Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Phil H]

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 Otherwise it might as well never exist (like an unpublished archaeological dig or an incomplete manuscript of a non-fiction book).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

[Trevor Marriott]

You know what I find most amusing here? The very same person who berates, brays, browbeats, harangues, slanders and reviles anyone in the subject who doesn't willingly part with information they have, who feels absolutely no compunction about hurling accusations of coverups and keeping secrets, is now playing "I know something you don't know, I have something you don't have".

Typical. I suppose it's only everyone else's duty and obligation to pony up what they have free of charge.

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

[Ally]

You know what I find most amusing here? The very same person who berates, brays, browbeats, harangues, slanders and reviles anyone in the subject who doesn't willingly part with information they have, who feels absolutely no compunction about hurling accusations of coverups and keeping secrets, is now playing "I know something you don't know, I have something you don't have".

Typical. I suppose it's only everyone else's duty and obligation to pony up what they have free of charge.

[Phil H]

Trevor

I think you need to remove the rose tinted spectacles.

Not sure mine are "rose tinted", but as Tennyson said, "I am a part of all that I have met". We all have our blindspots, of course, your's appears to be uncalled for certainty, over-calling your hand as it were.

Where does it say in any official records that Kosminski was the prime suspect of the police ?

To be literal, you might have a point, but three senior officials brought his name into the frame (one albeit obliquely but clearly). MM put his list of three (caveated though it was) on the official file. That Kosminski appears in three makes him a better bet as being "in the frame" c 1890 than any other suspect. Your's ain't mentioned at all!!

Its you people who have got carried away with all of this questionble material contained in two documents which are both questioanble in themselves with regards to their authenticty which has wrongly elevated him to that status

No Trevor, you miss the point. The documents are evidence and while some may question them, they cannot be dismissed. All are authentic - Anderson by date of various publications, MM as being on the official file and Swanson -as this post shows almost certainly genuine (not that I ever doubted it.

If you question the authenticity of these sources then you must provide unequivocal evidence of forgery, fraud or whatever and gain peer acceptance of your view. Even then that would be unlikely to remove them from the issues for all or for all time.

Neither have they been WRONGLY elevated, they ARE WHAT THEY ARE - original sources of pretty unimpeachable (IMO) authenticity, penned by people at the centre of the case in a way we can never be and in possession of sources and evidence now lost. That you want to question that I don't deny, but it does not change their historical centrality.

I dont propose to keep going over the same things time and time again arguing the same points. You are entitled to belive what you want to beleive

Big of you, but it is you, Trevor, who are "kicking against the pricks" (to be Biblical).

The reality is that there was no such person as JTR its all a myth. The murders were not all committed by the same person, the organs were not removed from the victims at the crime scene, No one had a clue as to the identity of any of the killers.

As I said at the start of this post, you have an uncalled for certainty. I happen to agree that there MAY not have been a single killer of all the canonicals, and that some others may have been murdered by "Jack", but I can have no certainty.

The idea that the organs were not removed at the scene is nonsense - made up drivel, in my view. There is NO evidence for that.

As to whether anyone at the time had "a clue as to the identity of any of the killers" is again nonsense. MM, Anderson and Swanson all did (as they said in writing). What the basis of that was is something else. Whether you accept that MM had private information etc, is again up to you. But the statement as you express it is not sustainable.

Take all of those points away from the mystery as it now stands and whats left=A series of unsolved murders of a simliar nature which would have no real mystery, no appeal to the masses worldwide, in reality the death of a "cottage industry" the end to all ripper books,the end to Ripper walks around London, the end to The London Dungeons Ripper attraction, the end of madam Tassauds Ripper attraction.

So why are you still posting here and writing books in which - if we take what you say at face value - you do not believe? Many have told you on here that your suspect did not add up - yet you astill ask us to accept the assertions you make in an unqualified tone above, while you now disclaim your own theories. This is Alice in Wonderland thinking, nothing else.

Phil

[lynn cates]

Wow!

Hello Trevor.

"The reality is that there was no such person as JTR its all a myth. The murders were not all committed by the same person"

Well, I'm blown! I cannot believe my eyes. Thanks for this.

(Nunc dimmitis servum tuum Domine.)

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Phil

I think you need to remove the rose tinted spectacles.

