Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

Right...

I took it up with the current owner months ago and the letter I got back stated what I have posted and it still hasnt been done and you talk to me about agendas

Right, well I'm afraid that there is nothing that I can do about that. I think we are back to your attitude when making your demand 'months ago'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Challenge

...
If you want I will issue a public challenge (not a demand) here and now for them to publish the Aberconway version in its entirety for all to see. In order that the world of Ripperology can read it and make up their own minds whether there is anyhting of interest, or anyhting which effects or changes what is currently known from The MM of 1894. But I am sure it will fall on deaf ears or we will get the same lame duck excuse blame it on Trevor.

I really don't want anything Trevor. But you must do what you feel you have to do. If you are issuing a challenge, then to whom are you issuing it? Have you approached them privately? None of my business I know, but I'm just trying to help. If it was mine to show I'd show you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, surely that is something that you would have to take up with the current owner, or have you?

Well I might be wrong, but as far as I am concerned the relevant parts are already in the public domain and have been for some time now. I know of no 'gods'. Everyone is capable of making errors. Do you mean to say that there are those who don't make errors?

I took it up with the current owner months ago and the letter I got back stated what I have posted and it still hasnt been done and you talk to me about agendas

[Stewart P Evans]

The 'net

I have been involved in Ripper research for fifty years. It has changed irrevocably since the advent of the 'net. And not entirely for the better.

[Stewart P Evans]

Relevant Parts

And the current owner asked that it be published on the world wide web and it hasnt now if thats not being out of order tell me what is.
You keep going on about relevant parts I think people would like to see it in its entirety, after all their might be a little gem in there which has been missed after all even gods are prone to errors but getting them to admit is another thing.

Well, surely that is something that you would have to take up with the current owner, or have you?

Well I might be wrong, but as far as I am concerned the relevant parts are already in the public domain and have been for some time now. I know of no 'gods'. Everyone is capable of making errors. Do you mean to say that there are those who don't make errors?

[Stewart P Evans]

I have no doubt...

Hi Stewart,
"The fact that the report ended up archived at Scotland Yard, and is on official embossed stock, indicates its nature and that it was information asked for by the Commissioner."
If Bradford had requested the "confidential" Macnaghten Report, it is reasonable to suggest that four years later he would have been more than a little dismayed to learn that part of its content had been leaked to Major Griffiths.
Unless they had some sort of death wish, neither Macnaghten or [if Littlechild was right] Anderson would have been sufficiently foolhardy to risk leaking "confidential" material from a known source which had previously been read by the Commissioner. Griffiths' material had to remain unattributable, which is why I believe the Macnaghten Report was never seen by Bradford, nor even commissioned by him.
Forget conspiracy theories. How do you explain the document's survival in such a bureaucratically-unmarked condition?
Regards,
Simon

I have no doubt that the report is marked 'Confidential' (it would be confidential anyway as an internal police document) merely to reinforce the fact that it contained named persons as suspects against whom no evidence had been adduced.

If Anderson or Macnaghten provided a highly respected crime author with information they probably obtained the nod from the Commissioner first, with the caveat that no names were used. No names were used.

There is no need to 'explain the document's survival in such a bureaucratically-unmarked condition', that is how I would expect it to be.

It was an internal memo from one very senior police officer (the Chief Constable of the CID) to the Commissioner himself. It remained in New Scotland Yard. So just what 'bureaucratic markings' would you expect it to carry?

[Trevor Marriott]

No one has any obligation to publish anything. The book containing Swanson's annotations is private property. The report on the annotations is also private. You already know the relevant parts of the report.

The 'Aberconway version' is private property. The photocopies of the 'Aberconway version' are also private property. All relevant parts of the 'Aberconway version' have already been published. The whole thing would have been posted on here some time ago if you hadn't upset those who were in a position to do so. I think they call that 'sh*tting on your chips'.

And the current owner asked that it be published on the world wide web and it hasnt now if thats not being out of order tell me what is.

You keep going on about relevant parts I think people would like to see it in its entirety, after all their might be a little gem in there which has been missed after all even gods are prone to errors but getting them to admit is another thing.

If you want I will issue a public challenge (not a demand) here and now for them to publish the Aberconway version in its entirety for all to see. In order that the world of Ripperology can read it and make up their own minds whether there is anyhting of interest, or anyhting which effects or changes what is currently known from The MM of 1894. But I am sure it will fall on deaf ears or we will get the same lame duck excuse blame it on Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then don't use innuendo or suggestion.

You may cast doubt as much as you like, but is anyone taking any notice of you? Non-specific doubts couched in innuendo don't really count for much. People like to see substance.

