New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

Hello Robert,

See above

best wishes

Phil

[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

[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

[Fisherman]

Rob House (to John Bennett):

"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?"

Ugh, Rob - I think you are oversimplifying matters here rather badly. Plus I am not sure that you are taking height for the fact that this must be a question in two levels, if you like.

I would not agree that, even if we find conclusive proof that Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski of Anderson fame, this should prove that he, as you put it, is a strong suspect.

Why would I? It would be foolhardy to do so. And why? Well,because even if we DO get the ID, we are still as much in the dark as ever about the reasons he was suspected. This is an almightily heavy parameter - in fact, the ONLY parameter that may guide us to true knowledge about the viability of the accusations against Kosminski!

I would agree that if we get the ID, then we know that he WAS a suspect. We also know that he probably was considered a good suspect, given Anderson´s and MacNaghtens interest in him. But that is all. STILL no evidence, knitting him to the crimes, remember? And without that, he cannot be a strong suspect. Plus, let´s keep in mind that in a case with no good suspects at all, the best one is still a bad one.

MacNaghten teaches us that Kosminski was roughly on par with Ostrog in his eyes; Ostrog, of whom we can say that whatever it was that once pointed HIS way, it was dead wrong. No evidence can have been there. At worst, there could have been allegations by somebody that Ostrog was the killer, that he had confessed in private or so on. Whatever it was, it got him into the memoranda, on par with Kosminski.

It therefore applies, that Kosminski also may have been tagged by the same weak pointers! This, I would say, must be beyond dispute - the evidence against Aaron Kosminski, accepting that he was THE Kosminski, may have been catastrophically weak, as we see things today. The ID process, if it took place the way most people think it did, was, in the end, a failure, we know that. Of course, Anderson tells us that it was a total success, but for the willingness of the witness to speak up in court. But there are such things as overenthusiasm, misinterpretations and a will to please people in high command. Combine this with the very clear errors aascribed to Kosminski after the ID process, and the very lack-lustre reactions of Littlechild, Smith, Abberline ... and I say that claiming that a positive ID of Aaron as the Kosminski Anderson spoke of is anything but material enough to make him a strong suspect today.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

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

Just to continue disagreeing with John, while I'm in no real doubt that 'Kosminski' was Aaron Kozminski, and while I think that makes Aaron a historically important suspect, I don't think it makes him a strong one. Whatever exactly happened at the Seaside Home, there are still the opinions of all the other senior officers to contend with, including Macnaghten and his "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

[Fisherman]

Exactly so, Chris; his viability as a suspect is tied to the quality and amount of evidence there once was against him, and NOTHING ELSE!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Chris, you sum up my opinion perfectly. The problem is not knowing what led them to believe it. However, i do think that they did shows there was a reason.

There is more evidence against him than any modern suspect, because we know he was suspected at the time, by people who were in a position to be able to investigate him, right?

[John Bennett]

Chris, you sum up my opinion perfectly. The problem is not knowing what led them to believe it. However, i do think that they did shows there was a reason.

In the same way that many of these officials claimed the 'Dear Boss' letter was written by a journalist. Perhaps they had acces to information that we today do not.

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"There is more evidence against him than any modern suspect"

Not at all, Jenni. How could there be, given the fact that we know nothing about what evidence there was? Strange reasoning, to my mind, I must say. But I´ve seen it before, of course.

I would submit that in terms of circumstantial evidence, Charles Lechmere has Aaron Kosminski well and truly beaten! In his case, we CAN point to a number of things that are potentially very damning.

But that´s for another thread, of course, of course ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi John,
exactly, and they either couldnt do anything with the info (as implied in the Kosminski instance) or choose not to

Jenni