New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[John Bennett]

Hi John,

Fair enough. But what if it could be shown, beyond a doubt, that Aaron was the right Kozminski? Then would you accept that Aaron is a strong suspect in the case? I assume you would.

Rob

Yes I would. And it would be a landmark day for Ripperology should that proof arise!

JB

[Phil H]

Phil C - I have no intention of responding to your hypocritically provocactive text.

IMHO there is no doubt that the marginalia are genuine - at least as far as any historical document can be declared such.

Phil H

[PaulB]

I am just raising issues.

Unfortunately you are raising issues which have been raised before. Many times. And which have been answered, not least in Adam and Keith's article.

[robhouse]

I -personally- cannot say that with such conviction. Swanson and Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' MAY be Aaron Kozminski, but I still see too many uncertainties that prevent me from saying that they are one and the same. Sure, there are exciting examples of a syncronisation of circumstances, but then there are others where they're not so good.

But like you say, this is probably fit for a different thread, though it certainly doesn't have any bearing on my opinion of the authenticity of DSS notes.

Hi John,

Fair enough. But what if it could be shown, beyond a doubt, that Aaron was the right Kozminski? Then would you accept that Aaron is a strong suspect in the case? I assume you would.

Rob

[John Bennett]

I have to disagree about that. More evidence on either question is going to be very difficult to find, but on what we have already I think there can be very little doubt that Swanson's and Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' is Aaron Kozminski.

I -personally- cannot say that with such conviction. Swanson and Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' MAY be Aaron Kozminski, but I still see too many uncertainties that prevent me from saying that they are one and the same. Sure, there are exciting examples of a syncronisation of circumstances, but then there are others where they're not so good.

But like you say, this is probably fit for a different thread, though it certainly doesn't have any bearing on my opinion of the authenticity of DSS notes.

[robhouse]

I have to disagree about that. More evidence on either question is going to be very difficult to find, but on what we have already I think there can be very little doubt that Swanson's and Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' is Aaron Kozminski. I think that question probably deserves its own thread, but I hesitate to start one.

I agree with this in principle also. Of course, I am all in favor of finding more evidence that solidifies the argument that Aaron is the "right Kozminski." However, in my opinion, there is already sufficient evidence to show that he is the right Kozminski, with near certainty. Not 100% certainty, but near certainty.

My hesitation is that I can see this becoming the next wild goose-chase, a la proving that the marginalia is not forged.

Of course I commend Adam for his excellent work in proving, beyond a doubt, that the marginalia is authentic. However, I think it is safe to say that the majority of sane people never really questioned its authenticity in the first place. I do not think that we should be given our marching orders, research-wise, by people on the fringe, who are... shall we say... unreasonably opposed to Aaron Kozminski as a valid suspect in the case.

Rob H

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"With respect, there is that small preface to what Lechmere wrote which you have omitted and which I have italicised: "Obviously these thoughts will not be popular, but in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked." The implication is that asking sceptical questions "will not be popular"; well, with whom?"

Hmm. I did not read it that way at all. I think that "these thoughts" refer to the specific thoughts Lechmere expressed on matters relating to the Swanson marginalia, and not to a generalized scepticism as such - he knows very well that others have been sceptical, historically, I should think.

"Sceptical questions have been asked endlessly since the marginalia first came to public light."

Yes, I am aware of that! And a good thing too, I would say, since scepticism is a very useful tool. And I am not confusing it with implicating foul play with no substantiation, since that is not scepticism at all - that is slander. So letīs keep the two apart!

"To suggest that asking sceptical questions won't be popular, as if there is some body of people opposed to the asking of such questions, is a nonsense."

I really canīt say how true or untrue this is - but I CAN say that I donīt think, as I just stated, that the wording should be regarded as a rough generalization, but instead something that relates to the particular details Lechmere wrote about in relation to the marginalia.
But of course, to make totally sure what he meant, you must ask him. I am only trying to show you what made me make my comment.

"It is equally a nonsense for someone to suppose that those sceptical questions haven't already been asked - and, as Chris says, answered - many times."

Mmm. And as you will appreciate, I donīt think that was what Lechmere was doing. He would - as stated before - be quite well aware of the efforts made on behalf of both sides in the conflict.

"I really don't mind people being sceptical and expressing their scepticism. It is only right and proper that they do."

Exactly.

"But this idea that expressing scepticism will be unpopular in certain unspecified quarters is about as silly as it gets."

Not really. It can get a lot sillier. But I see what you mean, of course, and generally speaking I donīt disagree. That is not to say that one can never make a good guess in advance about who will agree with your posts and who will criticize them. But that is another thing - itīs as it should be. And fair and useful criticism is a much called for commodity, a good thing, whereas "popularity" is an awkward thing. I have often had it pointed out to me that some of my views are impopular in the sense that people do not agree with me, and I am not very fond of anybody who believes that such a thing is a pointer towards or away from veracity.

I know Edward (Lechmere) rather well, and I donīt think that you need to worry that he is unable to make the self same distinction. On the contrary.

Hope Iīve managed to clarify my own stance, at any rate!

The best,
Fisherman

You have clarified both his and your stance very well.

Whilst not leveling this at either Lechmere or yourself, it is nevertheless true that certain posters have sought to justify advancing silly ideas by claiming it to be legitimate scepticism.

