Who Do The Marginalia Not Name The Witness?

[robhouse]

"You're right; all the arguably far-out stuff is at the end -- in a different pencil."

No, that is not correct.

RH

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh dear

Then my suspicions are correct...casebook has finally been taken over by ripperologist's in burka's

I will continue to fight a rear guard action for the remaining ripperologists actually interested in words like FACT, as no evidence has been presented as to the non-authenticity of the Marginalia, which all sane human beings except is genuine..

I've actually spent time with the maginalia and photographed it in HD and UV...it is genuine

very sad that ripperologists have sunk to this level..I spurn them

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

Jeff, I 'm not a 'Ripperologist'?

I'm just debating a point with another researcher on a subject of mutual interest.

Rob House

Simply making an assertion 'That is not correct' is not a counter-argument.

For example, how about I reply -- yes it is correct.

[robhouse]

No it is not correct.

All the "far-out stuff" at the end is written in the same color pencil as all the marginalia on page 138, including all the underlinings, with the sole exception of the paragraph at the bottom of pg 138, which is in a different color pencil. So the paragraph at the bottom of 138 was written first, then at some later time, all the other marginalia on that page AND on the endpaper was added, almost certainly in one sitting (as evidenced by the words "continuing from pg 138")

RH

[Beowulf]

I posted an entry on the Time Travel thread last night and chose to dine with Donald Sutherland Swanson, because I wanted to know more about the "Seaside Home" incident and the circumstances giving rise to his marginalia.

Is there really a 'time travel thread' where one can dine with individuals from 1888, because if there is I want to dine with Jack.

He's rather interesting, want to get his take. However, I will not be ordering steak and kidney pie.

[Supe]

Beowulf,

I want to dine with Jack.

Ah, but if Aaron Kosminski actually was Jack then that might mean dining on bread crusts from the gutter. Still game?

Don.

[Jonathan H]

Yep, ok, according to you the pencil is the same.

I thought Stewart Evans had noticed something different, but memory plays tricks on all of us.

But what about the content?

This is also Simon's point, as I understand it.

That the reference below and to the side, to a conscience-stricken sectarian and no 'Jack' murders taking place after his sectioning make sense as an annotation from Anderson's text (both versions) and no doubt private conversations between men who were chums (and Anderson and/Swanson are wrong anyhow as Coles was murdered and treated by them as a likely 'Jack' murder).

But that the memory-flailing part begins on the end-paper, as it includes details that Anderson -- in the paltry extant record -- did not include, and therefore may show fading synapses?

Accurate bits mixed in with the inaccurate: a brother-guardian, City surveillence, Colney Hatch, his timely demise, his single surname with no others.

How odd to call him a 'suspect' when the emphatic annotation is all about his practically confessing, in a very cartoonish pantomime.

Almost as if the writer's mind has canceled out the previous 'evidence' and reverted to the duller 'suspect' designation

And may have used the same type of pencil.

For me it is an awfully big coincidence that a Jewish witness was used for two 'confrontations' with seamen suspects -- one of whom he allegedly affirmed to -- and much later we see introduced the element of the police hospital which has a sea-element to its name.

I feel that if Anderson and/Swanson remebred that Lawende saw Jack the Seaman then this Seaside Home mirage would disappear.

On the other hand, the biog. of his dad by Anderson's son mentions the Polish Jewish susepct being deceased. Also the Seaside Home being built in 1890 could be unconscious recognbition that Aaron Kosminski was out and about for years after the Kelly murder?

[Beowulf]

Beowulf,

I want to dine with Jack.

Ah, but if Aaron Kosminski actually was Jack then that might mean dining on bread crusts from the gutter. Still game?

Don.

uhmmm....maybe I'll just have a little tea:

[Supe]

Beowulf,

uhmmm....maybe I'll just have a little tea:

A wise choice.

Don.

[Beowulf]

...Aaron Kosminski was out and about for years after the Kelly murder?

I'm not saying that I absolutely believe Kosminski was JTR, but it is my understanding that he was not exactly 'out and about'. In April 1894 he was transferred to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles, where he stayed until his death in 1919.

[Jonathan H]

To Beowulf

Sorry, I expressed myself clumsily.

I meant that Anderson and Swanson give the impression in a number of sources that the Polish Jew suspect, eg. the definitive Ripper, was safely caged (and even more safely dead) soon after the Kelly murder.

'Aberconway', let's say written in 1894, shows that Mac knows he is alive -- which he was.

In George Sims' 'Lloyds Weekly' opus 'Who was Jack the Ripper?' he specifically dismisses the notion of a positive witness identification and makes the following comment which matches the real Aaron Kosminski (remembering that Sims is a Mac source-by-proxy) about being out and about for some significant length of time after the Kelly murder:

'The first man was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall. This man was in the district during the whole period covered by the Whitechapel murders, and soon after they ceased certain facts came to light which showed that it was quite possible that he might have been the Ripper. He had at one time been employed in a hospital in Poland. He was known to be a lunatic at the time of the murders, and some-time afterwards he betrayed such undoubted signs of homicidal mania that he was sent to a lunatic asylum.'

'The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder.'

Both these men were capable of the Ripper crimes, but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.

'They [referring to the un-named 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog] were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men.'

Emphases mine

[Hunter]

Doesn't do much for Martin Fido's Cohen theory... does it?

[Scott Nelson]

It doesn't have anything to do with Martin Fido's Cohen theory.