New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Chris]

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 think in fairness he should explain how he thinks the marginalia could have been faked, in view of all the evidence presented in the comprehensive article by Adam and Keith. How could anyone have written in 1981 about Kosminski living in his brother's house and being sent to the workhouse and then to Colney Hatch? Is it supposed to have been a lucky guess? The fruit of secret archival research? Or is the draft News of the World article also supposed to be a fake? Or what?

[Chris]

If any such actions have taken place here - and I have not said they have, i have merely raised a number of issues (which clearly have made some people uncomfortable), then I have no idea who would be responsible.

I'm afraid that is simply an insult to the intelligence.

[Lechmere]

I am sure if I applied myself for a few hours I Could present a scenario as to how potentially the material could be faked.
However that again is putting the cart before the horse.

This is potentially similar to the Hitler Diaries , where the shear quantity of material fooled the most eminent historian in his field - as he wanted to believe. I am not saying it is the same. Nor do I know who would have forged the material - why should I know?
I am just raising issues.
Some of the answers to these issues have raised other issues in my mind which I will address when I am at my computer and not using an IPhone!
Some of the arguments put forward in response to my questions have also been childishly simplistic.

[Chris]

I am sure if I applied myself for a few hours I Could present a scenario as to how potentially the material could be faked.

No doubt you could present any number. I presented some myself above. But they were completely incredible.

As for not knowing who would have forged the material, we can all see who your innuendo was directed at. It's equally obvious why you didn't say it in so many words.

[Monty]

Chris,

Edward has admitted he isn't informed on the subject, and is therefore passing ill informed comments.

An excuse? Of course not however that is now the nature of the beast.

Shoot your mouth off before you find out what exactly you are on about.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Actually Monty I suggested no such thing - you are one of the arch exponents of the childish remark.

And why should I be unwilling to name names? Libel? Can you libel the dead?
The attitude that the authenticity of the marginalia cannot be questioned as it might imply dishonesty on the part of some one or a group of people should be regarded as no more than an attempt to silence the questioning of the legitimacy of documents.

In my opinion the article that is the subject of this thread raised a number of issues that invited clarification.
The denunciations here just demonstrate a weak attitude towards the testing of documents and can be taken as a tacit admition that the marginalia has indeed been accepted too readily.

For the record I think it is likely on the balance of probabilities that the marginalia is genuine - yet that is far from suggesting that there are not legitimate questions which should be addressed.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

"The drip feed of documents will - or should - generate sensible scepticism."

"Only to those like you - or the unlamentedly absent Mr Marriott - who have a personal axe to grind and do NOT WANT to accept the material."

Firstly, "those like you" is not a very nice thing to say to anyone... and you are one who has been on these boards long enough to know that such personal comments are unworthy of you.. like you have told others in the past. Therefore.. a reminder to look in the mirror.

"or the unlamentedly absent Mr Marriott".. really does speak volumes for much of the respect you actually have for people. You insult their name KNOWING they cannot reply. Poor form Phil H, poor form, imho.

"who have a personal axe to grind and do NOT WANT to accept the material."

I do hope you have personal evidence that these two comments are facts? From Mr. Marriott himself? He has mentioned or written that he has a personal axe to grind? He has told you that he does not want to accept the material has he?

I would bet you are actually wrong on both counts, but I'm not going to speak for the man himself. From my dealings with him, which have been lengthy and a great deal more than you I'd wager, I heard of no "personal axe" and as far as "accepting material" the comment is vague in the first part, and undefined in the second.

And now you can add another poster to the list of people you will ignore in future, for actually daring to speak up for Trevor Marriott... Me.

Poor form Phil H...and I regard you as having both tremendous knowledge and intelligence. My apologies. I am disappointed.

Not that it will mean s*d all to you though... or?...Surprise us.


best wishes

Phil

[Lechmere]

Sorry duPlicates post

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.