New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 -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

[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.

[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

[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 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

[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.

[John Bennett]

Hello John,

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


best wishes

Phil

Not sure I get you there, Phil!

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.