Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

I repeat the results were not conclusive and now we have another expert who says the opposite. I am sure you will keep referring to it but dont keep saying its authentic theres a good chap tend to mislead people and we have enough on here already who seem to want to do that.

You mean you've paid someone to tell you what you want to hear. You fool noone.

And a word of Advice I wouldnt approach Nevill in the same way that you have treated other people in the past. I think that would be most unwise knowing him as I do..

Good luck with your proper ganda campaign.

I used the word Genuine because that is what it is..FACT

Yours Jeff

PS if you'd like to send me a copy of the copy you sent to your supposed expert I'll have Derek look at it for you..

[Garry Wroe]

Its always puzzled me why people ever believed that Swanson would just pull in a witness at random to make an ID? ... Surely Swanson would have been in possession of all the facts including what Aaron Kosminski looked like as well as where he lived ... THus I'd like to add to your wise observation that not only does schwartz make the most probable suspect but that Swanson would have realized a conection between Kosminski and Schwartz Berner streeet sighting. Hence using Schwartz not Lawende was a deliberate action on Swansons part...not just a lets bring in a witness willy nilly decision.

Again, Jeff, Schwartz was the only witness who observed violence being inflicted upon a victim shortly before the discovery of her body. Thus his was the only testimony that stood an earthly of securing a conviction purely on its own merit. Trusting the Swanson marginalia to be both truthful and accurate, Schwartz must have been the Seaside Home witness. It could have been no-one else.

This would make it likely that Schwartz was used on other attempted identifications. That the press evidently failed to get wind of a Schwartz-Sadler encounter doesn't mean it didn't happen. It simply means that it went unreported. But you can bet your bottom dollar that investigators used any and all means at their disposal as the various suspects emerged. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Mrs Long was called in to view Sadler and Kosminski, for example.

Those hunting the Whitechapel Murderer were not incompetent dullards, and neither were they in the business of attempting to fit-up any convenient scapegoat by the manipulation of identity parades. The professionalism with which the Violenia episode was handled should serve as an object lesson to anyone who thinks otherwise. Hence I agree entirely with your opinion that witnesses were not brought in 'willy nilly', just as I agree that Anderson's witness was Schwartz. I tend to think, however, that I may be part of a very small minority on this point.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

The Seaside Home,

1) Because of no details given, it is not known what place this is. Paul Begg has stated that to policemen in this genre, it would be the rest home well known to police officers of the Met Police.
So to all others, WITHOUT knowing of a specific police home, it means very little if anything at all.
Swanson didnt write TO anybody. So anybody readinp it NOT being a polibeman is unlikely to know what Swanson meant by it. Historians in Met Police and crime might have heard of it though.
2) No date is given. Which doesnt help ID the home either. I doubt whether most policemen would know how old any rest home anywhere was. A few might. Historians might too.
3) Any alleged ID would have been witnessed by policemen- . There are NO details given that refer to anyone by name or without name from the police side.
4) the witness who allegedly ID'd the suspect is not named. Nobody who wasnt there would know the name of the witness- and it is doubtful the marginalia was written for the posrible eyes of anxone wko WAS potemtially there. Only jTR enthusiasts may guess who this might be. No one else would have a clue.
5) Dan Farson wrote' I doubt if we have seen the last 'suspect'; but the objection to all thesn theries is the lack of official evidence' the marginalia can hardly be called 'official' evidence with virtuallx no specific details, written in the form it was.

All of the above, reminds me again of Dan Farson- who used many unsubstantiated stories to back up his claim. It is in this reference that I again quote him. His last words in the paperback version are as follows-
'More important is their (the BBC) achievement hn revealing the Home Office Files before they were due to be opened in 1992. As I suspected, the prime suspect is confirmed: - "A Mr M j DRUITT..." and there the story ends.' (Jack Vhe Ripper, Dan Farson page 151)

No flle name, no date, no reference, no details.
Do we believe Farsons words based on this?
Well, some did.
Except one tiny detail. Druitt isnt named as a prime suspect in ANY Home Office file. By anyone except an author. Strange eh?
We are expected to believe Kosminski was JTR on the basis of a document without details that isnt official and who has been elevated to Scotland Yard's
prime suspect bv an author.
You never know.The Home Office 'file' Farson saw 'may have existed'....
Yeah. Right. you KNOW WHATS COMING dont you...

If true- The Home Office's Prime Suspect in 1888 Was... NOT KOSMINSKI.
Oh dear. The police didnt let on to Matthews either, eh?

