New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"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."

That is no doubt true. I am just grateful if I am not sorted in under that particular banner myself!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Ruling out Kosminski is as bad as ruling him in.

HelloPaul,

Agreed.

Ruling out Aaron Kosminski isn't as bad.. because there isn't any evidence the man was even involved in the crimes. And involvement or connection to, is normally something the police note..with a name. And noted that he may have been questioned in connection with..even after the fact in biographical reminiscences.

Now I must away, my apologies.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil -what are you saying here? What or whom is being ordered?

Hello Robert,

See above

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

I think he is referring to the "Kosminski was the suspect" line in the marginalia which appeared to arrive on cue for the 1988 anniversary and publication of Martin's book

Hello Nemo,

You know something.. I actually hadn't thought of that. See above for the correct answer though.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

I case you were wondering... there is no forthcoming revelation along these lines. Not from me anyway.

hello Rob,

See above.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Not sure I get you there, Phil!

Hello John,

Just so you get it from the horses mouth, and not from amateur guesswork of armchair psychologists..

I nearly wrote Abracadabra...it was a fun line..all sweet and innocent. Please ignore all other attempts at reading into something that isn't-

I repeat --It was a fun line..all sweet and innocent.

Hope that makes my position clear to you

best wishes

Phil

[Nemo]

I think he is referring to the "Kosminski was the suspect" line in the marginalia which appeared to arrive on cue for the 1988 anniversary and publication of Martin's book

[Monty]

Not sure I get you there, Phil!

Phil is $hit stirring John,

He is insinuating that there is more 'evidence' out there.

He will deny it and either ask me to prove that's what he meant or retract it.

Then he will state I'm a $hit stirrer and go running to admin.

That's pretty much how it works, so I thought I'd save the need for endless posts.

Monty

[robhouse]

Hello John,

And low and behold......as if ordered...

Phil,

I case you were wondering... there is no forthcoming revelation along these lines. Not from me anyway.

[Phil H]

I think - at least judging by his recent posts - Phil C long ago left the land of the sensible, logical or practical where Kosminski is concerned. Sadly.

Historical scepticism is fine, but surely has to be rooted in something, not just vague beliefs that some source might be false.

In medieval studies, where ANT evidence is rare, historians mamage to deal with charters that no longer exist in the their original form, only copies, and where many of those were contemporary forgeries. But discussion is not vague, it is based on clear sighted internal evidence, textual criticism and wider historical "facts" such as whether witnesses/signatories are creible, known to have been alive or in the area at the time etc.

Those criticising the marginalia, appear to me neither to conform to method (they don't have any) but seem to act in accord with a concealed agenda. Fo that reason their comments should be ignored, unless or until they can show a concrete rationale for the marginalia being untrustworthy. So far, visibly, they have failed to do that.

Phil H

Phil H

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Hello John,

And low and behold......as if ordered...


best wishes

Phil

Phil -what are you saying here? What or whom is being ordered?

[PaulB]

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 you, Chris. Obviously it would be great if someone produced more information, but if they don't then we have what we have and we must do the best we can with it.

[John Bennett]

Hello John,

And low and behold......as if ordered...


best wishes

Phil

Not sure I get you there, Phil!

[PaulB]

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

Ruling out Kosminski is as bad as ruling him in.

[Phil Carter]

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

JB

Hello John,

And low and behold......as if ordered...


best wishes

Phil