Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps I am taking a leaf out of the book of others who seem to not want to share things with the community

Though it seems that previously you have shared things with the community prematurely?

So perhaps we should be grateful for you withholding information. WINK

If Ripper studies remain about personal gain, "I know something you don't", point scoring and petty competition between rivals, we shall never get anywhere and the subject will remain at a childish level.

I would be as critical of academics who sat on information crucial to their field. The duty is to get material out so that others can comment on and assess it - peer review if you will. Otherwise it might as well never exist (like an unpublished archaeological dig or an incomplete manuscript of a non-fiction book).

Phil

So why dont you direct this comment to all those others that continually withold things from the community I am guilty of one small misdemanour by currently witholding information. What are they guilty of?

[Chris]

I have been fighting tooth and nail to get the marginalia authenticated but it seems everyone connected to it is happy to stick with a forensic report carried out some years ago when there are more modern tests available which could prove or disprove its authenticity.

Are there really? What tests are you referring to?

[Phil H]

The two documents you refer to as evidence is of course evidence however it is there to be proved or disproved as is the case with all evidence.

But the arguments need to be clearly set out and - such is the historical method - accepted by a body of the writer's peers. I don't see that as having happened.

The MM clearly has been proved to be unrelaible so anyhting in it must be looked on in that same light.

As I see it, there is a question over why he chose to use the names he did - and that Ostrog seems an oddity - perhaps a mistake for Le Grand? But we have always known that the MM contained "errors" about Druitt. That said, Melville Macnaghten admitted to and was proud of, writing from memory. The question is how important are those mistakes - the age was out by precisely 10 years (41 not 31) and he was identified as one of the "professional" classes rather than a tradesman or aristocrat (for instance). That some theorists have questioned MM's motivation is different from the memorandum being unreliable as a whole.

Druitt and Kosminski definitely existed. So where is the issue?
The Swanson Marginalia in my opinion is also questionable so how can you safely rely on the contents of that either. But of course you belive it to be authentic.

Again, as far as I am aware there is no reason to question the authenticity of the marginalia - indeed that is sustained by the correspondence published in the thread. It may be YOUR opinion - because you need it to be -that the maginalia are in some way forged or not real, but I see nothing that would uphold such a view.

Provenance, handwriting, context etc all support their authenticity. I am quite content to rely on it, even if its meaning/interpretation is not yet clear.

I have been fighting tooth and nail to get the marginalia authenticated but it seems everyone conncetd to it is happy to stick with a forensic report carried out some years ago when there are more modern tests available which could prove or disprove its authenticity.

The last resort of the failed theorist is always to keep saying - it needs one more test, one more challenge. That approach reminds me of the prophets of the end of the world - oh, I got it wrong that time, so I'll try again!! I repeat, to the unbiased eye and mind there is no reason for more tests and checks.

If it were mine and i knew it was genuine i would jump at the chance to have it re examined just to silence the doubters.

Fortunately, perhaps, it is not, since you seem to revel in withholding information!! (See your earlier post in this thread today.)

Because if new evidence came to light which did rule out Kosminski there are a lot of people going to wind up with egg on their face over this marginalia.

So could any theory be blown out of the water by new evidence. But we can only work with what we have - hence some of us do not put all our eggs in one basket and do keep an open mind. I am unaware of new evidence re Kosminski (unless it is what you are withholding) and Rob House's well researched book did nothing to undermine Kosminski's potential candidact as a suspect.

The idea that the killer removed them in a short time is also ridiculous and experts back this up.

I assume this garbled sentence relates to the removal of organs? It is strange that until very recently no one assumed that the organ removal happened anywhere else but at the scene. Since in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes (let alone MJK - assuming she was a victim of JtR) we don't know the exact timings, reference to a "short time" is nonsense.

I am still posting and writing books because there are so many things wrong with what people have readily accepted for many years with this mystery, time reality kicked the truth is out there.

