Seaside Home?

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Trevor,

And as you can see, sadly the only answers (not even to the points made, I note) are of personal commentary and muck throwing instead.

I repeat the following.. which are the crux of the matter:-

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

And there, simply, it stops.

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

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

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

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there weren't
2) we dont know any of the events in the marginalia didn't happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.


--------------------------------


In 25 years NONE of these things have been answered. Why? Because there is no evidence to disprove any of these points. Supposition, possibility, association, reason by default, reason by misplaced jigsaw piece placement and lastly, the two classic counter arguments of "because the files are incomplete you can't PROVE there wasnt a file on Kosminski", complete with "because we can't prove any of the above in the marginalia doesnt mean it didnt happen"!!!!!

Yes, let the public decide upon those FACTS shall we?

And in the meantime, those facts will NOT go away unless they are shown to be false. In 25 years, they have not. The facts stand up on their own and are seen to be correct. No evidence has been shown to the contrary on any of the above points.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Aaron Kosminki's name should have been left to rest in peace a long time ago. 25 years later, people STILL won't let his name rest in peace.

And even THAT statement is deemed as unworthy, in some quarters.

I wonder why anyone on this world wide forum would be worried if their theory was in any way threatened by nay sayers actually speaking up with the facts to counter their theory? I have no idea. However, if you do...

Answers on a postcard please to :-

The Bloomin' Obvious Ltd,
Promotions Department.
123-125 Anniversary Road
London.


kindly

Phil

[lynn cates]

subjunctive

Hello David. Why the subjunctive?

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Hi Paul & Trevor,

As these are unsolved murders from 120+ years ago, I think they can be legitimately described as both police investigations and history.

We can argue forever about what was, or wasn't, in the original police files. The conclusions we can't draw are:
"Evidence to prove a particular issue is not there but it must have been at one time"
"Evidence to prove a particular issue is not there, therefore it never was".

We can, I think, only argue that evidence to prove a particular issue may once have existed. The level of probability can be debated, but I think the possibility is beyond dispute.

The police are very poor at preserving their own history and have, in my experience, been astonishingly cavalier in their approach to the retention of old documents.

Regards, Bridewell.

As said, the murder of the princes in the tower or the alleged murder of Edward II are crimes, but I don't think they could under any circumstances be classified as a police investigation. I don't see how Jack the Ripper is any different, although obviously an understanding of the Victorian police is a distinct advantage, though being or having been a policeman isn't necessarily an advantage in that respect. Needless to say, I agree with the rest of what you say, with the single caveat that whilst I agree wholeheartedly that the weight of probability favours the existence of documentation, the point I have been trying to make, as you are evidently aware, is not that documentation existed but that one can't say it didn't exist.

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello Jonathan.

"Is it not more likely that one has misremembered, and the other is recording that confusion -- and being touchingly discreet about it out of respect for a chief he revered."

Makes sense to me. But other explanations are available.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Trevor,

And as you can see, sadly the only answers (not even to the points made, I note) are of personal commentary and muck throwing instead.

I repeat the following.. which are the crux of the matter:-



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

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there weren't
2) we dont know any of the events in the marginalia didn't happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.


--------------------------------
In 25 years NONE of these things have been answered. Why? Because there is no evidence to disprove any of these points. Supposition, possibility, association, reason by default, reason by misplaced jigsaw piece placement and lastly, the two classic counter arguments of "because the files are incomplete you can't PROVE there wasnt a file on Kosminski", complete with "because we can't prove any of the above in the marginalia doesnt mean it didnt happen"!!!!!

Yes, let the public decide upon those FACTS shall we?

And in the meantime, those facts will NOT go away unless they are shown to be false. In 25 years, they have not. The facts stand up on their own and are seen to be correct. No evidence has been shown to the contrary on any of the above points.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Aaron Kosminki's name should have been left to rest in peace a long time ago. 25 years later, people STILL won't let his name rest in peace.

And even THAT statement is deemed as unworthy, in some quarters.

I wonder why anyone on this world wide forum would be worried if their theory was in any way threatened by nay sayers actually speaking up with the facts to counter their theory? I have no idea. However, if you do...

Answers on a postcard please to :-

The Bloomin' Obvious Ltd,
Promotions Department.
123-125 Anniversary Road
London.


kindly Phil

Perhaps no one can be bothered to reply because Denialist Ripperology is fundermentally flawed in its thinking..

While the evidence against Aaron Kosminski is indeed limited, compared with any other suspect you might mention it is a giant mountain of information supported by the two leading police officers investigating the case..

As far as I remember Trevor Marriott has still been unable to prove his suspect (Who would have headed back to teh docks not East) was even in London at the time of any of the murders...so on that simple fact alone Aaron is a million times better suspect..

However as we all know Phil when pushed on your own beliefs you refuse to answer the question and mumble on about conspiracies..then you try to argue that the murders were all committed by different people even when all the statistical evidence points to a lone serial killer.

Then you humbly rub your hands together and say its not fair the nasty man shouted at me...

Denialist Ripperology doesn't stand for anything and when you scratch its surface its followers all have bizarre self interested theories at the bottom to peddle.

You promised us that the Special Branch ledgers would finally put everything to rest and discount Kosminski as a suspect and when that didnt happen you decised to make up this bizarre argument that because they dont mention him it proves something? A bit like 0 + 0 = 1...........When all it proves is that the MET not Special Branch investigated the White Chapel Murders..