Where does it say in any official records that Kosminski was the prime suspect of the police ?

Its you people who have got carried away with all of this questionble material contained in two documents which are both questioanble in themselves with regards to their authenticty which has wrongly elevated him to that status

I dont propose to keep going over the same things time and time again arguing the same points. You are entitled to belive what you want to beleive

The reality is that there was no such person as JTR its all a myth. The murders were not all committed by the same person, the organs were not removed from the victims at the crime scene, No one had a clue as to the identity of any of the killers.

Take all of those points away from the mystery as it now stands and whats left=A series of unsolved murders of a simliar nature which would have no real mystery, no appeal to the masses worldwide, in reality the death of a "cottage industry" the end to all ripper books,the end to Ripper walks around London, the end to The London Dungeons Ripper attraction, the end of madam Tassauds Ripper attraction.

The positive side to all of that is that you and others would have to go out and get a proper life.

Since I last reported on Feigenbaum my investigation has moved on. I make no bones about it i did consider him to have been responsible for all of the murders based on the evidence before me at that time.

However that was 2 years ago time has moved on my investigation has continued
important new things have come to light from original documents which does not tell us who the killer was, but tells us who the killer wasnt.

Even the police are not always right when it comes to murder suspects and I refer to Suffolk Stranglings in 2006 when they went out and arrested Tom Stephens and he became a prime suspect. That arrest was as a result of what they knew at the time. However further evidence came to them a short time afterwards which resulted in Steve Wright being arrested and subsequently charged.

I have not ruled Feigenbum out from being a suspect in one or some of the murders even those outside of the "five" but I do not belive him to have been responsible for them all.

[Phil H]

Trevor

Okay I accept that as Kosminski`s names appears he should be considered but in the same light as for example all of the names which have come recently come to light from the Special Branch registers and all the hundred or so names which came to the notice of the police at the time whose details they obvioulsy recorded.

I disagree - we have had discussions on these boards recently about categorising "suspects/people of interest". Whatever one's view of men like Anderson/Swanson/Macnaghten the fact that they mentioned certain names - in MM's case on the official file - elevates those "suspects" to a different level.

That is not to dismiss other names that cam to the police, but they were not elevated to a different status by the writings of senior officials, which in some cases support each other - especially Kosminski mentioned by name by both MM and Swanson (sustaining Anderson who does not mention a specific name).

...we should in the absence of Littlechild mentioning Tumblety be questioning his viablity now.

Again I question your judgement. In the Uk we had found no mention of Dr T. But once the Littlechild letter turned up, we found a wealth of references in the US press, and some interesting potential correlations here. I recognise Dr T as a suspect does not suit your personal agenda, by hey-ho!

Kosminski having been considered as a suspect and nothing more uncovered to corroborate what the finest of scotland yard suggest, then he should be left on the back burner and ceratinly not elevated to prime suspect status.

I would agree with that in the main. But I am not sure that it is true to say that "nothing more" has been uncovered. Rob House has recently delved into the man's background in a pretty thorough and impartial way and nothing there I could see rules Kosminski out. The asylum records also seem to bear out Swanson's comments in that - dates apart - he was incarcerated and many of the facts fit. What we do not yet have visibility on is what Martin Fido wrestled with over 20 years ago, WHY Kosminski and possibly another inmate became mixed up the policemens' thinking.

The fact of the matter is that there is no prime suspect on these murders, there are likley suspects and even with some of them the evidence is nothing more than speculative.

Who could not agree with that - although surely your own published contentions mean that you surely cannot agree with your own statement?

As far as commercial interests are concerned I dont see you saying the same to Rob House for suggesting Kosminski is the prime suspect when clearly he is not and never will be.

But my understanding is that Mr House does NOT alleged Kosminski to be THE prime suspect - his investigation is of the POLICE'S prime suspect c1890.

I am not rubbishing any other suspect I am looking at the facts and the evidence as a profesional invesigator would and drawing my own conclusions.

Fine, but I reserve the right to differ and to prefer Kosminski to your sailor.

I would ask that if you and others who seek to dimiss things so easily then perhaps you would all provide proper facts and evidence to support your own conclusions.

I am not going to fall for that old ruse. I do not have to support my own conclusions, or indeed have one, but I can intellectually and logically scutinise the views of others on these public fora. Anything I say in posts on Casebook is backed up by my reasoning, but as I do not promote (peddle?) an particular theory, I do not have to make a case.