Anyone have the feeling of a pantomime going on?
'oh no he isn't says the one side, oh yes he is says the other
and BOTH sides have an author claiming a prime suspect!
Did I mention Littlechilds No1 suspect? Proposed as possible JTR by Stewart Evans, author?
No disrespect Rob and Stewart (seriously). But Dan did it first!

Kosminski old chap, join the ckub.
As Scotland Yard and the Home Office and Special Branch have all had 'prine' suspects- all the official bases are well covered. Or?

Forgive my incredulity, irony and belittling of so called officials comments.
Because it seems NOBODY knew what the other lot knew.

Quote Terry-Thomas. 'what an absolute shower!'

kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Phil,

I think the reason that Druitt is not the subject of a genuine Home Office Report -- unlike what Mac hustled to his cronies -- is that he was an entirely posthumous suspect.

There was no suspect to formally investigate as there was nobody to arrest, but there was a 'good' family's name in the balance.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello all,

The Seaside Home,

1) Because of no details given, it is not known what place this is. Paul Begg has stated that to policemen in this genre, it would be the rest home well known to police officers of the Met Police.
So to all others, WITHOUT knowing of a specific police home, it means very little if anything at all.
Swanson didnt write TO anybody. So anybody readinp it NOT being a polibeman is unlikely to know what Swanson meant by it. Historians in Met Police and crime might have heard of it though.

Well yes, but so what? There are possibilities. Its not like he claimed the suspect was taken to Mars.

2) No date is given. Which doesnt help ID the home either. I doubt whether most policemen would know how old any rest home anywhere was. A few might. Historians might too.

No date is given. However doesnt that make the marginalia more credible not less so. Again you seem to be hinting at something when what your actually doing is stating the bleeding obvious.

3) Any alleged ID would have been witnessed by policemen- . There are NO details given that refer to anyone by name or without name from the police side.

Well coppers were largely of the belief that they keep their mouth shut. And they were largely good at that. However its not true to say they all did, Cox and Sagar gave interveiws to the press about a suspect they beleived to be Jack the Ripper who they tailed.

4) the witness who allegedly ID'd the suspect is not named. Nobody who wasnt there would know the name of the witness- and it is doubtful the marginalia was written for the posrible eyes of anxone wko WAS potemtially there. Only jTR enthusiasts may guess who this might be. No one else would have a clue.

Yes but we have largely pin pionted who it must have been by a process of elemination..Well done Gary..

5) Dan Farson wrote' I doubt if we have seen the last 'suspect'; but the objection to all thesn theries is the lack of official evidence' the marginalia can hardly be called 'official' evidence with virtuallx no specific details, written in the form it was.

The same Dan Farson who invented the Jack the Ripper conspiracy theory?

Yes there are always new suspects, however there are unlikely to be any new suspects named by the guys in charge of the case. And there opinion is more important than anyone elses because they had access to all the evidence and simply new more than we do...

The rest of the post is just wishy washy meaningless drivel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkZFuKHXa7w

Like Lord Percy discovering purest 'Green'

Yours Jeff

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

I think the reason that Druitt is not the subject of a genuine Home Office Report -- unlike what Mac hustled to his cronies -- is that he was an entirely posthumous suspect.

There was no suspect to formally investigate as there was nobody to arrest, but there was a 'good' family's name in the balance.

Hello Jonathan,

And sadly for Dan Farson, there was no Home Office file naming Druitt as a prind suspect either. Which means? He did a McCormick and must have made it up.

inventions of 'official comment' in Ripperworld do, sadly happen.


I will say one thing for you Jonathan- you have never claimed that sort of thing.

Kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Dan Farson is a major figure in all this, for sure, but he never really understood what he had in 'Aberconway' because he and his team just did not have time.

He was ignorant of the complex back-story to the creation of this document and so just accepted that it was a private 'draft' by a senior police figure who had a lousy memory and was not even on the police at the time of the 'autumn of terror'.

Even a cursory look at Macnaghten's memoirs should have alerted him that there was something fishy going on. For if it is a draft, it was not kept private as the information in it (about the prime suspect and his lesser sidekicks) was disseminated to the public from 1898, that Mac was there for the information about Druitt which arrived 'some years after' he killed himself, and all other sources metnion that he had an extraordinary memory.

Farson and his team needed to find the MP source but at that time it was a needle in a haystack. Instead he became fixated on a mis-remembered document which became his Holy Grail -- and about as real. His book from 1973 does not even examine the sections of the Mac Report, filed version, eg. Odell's scoop from 1966, an inexplicable omission except that he must have wrongly thought 'said to be a doctor' would hurt his Druit-centric argument -- when it strengthens it.