Bad, inaccurate books, which even the author admits were wrong, do not help. I for one, with genuine regret (because I respect and admire those with the time to write and research) would have great difficultly giving credence to anything you write in future.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Are there really? What tests are you referring to?

You know there are they have alreday been documented no need for me to keep repeating. These have been pointed out to Nevill Swanson who wont allow new tests and is happy with the old forensic report.

[Chris]

You know there are they have alreday been documented no need for me to keep repeating. These have been pointed out to Nevill Swanson who wont allow new tests and is happy with the old forensic report.

I'm not Nevill Swanson, and I don't know what you've said to him.

I'm asking you about the claim you chose to post above. What tests are you referring to, please?

[robhouse]

This is because Gary Ridgeway was a contemporaneous suspect, if not the prime suspect as the Green River Killer, years before DNA proved beyond doubt his culpability, and he confessed.

Whereas 'Kosminski' and M. J. Druitt are Ripper suspects totally unknown at the height of the murders, and may have only become known to [senior] police at the dispiritng, tail-end of the official investigation in early 1891 around the time of the Coles-Sadler embarassment.

Jonathan,

You say that he "may have only become known... in early 1891." This is arguably true... he may have only become known slightly before his incarceration in Feb 1891. (This is Paul Begg's argument.) It was certainly not after his incarceration in Feb 1891, since Swanson declares that he was kept under Police surveillance at his brother's house. That said, I do not agree with Begg's assessment, and think he became known earlier... possibly in July 1890, or possibly even much earlier, even in 1888. It is only your personal opinion that Kozminski became a suspect many years after the crimes. Moreover, the comparison with Ridgeway (that I made in my book) was simply to show that several detectives working the same case could have differing opinions as to who is the "best" suspect.

I dont see anyone jumping up and down stating we have found new prime suspects from these new register records. In fact we should in the absence of Littlechild mentioning Tumblety be questioning his viablity now.

Am I way off base here, or does not this statement display a remarkable inability to understand what the Special Branch registers were used for? To suggest that the names suggested in the SB registers are "prime suspects" is quite absurd. As far as I understand it, the Registers simply recorded any information that was passed on to the SB concerning potential threats to domestic security, mainly having to do with Fenian activity. It is not surprising that a few mentions of the Ripper murders would find their way in there, when the MET came across information from an informant or a citizen (or a PC, DC, whoever) that pertained both to the Ripper crimes and had some crossover with matters that would fall into SB area of concern. Trevor, your suggestion that these names are prime suspects is about as absurd as the newspaper articles that have generally misreported the significance of the files you have been endeavoring to have released. (And I commend your efforts to do so, incidentally.)

RH

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not suggesting they are prime suspects likewise conversley I am suggesting that Kosminski, Tuemblety and others should not be regarded as prime suspects either.

Well if Littlechild was taking the time to make up a file on O`Brien why was there no mention of Tumblety in the register under any of his entries regarding the ripper.

Dont forget the entries were not entered until 1894 at the earliest plenty of time for him to make reference to Tumblety who may have come to the notice of SB

My point is that as far as allof these suspects are concerned there is nothing to show that in 1888 when the murders were taking place any of them came under real suspicion.

All there is, is what these finest officers wrote and said many years after, and as I said previous you cannot rely on anyone them being correct

[robhouse]

If any random person in London happened to come to a suspicion that one of their neighbors was Jack the Ripper, and if the same "suspected person" also happened to have Fenian sympathies, then it is entirely possible that this person's name would have been recorded in the Special Branch registers.

You are claiming that this type of "suspect" is on the same level as a suspect who was obviously regarded as the top suspect by the head of CID at the time of the murders, and who was also obviously considered to be a viable suspect by the man in charge of the Ripper inquiry.

Is that a correct summary of what you are proposing?

[Ally]

Perhaps I am taking a leaf out of the book of others who seem to not want to share things with the community

Or you just don't feel you have to follow the same principles you demand of others?