[Chris]

The other way around because Aaron Kosminski has been accused of being the Whitechapel murderer.

One other thing. Who has accused Aaron Kozminski of being the Whitechapel murderer? To do that would be as unreasonable as insisting he was never a suspect.

[Chris]

I think what needs to happen (to resolve this particular long debate) is to find solid evidence that 'Kosminski' was the Ripper. Then get solid evidence that Aaron Kosminski is 'Kosminski'. At the moment, there are only tantalisingly interesting leads and awkward dead-ends for the latter. But that's why they are worth following up.

I have to disagree about that. More evidence on either question is going to be very difficult to find, but on what we have already I think there can be very little doubt that Swanson's and Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' is Aaron Kozminski. I think that question probably deserves its own thread, but I hesitate to start one.

[Phil Carter]

I think what needs to happen is to find solid evidence that 'Kosminski' was the Ripper. Then get solid evidence that Aaron Kosminski is 'Kosminski'. At the moment, there are only tantalising leads and awkward dead-ends for the latter.

Hello John,

THANK YOU!

Hallelulah!..Personally I look the other way around but yes.. good enough for me John. The other way around because Aaron Kosminski has been accused of being the Whitechapel murderer. And a murderer besides. Without any evidence of involvement.
A man is innocent until shown to be guilty. Aaron Kosminski was and has not been shown to be involved in anything connected to these crimes.. Ipso facto.. it is wrong to call him a murderer, especialy label him with being the Whitechapel murderer.
But I accept your way around.. No problem.
Prove Kosminski was a murderer?... That will be fun.

best wishes

Phil

[John Bennett]

There is NO evidence against Aaron Kosminski in any way shape or form. Sadly, some peopkle have already labelled aaron Kosminski. John, as the Whitechapel murderer.

I think what needs to happen (to resolve this particular long debate) is to find solid evidence that 'Kosminski' was the Ripper. Then get solid evidence that Aaron Kosminski is 'Kosminski'. At the moment, there are only tantalisingly interesting leads and awkward dead-ends for the latter. But that's why they are worth following up.

[robhouse]

Hello John,



AT LAST!!!!!!! COMMON SENSE!!!!

This is EXACTLY what I have been saying for years.

There is NO evidence against Aaron Kosminski in any way shape or form. Sadly, some peopkle have already labelled aaron Kosminski. John, as the Whitechapel murderer.

Bit premature without a single connection to the murders, eh? that's AARON Kosminski. No policeman ever mentioned him. Period.

I rule OUT Aaron Kosminski UNTIL any document with AARON Kosminski turns up. Which is what we should all do. It is morally wrong to blame an officially unamed man for murder.

Sickert too. PAV too.

My mind would rather bend towards Frank Lampard's family antecedants from the 1880's.

best wishes

Phil

I think it is safe to say that you have misinterpreted what John meant.

RH

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Close to the end of my Roper

Lechmere did write "I am afraid that I am reminded of Hugh Trevor Roper", so he made it pretty clear what he was suggesting.

I missed that amongst all the raving. Thank you Chris.

To save people a Google search he was one of the scholars that "authenticated" the Hitler Diaries. He wasn't alone; it was the scientists that proved them forgeries. But I digress.

So who is supposed to be playing the role of Roper here, Lechmere? Who has "reminded" you of him? Let's drag this into the light for purposes of disinfection. There aren't that many potential candidates. Roper wasn't a scientist so you can't be making a reference to document examiners.

[Phil Carter]

Hello John,

Sometimes I think that people who are prepared to hold fire and not rule out 'Kosminski' as a potential Ripper get confused with those who think Aaron is the man. Patience!

AT LAST!!!!!!! COMMON SENSE!!!!

This is EXACTLY what I have been saying for years.

There is NO evidence against Aaron Kosminski in any way shape or form. Sadly, some peopkle have already labelled aaron Kosminski. John, as the Whitechapel murderer.

Bit premature without a single connection to the murders, eh? that's AARON Kosminski. No policeman ever mentioned him. Period.

I rule OUT Aaron Kosminski UNTIL any document with AARON Kosminski turns up. Which is what we should all do. It is morally wrong to blame an officially unamed man for murder.

Sickert too. PAV too.

My mind would rather bend towards Frank Lampard's family antecedants from the 1880's.

best wishes

Phil

[John Bennett]

As I see it, the marginalia are genuine, written by DSS, not necessarily all at the same time, but written by him nonetheless.

The problem here is that the name Kosminski has been mentioned. It points to a specific individual, mentioned by others, as the murderer. What I think is important is, if we judge the marginalia to be written by Swanson, then the focus should be to look for evidence of the ID parade, a definitive location for the Seaside Home, anything that leads us to the identity of the 'City PC in Mitre Square' (even if it wasn't a City Pc but somebody else) and the discovery of a Kosminski or similar name who is a better candidate than Aaron.

I am not a 'Kosminski-ite', but I do appreciate that the claims of 3 senior officers have weight. The naming of Kosminski as the murderer should not make us jump in and say 'whoopee it's solved', it should make us work to find out WHY he was named, even if it turns out in the end that he had nothing to do with the Whitechapel Murders.

Sometimes I think that people who are prepared to hold fire and not rule out 'Kosminski' as a potential Ripper get confused with those who think Aaron is the man. Patience!

JB