[PaulB]

The marginila you seek to heavily rely on to prop up you theories has not be proven to be authentic so please refrain from keep trying to convince everyone it is.

What theories do you fondly imagine that I am trying to prop up, Trevor? You keep making direct and indirect references to my theories, so I am fascinated to know what they are. Is it that I believe Kosminski was Jack the Ripper? Nope, I've never believed that. Is it that I believe Anderson was right? Nope, I've never believed that. What exactly do you think my theory is, Trevor. Tell me. Let's make sure you actually have the remotest idea what you are talking about.

Trevor, the marginalia is authentic. And it will remain authentic until the findings of your expert(s) are published and examined. That's the way things work. You present your evidence, it is subjected to peer analysis, it is accepted or it is rejected. You can shout about your expert, who hasn't actually come within sniffing distance of the actual document, which doesn't inspire initial confidence, and as as your track record and personal standing in this field is nil, unfortunately nobody is going to allow in evidence just on your say so. So, on the basis of the existing evidence, there is no reason to believe that the marginalia isn't authentic.

You are so blinkered virtually everyone can see that Kosminski is a non starter now even without the marginalia. MM exonerates him. Fido traced an Aaron Kosminski and exonaterd him, or do you want to inlcude anyone else who just happened to have a surname Kosminski, Jesus how many more exonerations do you want before you take the blinkers off.

What exactly am I blinkered about, Trevor? You seem to think that I believe Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. I don't. I never have. So if Macnaghten was right then, well, nothing really. It doesn't matter. So what exactly am I being blinkered about? What theory do I have?

If MM exonerates him why are you and others trying to find someone eles who fits Anderson polish jew fable. Fido tried with Cohen and Kaminsky. You seem to want to readily accpet the word of two senior officers why not accpet the writen word of MM when he says he exonarates Kosminski and Ostrog you cant have it both ways.

Okay, Trevor: (1)Martin Fido didn't try to find someone other than Kosminski, and I'd really try hard to represent Martin correctly if I was you. Presenting other people's theories accurately is important. (2) I am not trying to find someone other than Aaron Kosminski, so do try to get your basic facts right. As for (3), I can have it both ways. We have two credible and authentic sources reaching different conclusions. It is not uncommon for historical sources to disagree, so the historian has to explain why they differ, try to reconcile them, and try to reach the truth of what happened. That isn't achieved by choosing the one you like and which best fits your personal and preconceived theories, as you do, but through a controlled and ordered assessment of the sources in question and their relationship to other sources and accepted history. As things stand, and for the moment considering the two sources in isolation, we don't know (a) how much Macnaghten knew about the "Kosminski" identification and the reasons why Anderson (and possibly Swanson) believed him guilty, (b) we don't know if he knew Anderson and Swanson believed Kosminski guilty, (c) we don't know how much, if at all, his decision to exonerate "Kosminski" was influenced by his belief that the murderer was Druitt, and (d) crucially, we have no idea what the evidence against Kosminski was and therefore cannot assess whether Macnaghten was right to exonerate him. That's just part of it.

[PaulB]

Phil,

I think the reason that Druitt is not the subject of a genuine Home Office Report -- unlike what Mac hustled to his cronies -- is that he was an entirely posthumous suspect.

There was no suspect to formally investigate as there was nobody to arrest, but there was a 'good' family's name in the balance.

Jonathan,
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why Macnaghten would have told Griffiths and Sims about Druitt if he didn't want anybody to know about him. If protecting the good name of Druitt's family that much to him, why bother to mention him in the memorandum - it wasn't necessary for him to name any suspect, let alone push Druitt to the fore.

As for there being no file on Druitt, Abberline said there was one and he also said that the drowned doctor/medical student was investigated and that there was nothing but the time of his suicide to connect him with the crimes. Abberline therefore agrees to the existence of a file and to an investigation.

And if there wasn't any investigation then don't we have to accept that Macnaghten received his private information about Druitt, swallowed it whole, and did nothing. That doesn't do as much for his credibility as supposing that he received his private information, investigated it, and accepted Druitt's guilt after careful consideration. Not a formal investigation, but surely some sort of effort to verify his information.

But, as said, there is that statement by Abberline and we can theorise around it, as we can theorise around most things, but that doesn't actually get rid of it.

