paul

Yes I'm aware the book is in poor condition. I can confirm that what you say is exactly what happened, I didnt touch it, I only helped with the photography.

I'm assuming that the only test Trevor could try would be a hand writing analysis and as you correctly point out that would be utterley useless.

I think what I was saying is that if there was a test that could be done that could add anything I'd be interested in knowing what those possibilities are.

Science and Technology do move on, I'm just not aware of anything at present that could make a difference.

My fear about Trevor's position is that he might use such a hand writing test to bully and threaten Nevill. I'm sure that is something we would both deplore..

I have no problem with its authenticity but can only quote Davies 'Probably writen by Swanson' as with the current technology that is all that can be said, as far as I understand.

Another sunny day in Kent!

Jeff

[PaulB]

I don’t know if I’m just being cynical but my guess is that having been refused access to the Marginalia, Trevor has paid a graphologist to claim it’s fake and will try and run a news paper campaign to make enough stink to try and force Nevill into having it retested.

It won't be retested. At least I hope not. The fragility of the book worried me greatly and the writing is becoming fainter as it is rubbed. Also, as far as I am aware Trevor hasn't stated what fresh tests he wants undertaken and it is difficult to imagine any. I don't know that there are any tests to show when the pencil was put on the paper and the book dates from 1910 so the paper is authentic. If all Trevor wants to do is run yet another handwriting analysis, what's the point? Also, again to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't stated what qualifications his expert would bring to the table which would advance on those of Dr Davies, and if Trevor's got a graphologist, which I don't honestly don't think he'd be so dumb as to do, then whatever he or she says won't count for diddly. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that Neville's not let him near the book, the more so when Trevor wants to prove it a fake.

The irony of course is that Trevor clearly doesn’t understand that there isn’t a hand writing expert in the world who can give a 100% conclusive result. The Home Office expert can only give a probability based on his experience. There is no scientific test of certainty (Like there is for DNA) that can be done on hand writing, as far as I know anyway..

That said I looked into a story a few years back about a Canadian company trying to create a computer program that would make handwriting comparisons. I don’t know if they ever succeeded, I can find nothing on line, but if there were a computer program available I might be interested in those results (i'm interested in the truth), and obviously I possess the best images ever taken of the document, good enough to put them out as Bill Board poster anyway.

But I certainly would not dream of doing anything unless I’d run it past Nevill and had his absolute help, approval and permission. The copyright belongs to the Swanson family and is in care of the Metropolitan police. The book has much deteriated over the years and any testing would need to offer something very new and something we don't already know.

Yours Jeff

As you know, when the book was in my care I didn't let anyone else touch it and only handled it myself when wearing appropriate gloves. Invasive tests would have to be forbidden, but even so it was worryingly fragile.

[PaulB]

Yes, access is still denied but has progressed since the efforts of commercial authors Butterworth and Marriott to gain exclusive rights to their publication. The index ledgers had become redacted during this period and may not be of much use by now anyway. The Metropolitan Police are quite understandably fed up with the issue as the few entries on the Whitechapel murders are bundled up with other sensitive and legitimate confidential police data.

However, the question remains how did Marriott gain access to the unencumbered sections posted here on O'Brien and Randolph Churchill? And did he have permission to display them publicly? He has not said so and will perhaps gloat on this but it is of some concern.

He has claimed that Special Branch material will blow Kosminiski and all other suspects out of the water, but I am not aware that any such material exists or, that any further Victorian secret service material can support it. The files have been subjected to the same ravages of time and procedure as have the Whitechapel murder files. Yet a few posts back he back-peddles with claiming that the Macnaghten Memo is the document that exonerates.

The pattern, and there are other instances, is appearing as a campaign of misinformation motivated purely by commercial publishing interests. Not a situation that has not been seen before but certainly of concern in the handling of historical police documentary evidence on Jack the Ripper.

A final paragraph that i as neat and concise a summary of one's general concerns as it is possible to get. And the importance of the SB ledgers lies in areas other than the Ripper, as you say. Many thanks.