[Trevor Marriott]

If any random person in London happened to come to a suspicion that one of their neighbors was Jack the Ripper, and if the same "suspected person" also happened to have Fenian sympathies, then it is entirely possible that this person's name would have been recorded in the Special Branch registers.

You are claiming that this type of "suspect" is on the same level as a suspect who was obviously regarded as the top suspect by the head of CID at the time of the murders, and who was also obviously considered to be a viable suspect by the man in charge of the Ripper inquiry.

Is that a correct summary of what you are proposing?

I am saying that based on what information is to hand regarding Kosminski he should not be regarded as the prime suspect and to be honest I think it was wrong for you to infer that he was regarded as Scotland Yards prime suspect.

You cannot prove he was regarded as a prime suspect at the time of the murders. Where is he mentioned in police records that were used during the course of the investigation, fact is he wasnt, his name doesnt appear anywhere, nor do any of the other suspect names.

1894 is the first mention of Kosminski in any document, and Anderson didnt write his book until 1910 twenty two years later

Even the questionable evidence you seek to rely on from the marginalia isnt proof you cant say for sure the kosminski mentioned in the unreliable MM is in fact Aaron Kosminski.

I also find it strange that MM and Swanson mention the name Kosminski but none of them elaborate on how and why they came to suspect him, what was it all those years later that suddenly make them go public with a name?

As far as ther marginalia is concerned if it is ever proved to be totally authentic whose to say Swanson was not confirming what MM wrote in 1894 notice neither of them mention any christian name they simply both refer to "Kosminski" doesnt anyone think thats strange because I do.

[Monty]

Bravo Mr House,

Common sense amongst the hype.

Monty

[Jonathan H]

To Rob

Well, of course it is a personal opinion as my name appears above the post?

You have interpreted the Swanson Marginalia a particular way, but it is not the only way, and arguably tortures or ignores other, contradictory sources which do not back it up -- if it is Swanson's opinion at all, and not simply Anderson's being recorded, entirely privately.

All opinion is individual and subjective, your book being a perfect example.

[mklhawley]

I am not suggesting they are prime suspects likewise conversley I am suggesting that Kosminski, Tuemblety and others should not be regarded as prime suspects either.

Well if Littlechild was taking the time to make up a file on O`Brien why was there no mention of Tumblety in the register under any of his entries regarding the ripper.

Dont forget the entries were not entered until 1894 at the earliest plenty of time for him to make reference to Tumblety who may have come to the notice of SB

My point is that as far as allof these suspects are concerned there is nothing to show that in 1888 when the murders were taking place any of them came under real suspicion.

All there is, is what these finest officers wrote and said many years after, and as I said previous you cannot rely on anyone them being correct

"...I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects,and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard."
"

...and it was Littlechild himself that stated Tumblety (not Twomblety by the way) was the likely one.

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Your logic is weak.

What your info does show is Littlechild was privy to the Whitechapel murder investigation.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Hunter]

It has been an assumption by Ripperologists that Tumblety may have been investigated for Fenian connections; based largely on Littlechild having knowledge of him and Inspector Andrews' trip to America in late 1888. These may be unfounded assumptions. I'm no expert on Tumblety, but my impression of the man is that the only cause he ever advocated was himself.

[mklhawley]

It has been an assumption by Ripperologists that Tumblety may have been investigated for Fenian connections; based largely on Littlechild having knowledge of him and Inspector Andrews' trip to America in late 1888. These may be unfounded assumptions. I'm no expert on Tumblety, but my impression of the man is that the only cause he ever advocated was himself.

I agree, you are no expert on Tumblety. I suggest you read Roger Palmer's three part article. To say that that Littlechild himself stating Tumblety had a large dossier may be unfounded is not truly understanding Littlechild's role at the time of the murders.

"...I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects,and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard."


Littlechild did not say 'dossier' he said 'large dossier'. Would a man suffering from a memory lapse say this? I think not.