[harry]

As I understand it,the origin of a positive identification,lay not with Anderson or Swanson,but with those they sent.That the information supplied by Anderson and Swanson is heresay.There is no way of knowing how the information was exchanged,but even if it was at first given orally,it can be expected that an oral exchange would be followed by witten report.As has been argued,there is nothing to suggest any such information was conveyed,in any form.As for ,it may have been lost or destroyed,well it has to be established that it existed in the first place before being lost,and that would only apply to written material.As for relying on the word of a person I have this to say.If I was told that an incident had occured on a hill at a certain location,and I could not find a hill at that location,I might be justified in thinking that the information was false,not that I had lost my way.

[Jonathan H]

Consider it not gotten rid of, but a judgement about its reliability made and it is found wanting. He does not know what he is talkin gabout reagrding 'Kosminski' either.

I think his memory is contaminated by the medical student suspect of 1888, John Sanders, about whom there was indeed a Home Office Report.

But, that aside, what has really misled Abberline is the notion that the 'medical student's' death explained the cessation of the 'Jack' murders, when the police thought they continued up until Coles in 1891.

The notion of an 'autumn of terror' is Druitt-centric, it's a Macnaghten notion which all other police fell under the spell of, except Reid.

I think that what happened in early 1891, with the backdrop of the Sadler debacle, is that Macnaghten met with Farquharson and was, to his surprise, impressed.

Mac moved onto the Druitts, or a Druitt, and was even more convinced because Montie had confessed all to a priest, and as the family scrambled to have him sectioned he took his own life -- trying to make it look as is he had skipped abroad.

Mac also discovered that by the time the confession-in-word tale had reached the M.P. it had been telescoped into a confession-in-deed: the suicide on the same evening as the final and most ghastly murder.

Macnaghten decided, later, to deploy that error: the so-called evidence of the 'awful glut'. in his much later memoirs he tiptoed away from it.

Back in 1891 Macnaghten also knew something else -- and it was excruciating. That Montie had wanted the truth to come out in a decade, and it could not be stopped. The one saving grace is that the coming story was going to be veiled to protect the family.

But the story might leak prematurely, as it had done in Dorset in 1891.

Mac was sort of sitting on a volcano.

Then in 1894, with 'The Sun' threat, Mac scrambles to get Druitt on a file -- as a minor suspect about whom they knew very little for sure -- in case Asquith asks for some info. to repudiate the Cutbush story in the Commons, and 'The Sun's' tale re-ignites the story of the 'son of a surgeon', and there are more questions for the top cops at the Yard to answer to the Liberals?!

Mac cannot have total denial about Druitt since he knows everything there is to know about him, and he's CID's no. 2, but if the whole thing is about to spill out of Dorset anyway he cannot save the family. So he must protect the Yard too.

The crisis passes, nothing happens, the Druitts are safe.

Mac mothballs the 'memo' but it's there, just in case.

The tenth anniversary, creeping ever closer, is going to reveal that the police had never heard of the real killer in 1888.

In 1898, Macnaghten either pulls out the 'draft' or rewrites the entire document to 'sex it up' for Griffiths and his big book, deceiving him into believing that it is a copy of a definitive document of state. The druitts become anomic 'friends' and their deceased, mad member becomes definitely a middle-aged physician.

Where the filed version is pinched and austere as it tries cut the know to suit everybody, the 'Aberconway version is much more of a Mac free-for-all.

Then the North Country Vicar appears the following month in Jan 1899, on schedule, with the true tale but candidly veiled: 'substantial truth under ficititious form'.

The Ripper was an Anglican with an 'unblemished rep', who suffered from 'epileptic mania', who had a 'good position' but also was 'at one time a surgeon', who went to help fallen women and who then became his victims, and who died shortly after Kelly -- the cause of his demise not given.

At that moment, Mac unleashes his second pincer, Sims, who directly and rudely quashes the clergyman as a blithering idiot.

The 'idiocy' of the Vicar's revelation being that the fiend could not possibly have functioned normally, even for a few hours after Miller's Ct., as he was rendered a shrieking husk (a symptom of epileptic mania) by what he had done to poor Mary Kelly.

Ergo he could not have confessed anything to anybody.

Furthermore, Sims pushes the line that the 'police' knew about the 'doctor' in 1888, and in fact were about to arrest him.

It's a jaw-dropping whopper but it is accepted by many, though by no means all.

In 1913, to reassure the Druitts, Mac claimed to have destoyed all documentation revealing Montie's identity, another gentlemanly fib. It also shows us that it was his property, not that of the state, from which it was a secret.