Yours Jeff

PS anyone want to make a bet when Trevor the 'abskonder' will reappear

[PaulB]

Jeff, it's a nice day, there are better and more fruitful things to do, and there is no logic or reasoned argument that is going to make any impact. I have been saying over and over that it is not being said that there may have been files so it can't be said that there weren't, and what does Phil Carter say the argument is based on? He says the answer to his questions is primarily based on "there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there weren't". That just about says it all!

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Ladies and gentlemen. I give you, a reply. This reply is to be noted in conjunction with Admins request that thread posting stick to the topic. (Which I did throughout ny posting). You decide on whether the discussion is relevant or not..


1)

Perhaps no one can be bothered to reply because Denialist Ripperology is fundermentally flawed in its thinking..

This coment has nothing to do with proving the existance of the Seaside Home identification. Deflection away from topic

2)

While the evidence against Aaron Kosminski is indeed limited, compared with any other suspect you might mention it is a giant mountain of information supported by the two leading police officers investigating the case..

Err.. NO POLICEMEN.... AARON Kosminski is NOT mentioned. Fact.

3)

As far as I remember Trevor Marriott has still been unable to prove his suspect (Who would have headed back to teh docks not East) was even in London at the time of any of the murders...so on that simple fact alone Aaron is a million times better suspect..

This has nothing to do with the facts of the alleged Seaside Home Identification. which is what the thread is about. Deflection away from topic



4)

However as we all know Phil when pushed on your own beliefs you refuse to answer the question and mumble on about conspiracies..then you try to argue that the murders were all committed by different people even when all the statistical evidence points to a lone serial killer.

This has nothing to do with the facts surrounding the identification of the Seaside Home which is what the thread is about. Deflection away from topic

5) Then you humbly rub your hands together and say its not fair the nasty man shouted at me...

Personal comment and unwarranted. Deflection away from topic.

6)

Denialist Ripperology doesn't stand for anything and when you scratch its surface its followers all have bizarre self interested theories at the bottom

This has nothing to do with the facts surrounding the identification of the Seaside Home which is what the thread is about. Deflection away from topic.



Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your balanced thoughts on the matter. I presented facts, the reply from an "expert" Kosminskiite, is above.

Next?



kindly

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Paul..Unfortunately I'm stuck here writing treatments, then have some costumes to deliver to London...hopefully sunshine tomorrow

[Jeff Leahy]

1)

This coment has nothing to do with proving the existance of the Seaside Home identification. Deflection away from topic

Denialist Ripperology is relivant to the Seaside home if its protagonists are trying to change history by claiming it didn’t happen.

2)

Err.. NO POLICEMEN.... AARON Kosminski is NOT mentioned. Fact.

Phil its been explained to you endlessly that Aaron Kosminski was the only Kosminski ever found in records that matches ‘Kosminski’ Despite the great and good searching endlessly through eons of time…None, not one , body else, not even a slight match.

However what we know about Aaron Kosminski uncannily matches what we know about ‘Kosminski’ So if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and goes quack…are we going with the Denialist Idea that it’s a racing pigeon? Or can we just call it a Duck?

3)

This has nothing to do with the facts of the alleged Seaside Home Identification. which is what the thread is about. Deflection away from topic

Its perfectly reasonable to ask whether denying the existence of the Seaside Home ID might be fueled by other motives or pushing forward other preferred theories. Its in the Nature of Denialist History

6)

This has nothing to do with the facts surrounding the identification of the Seaside Home which is what the thread is about. Deflection away from topic.

Then why mention it?

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your balanced thoughts on the matter. I presented facts, the reply from an "expert" Kosminskiite, is above.

Next? kindlyPhil

You have not presented the FACTS you have presented your opinion. Dressing Denialist History in Syrope doesnt make it anything other than what it is..

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor, Harry, Neil. Although I do not fully comprehend police business, is there a possibility of an informal identification? Something like a "feeler"?

Cheers.
LC

I would say no and I have to ask on what basis and what evidence or suspicion was this ever conducted as i said in an earlier post there is absolutley nothing if it happened in all the information wether it be written or otherwise to corroborate this.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by lynn cates

Hello Trevor, Harry, Neil. Although I do not fully comprehend police business, is there a possibility of an informal identification? Something like a "feeler"?

Cheers.
LC

And I would say yes if they felt there was certainly going to be no trial, though Id expect some correspondence of sorts to have been made.

However the crux is the statement that the witness refused to give testimony, this would indicate that they were indeed looking at a trial.

Therefore, in that case, Id be argeement with Trevor.

Twice in a day....I need a lie down.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Almost three hours a record Trevor

If Schwartz was confronted with Kosmnski it seems reasonable to assume that the aim of that task was to try and get a confession. This would have been thew simplest and most reasonable answer to such an event..

..and he new he was recognised..

If the Canarvan letter was from Aaron's sister it might also help confirm what she already suspected and had told Anderson..

[lynn cates]

trial balloon

Hello Trevor. I did not think the probability high. I just wondered if it were some spur of the moment thing--like a trial balloon--to see what they could glean. (Stewart Evans' conjecture is still better--in my opinion.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thought

Hello Neil. Thanks. Just a stray thought.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

peerage

Hello Jeff. But for the Crawford letter to refer to Kosminski's family, we would need to believe that a poor immigrant family had access to a member of the peerage.

Was that usual?

Cheers.
LC