I am sorry but it is not sufficient to keep saying it must be right because these police officers say so.

I'm not aware of anyone who does. But I for one will not simply disregard the written views of responsible (in both senses) officials. They may have had (MM in particular) political/organisational even personal reasons for saying what they did - but it is for us to explain and understand that, NOT dismiss it. I would also point out that these men were loyal public servants, in Anderson's case being so for many decades in highly sensitive work. MM too was highly regarded in his day. And that day was one when a gentleman would not lightly have left a deliberate untruth on the record on which he might at any time be caught out. They might have used wording that deliberately misled, but I do not think they would have lied.

i can tell you that even in my appeal hearing Met Police witness were less than economical with the truth. Having spent all those years as a detective and know what goes on from the inside only corroboates my concerns over what these officers said and wrote 123 years ago.

Your prejudices are your own. I am sure the Met officers of today to whom you refer might have a different perspective on the issues. But we are not privy to their views.

As far as feigenbaum is concerned I dont think for one minute that if he was involved in the murders he was responsible for all of them he could have been repsonsibe for one some or perhaps all.

That sentence is so convoluted and complicated, I can make no sense of it. Are you now saying your suspect was NOT JtR?

Since I last reported on feigenbaum my investigation has moved on important new things have come to light from original documents which does not tell us who the killer was, but tells us who the killer wasnt

Regretfully, none of us can comment on information we haven't seen, so until you publish it, what can one say - except that you cannot prove a negative.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

That's great if you have new primary sources. Are they to be the subject of an article?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor: Many of us simply believe that Kosminski cannot be ruled out as a suspect.

We are mature enough not to have the need to create and maintain some super-suspect above all others.

I recognise you have a commercial interest in rubbishing any suspect but your sailor, but that rather undermines your attempts to rubbish every other suspect, at least in my eyes.

As an historian I cannot just dismiss a suspect that is named by two senior police officials of the period and referred to by another. A suspect, whom Rob House has recently shown on good evidence, to have resided close to all the murder scenes. If what Anderson and Swanson wrote does not add up, then we cannot simply rationalise it away and discard it, there are many reasons why we may not understand it - evidence known to them but now gone, lost files that, if we had their contents would shed light on what the two men were saying, even that we interpret the words themselves in a way not intended by the writer.

I'm sorry Trevor, but your stridency falls on deaf ears here.

Phil

Okay I accept that as Kosminski`s names appears he should be considered but in the same light as for example all of the names which have come recently come to light from the Special Branch registers and all the hundred or so names which came to the notice of the police at the time whose details they obvioulsy recorded.

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.

Kosminski having been considered as a suspect and nothing more uncovered to corroborate what the finest of scotland yard suggest, then he should be left on the back burner and ceratinly not elevated to prime suspect status.

The fact of the matter is that there is no prime suspect on these murders, there are likley suspects and even with some of them the evidence is nothing more than speculative.

As far as commercial interests are concerned I dont see you saying the same to Rob House for suggesting Kosminski is the prime suspect when clearly he is not and never will be.

I am not rubbishing any other suspect I am looking at the facts and the evidence as a profesional invesigator would and drawing my own conclusions. If you or anyone else chooses to dismiss those then that is your perogative.

I would ask that if you and others who seek to dimiss things so easily then perhaps you would all provide proper facts and evidence to support your own conclusions. I am sorry but it is not sufficient to keep saying it must be right because these police officers say so.

i can tell you that even in my appeal hearing Met Police witness were less than economical with the truth. Having spent all those years as a detective and know what goes on from the inside only corroboates my concerns over what these officers said and wrote 123 years ago. But of course Joe Public is more gullible and accepts without question what is said and written on the basis that they were police officers of high rank and were not capable of lying.

As far as feigenbaum is concerned I dont think for one minute that if he was involved in the murders he was responsible for all of them he could have been repsonsibe for one some or perhaps all.

Since I last reported on feigenbaum my investigation has moved on important new things have come to light from original documents which does not tell us who the killer was, but tells us who the killer wasnt

[Jonathan H]

Yes, I think we agree; all of the surviving material -- which is contradictory -- has to fit into an explanation/argument so that the 'contradictions' are actually shown/argued to be consistent.