[Monty]

But you missed the point I get slated when i stick to the facts and then told my facts are not correct etc when I posted that long post on the ID parade and the marginalia.

It was after that that I found the previous thread where lo and behold Stewart had said virtually the same as me and no one questioned his facts. But of course as far as the marginalia was concerned I took it one step further and had my own experts examine it with blinding results.

So both of us cant be wrong if you are putting Stewart on a pedestal. Look at it another way you and Begg keep saying you take the word of two officers from 1888. Now we have two officers from the 21st Century with a wealth of investigative experience behind them who have become involved and made our views know on all of this having carefull reviewed, assessed and evaluated everything connected to these issues.

Which two are you going to side with ?

The difference being is that you were not part of the original investigation nor its immediate aftermath Trevor.

You propose based on what remains, not experienced or party to.

Therefore you cannot possibly state your conclusion is final.

This coupled with you woeful theories drawn regarding organ removal and Eddowes apron leaves ones trust in your abilities lacking.

Monty


PS I'm so glad I touted to for the York gig Trevor, no, I won't ask for a percentage, its fine.

[PaulB]

As I understand it,the origin of a positive identification,lay not with Anderson or Swanson,but with those they sent.That the information supplied by Anderson and Swanson is heresay.There is no way of knowing how the information was exchanged,but even if it was at first given orally,it can be expected that an oral exchange would be followed by witten report.As has been argued,there is nothing to suggest any such information was conveyed,in any form.As for ,it may have been lost or destroyed,well it has to be established that it existed in the first place before being lost,and that would only apply to written material.As for relying on the word of a person I have this to say.If I was told that an incident had occured on a hill at a certain location,and I could not find a hill at that location,I might be justified in thinking that the information was false,not that I had lost my way.

Harry,
No offense, but for the umpteenth time, you cannot base a conclusion on something not being mentioned in the official documentation, which is what you are doing, when most of that documentation is missing and none of it concerns any suspects. When somebody says the corroborative material could have been in the missing files, that isn't an argument for the existence of said material, but is simply pointing out that most of the documentation is missing and that no conclusion can be based on what remains.

And it doesn't have to be established that it existed in the first place before it can be argued that it has been lost because the probability is that it cannot ever be shown that it existed or that it didn't exist. Therefore no argument can exist, whether it be for or against the existence of the material. What we can do - indeed, the only thing we can do - is work with probabilities and we know that an investigation of suspects generated paperwork and probably generated paperwork in the case of Kosminski, Druitt, Ostrog, Tumblety, et al.

[PaulB]

Consider it not gotten rid of, but a judgement about its reliability made and it is found wanting. He does not know what he is talkin gabout reagrding 'Kosminski' either.

I think his memory is contaminated by the medical student suspect of 1888, John Sanders, about whom there was indeed a Home Office Report.

But, that aside, what has really misled Abberline is the notion that the 'medical student's' death explained the cessation of the 'Jack' murders, when the police thought they continued up until Coles in 1891.

The notion of an 'autumn of terror' is Druitt-centric, it's a Macnaghten notion which all other police fell under the spell of, except Reid.

I think that what happened in early 1891, with the backdrop of the Sadler debacle, is that Macnaghten met with Farquharson and was, to his surprise, impressed.

Mac moved onto the Druitts, or a Druitt, and was even more convinced because Montie had confessed all to a priest, and as the family scrambled to have him sectioned he took his own life -- trying to make it look as is he had skipped abroad.

Mac also discovered that by the time the confession-in-word tale had reached the M.P. it had been telescoped into a confession-in-deed: the suicide on the same evening as the final and most ghastly murder.

Macnaghten decided, later, to deploy that error: the so-called evidence of the 'awful glut'. in his much later memoirs he tiptoed away from it.

Back in 1891 Macnaghten also knew something else -- and it was excruciating. That Montie had wanted the truth to come out in a decade, and it could not be stopped. The one saving grace is that the coming story was going to be veiled to protect the family.

But the story might leak prematurely, as it had done in Dorset in 1891.

Mac was sort of sitting on a volcano.

Then in 1894, with 'The Sun' threat, Mac scrambles to get Druitt on a file -- as a minor suspect about whom they knew very little for sure -- in case Asquith asks for some info. to repudiate the Cutbush story in the Commons, and 'The Sun's' tale re-ignites the story of the 'son of a surgeon', and there are more questions for the top cops at the Yard to answer to the Liberals?!