Well you would be suprised, and give it a rest what I have done its wearing thin now its a lame duck excuse

If you have any "substance" squirreled away then bring it on.

Hmmmmmmm the gods dont like to be challenged

[Stewart P Evans]

Obligation

...
...
I know what some of it says but to satisfy my mind I would like to see and read it in full. After all over the years i have commisoned mnay foresnsic tests and reda as many again report so for that reason i would like to asses and evaluate the report in full. Its the same with the Aberconway version I now gather you are going to conside publishing it in full in the A_Z that all well and good if you are going to publish it as it is and not write the contents up.

No one has any obligation to publish anything. The book containing Swanson's annotations is private property. The report on the annotations is also private. You already know the relevant parts of the report.

The 'Aberconway version' is private property. The photocopies of the 'Aberconway version' are also private property. All relevant parts of the 'Aberconway version' have already been published. The whole thing would have been posted on here some time ago if you hadn't upset those who were in a position to do so. I think they call that 'sh*tting on your chips'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Cartel?

Not just down to me some of the people concerned were from outside the cartel. People who I had very liitle to do with, all taking their orders from the inner sanctum of the cartel as to what to do.
...

What cartel? There is no cartel. Ergo, it follows, there also cannot be an 'inner sanctum of the cartel'.

[Stewart P Evans]

There you go again...

...
My doubt about this and other issues will never be allayed but thats a good thing it comes with years of having to deal with people who are inclined to be less than liberal with the truth and in many cases people who deliberatly lie to suit their own agenda. So I have retained that drive and enthusiasm to seek the truth and to prove or disprove the facts. But one thing is for sure I will not be silenced or intimidated

There you go again, casting aspersions (albeit nebulous ones). Or are you quoting an example and you don't mean at all that anyone on these boards is being 'less than liberal with the truth' or 'deliberately lying to suit their own agenda'?

It is a noble aim to seek the truth, but what truth are you seeking? You are not being too clear about what you want. Drive and enthusiasm are to be applauded. I am sure that you couldn't be 'silenced or intimidated', as far as I can tell no one has tried to silence or intimidate you.

[Stewart P Evans]

Doubt

I am not going to explain again my comments and posts relative to the authenticity of the marginalia. If your beady eyes missed it before go back and read the posts. I said what I said then and the persons concerned read and digested my comments and replied accordingly, and then made their decsions. Fine end of story but that still doesnt stop me or anyone else from casting a doubt,
...

Then don't use innuendo or suggestion.

You may cast doubt as much as you like, but is anyone taking any notice of you? Non-specific doubts couched in innuendo don't really count for much. People like to see substance.

[lynn cates]

qua si

Hello Greg.

"My personal belief is that Jack (if he existed) . . . ."

Why, it's as if you could read my mind.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Garry,

Yes, an excellent post. Somewhere someone has to draw a line. If not, at present, this will go on and on and on.. and it gets us nowhere.

It is my view that we can not get any more out of this by looking at it as we have. Kosminski has been discussed heavily for so long now. We all know there is no evidence against the MM3. We can turn it around, upside down.. but that is the bottom line. As Stewart has stated...No evidence.

As regards the difference between a serious suspect and a suspect... well how far does one go before one draws a line between the two?
What criteria would be used to define a "serious suspect"?


kindly


Phil

[GregBaron]

Mental Illness or Personality Disorder?

Hi all,

I have no business in this thread but I’m throwing caution to the wind. The following point is directed mainly go Garry Wroe who I believe is a professional in this field (Psychology). His opinion (and others) would be most welcome.

Rob House’s book makes a compelling case for the schizophrenic serial killer. He discusses something called co-morbidity (I think) which indicates that a person could be both a psychopath and a schizophrenic. He mentions lust murderers who are prone to mutilation and he names individuals who fall into these categories. The implication, I believe, is that someone like Koz may have been a psychopath who was relatively lucid at the young age of 23 and was able to plan and commit the crimes but shortly thereafter the schizophrenia kicked in full force rendering him less and less capable of anything really. Lucid periods would then come and go (like when he was walking the dog maybe?) until eventually the degeneration we see evidenced at Colney Hatch would come to the fore.

I may not have explained this very well and if Rob was around I’m sure he could do a better job but hopefully you somewhat get the point.

I’m wondering what you, Garry, and others think of this idea. My personal belief is that Jack (if he existed) was probably a psychopath more in the Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy mold but I may be dead wrong.

Even though this may appear a thread derailment I think it pertinent to the idea of the ‘Plausibility of Kozminski’.

Greg