[Phil H]

Jonathan

All we have to go on is the evidence, we may seek to stike a balance of probability in regards to how reliable it is, we can seek to interpret and draw judgements using arguments (weighting the various quotes and citations, for instance) or setting aside some evidence for the sake of argument. What is NOT an option, in my view, is to dismiss ANY OF IT. That would be bad practice.

All this arguing about which poster is right or wrong is a waste of time.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

I actually agree with you about Kosminski, Trevor, as I subscribe to the theory that he was a 'straw man' set up by Macnaghten to mislead Anderson -- almost too successful as it turned out.

But that is provisional opinion based on what little we have, and that is where we disagree.

Where I disagree with other people, like Phil H -- I think -- is that I do not subscribe to the paradigm that all the cops cancel each other out.

But, if you mount an argument as to why one cop, or cops, are more reliable than the rest then you have to explain why the rest disagreed.

[Phil H]

Trevor: Many of us simply believe that Kosminski cannot be ruled out as a suspect.

We are mature enough not to have the need to create and maintain some super-suspect above all others.

I recognise you have a commercial interest in rubbishing any suspect but your sailor, but that rather undermines your attempts to rubbish every other suspect, at least in my eyes.

As an historian I cannot just dismiss a suspect that is named by two senior police officials of the period and referred to by another. A suspect, whom Rob House has recently shown on good evidence, to have resided close to all the murder scenes. If what Anderson and Swanson wrote does not add up, then we cannot simply rationalise it away and discard it, there are many reasons why we may not understand it - evidence known to them but now gone, lost files that, if we had their contents would shed light on what the two men were saying, even that we interpret the words themselves in a way not intended by the writer.

I'm sorry Trevor, but your stridency falls on deaf ears here.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

To Trevor

Yes, that is one way of looking at it, but it is not the only way -- and arguably not the strongest argument either.

The head of CID at the time and the operational head of the case both, arguably, backed a suspect who was completely plausible: local, mad and obscure, as opposed to exotic, a V.I.P. or a candidate for a real life Dorian Gray or Dr Henry Jekyll.

That other significant police figures did not agree is because, arguably, they did not know about Aaron Kosminski, or 'Kosminski', because he was strongly suspected only after he was incarcerated -- which the first version of Anderson's memoirs can be interpreted as meaning. That the Polish Jew suspect was not known about in 1888, at all, hence the ignorance of Smith, Abberline, Reid, et. al.

Well this is where the viablity of Kosminki goes out of the window.

If he was looked on in the true light of being a suspect in 1889. Then there was and is no more evidence against him than there is against any of the other hundreds of persons who came to the notice of the police during the autumn of terror. those that walked into police station to confess they were the ripper those who names were put forward by members of the public.

I am sure that if the CID register equivelant to The Spccial Branch Register were still around today that would confirm that and if that be the case would we be saying that all of them were the ripper.

The fact is that there is nothing at all to connect Kosminski to the Whitechapel murders other than what was "Supposedly" written and that as evidence is not worth the paper that "whoever" wrote it is written on.

That Macnaghten, who did know about 'Kosminski', pushed -- hard and publicly --for an alternate and oppositional suspect; a real life gentleman-monster, can be explained by a long-standing, personal antipathy between Anderson and himself, and an overweening, even adolescent need, on Mac's part to solve the case himself -- to not be 'six months too late' for the most sensational nurder mystery of the century.

The marginalia is, arguably, a terrific primary source because Swanson did not have to please, or over-reach, or deceive, or cover for anybody; it was written entirely for himself and is therefore reliable.

Yes, there are large errors in both sources, but that can be explained by both the distance of time, and the acute frustration of both officers finding the murderer already 'safely caged' from them.

But those that champion Kosminski wil not accept those glaring errors in his suitabilty.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Hunter

One thing I disgree with is the notion that the Green River killer and 'Jack the Ripper' are comparable -- even though both involved a distance in time from the crimes and subsequent police certainty over the killer's identity.

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.

If Aaron Kosminski really was a Ripper suspect based on some kind of incriminating evidence -- and not a 'Trojan' suspect manufactured by Macnaghten to mislead -- then this terrible suspicion originated from within Kosminski's own family, his own people, who, paraphrasing Mac, suspected 'the worst'.