Mac cannot have total denial about Druitt since he knows everything there is to know about him, and he's CID's no. 2, but if the whole thing is about to spill out of Dorset anyway he cannot save the family. So he must protect the Yard too.

The crisis passes, nothing happens, the Druitts are safe.

Mac mothballs the 'memo' but it's there, just in case.

The tenth anniversary, creeping ever closer, is going to reveal that the police had never heard of the real killer in 1888.

In 1898, Macnaghten either pulls out the 'draft' or rewrites the entire document to 'sex it up' for Griffiths and his big book, deceiving him into believing that it is a copy of a definitive document of state. The druitts become anomic 'friends' and their deceased, mad member becomes definitely a middle-aged physician.

Where the filed version is pinched and austere as it tries cut the know to suit everybody, the 'Aberconway version is much more of a Mac free-for-all.

Then the North Country Vicar appears the following month in Jan 1899, on schedule, with the true tale but candidly veiled: 'substantial truth under ficititious form'.

The Ripper was an Anglican with an 'unblemished rep', who suffered from 'epileptic mania', who had a 'good position' but also was 'at one time a surgeon', who went to help fallen women and who then became his victims, and who died shortly after Kelly -- the cause of his demise not given.

At that moment, Mac unleashes his second pincer, Sims, who directly and rudely quashes the clergyman as a blithering idiot.

The 'idiocy' of the Vicar's revelation being that the fiend could not possibly have functioned normally, even for a few hours after Miller's Ct., as he was rendered a shrieking husk (a symptom of epileptic mania) by what he had done to poor Mary Kelly.

Ergo he could not have confessed anything to anybody.

Furthermore, Sims pushes the line that the 'police' knew about the 'doctor' in 1888, and in fact were about to arrest him.

It's a jaw-dropping whopper but it is accepted by many, though by no means all.

In 1913, to reassure the Druitts, Mac claimed to have destoyed all documentation revealing Montie's identity, another gentlemanly fib. It also shows us that it was his property, not that of the state, from which it was a secret.

But that is all a theoretical argument, Jonathan, like you are plotting a novel, and whilst your theorising is all well and good in other contexts, in this case you are using your theoretical argument to impinge on the proper assessment of other documentation. Moreover, whilst your theorising can fit the factual information, it isn't emerging from that information, which is what it is supposed to do. So, yes, you can theorise that Abberline confused Druitt with the three insane medical students, but there is no reason to suppose that he actually did so and his reference to a drowned doctor suggests that he was talking about Druitt, especially as there is no evidence that any of the medical students drowned.

To look at this blatantly, Abberline referred to a drowned doctor, but it is inconvenient to your hypothesis that he should have meant Druitt, so you cast around for someone else Abberline could have meant, note the medical students, and theorise a scenario which allows for Abberline to have confused one of them with Druitt. That's not really history, it's plotting, and the simplest explanation is that Abberline talked about a drowned doctor and, in the face of no alternative drowned suspect, doctor or otherwise, he's talking about Druitt.

But whoever he was talking about, he knew the investigation had generated a file, so there were files.

[PaulB]

The difference being is that you were not part of the original investigation nor its immediate aftermath Trevor.

You propose based on what remains, not experienced or party to.

Therefore you cannot possibly state your conclusion is final.

This coupled with you woeful theories drawn regarding organ removal and Eddowes apron leaves ones trust in your abilities lacking.

Monty


PS I'm so glad I touted to for the York gig Trevor, no, I won't ask for a percentage, its fine.

Er, do you and I keep saying that we take the word of two officers from 1888? I'm not aware of doing so. Are you? And which two officers from the 21st century are we talking about here - Trevor and Stewart? Well, Stewart I'll listen to damned carefully any day of the week, but I am not aware that he's said anything comparable to Trevor about the marginalia. He noted the very slightly differences in handwriting and the use of different pencils and the Yard's handwriting analyst attributed this to entries being written at different times, possibly separated by several years, but apart from the usual backside-saving caveats, the handwriting was determined to be Swanson's and Stewart, as far as I know, has absolutely no disagreement with that. As for Trevor, well, as you say, his track record is pretty dismal and he has afforded us no information about his handwriting experts. We don't know whether they were forensic document examiners or time-wasting graphologists, we don't know their experience, we do know that they didn't examine the actual document, and, of course, we have no idea what their findings were. Which two are you going to side with? Well, now, that's a tough one - I'm going to stick with Stewart and the two guys from 1888.