Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Phil Carter]

"It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed"

New research?

Yeah, cos we are conducting old research.

Whilst people here just talk, others are conducting their research quietly and without self promotion.

This 'new' research is already being conducted.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Are you accusing me of self promoting? If giving opinion and new ideas, guilty. I am not putting anything together to another cause, i.e. a book film or tv documentary. If that, not guilty. I, like you, gain nothing and ask for and expect nothing from this. As you quote from my posting, I can only see that it is me you accuse of the above. I don't give a monkey's for my fame nor infamy. Period.

It is Paul Begg who (amongst others) has constantly called for something new that is desperately needed. Even on this thread. I am in agreement with that particular comment.

And I include myself in those who conduct research quietly as well. Others do the same. Yourself included. You don't have to travel great distances to conduct personal research. Some do.

If we are still conducting old research, just exactly where do we stand at this KNOWN moment in time?
As well as the obvious research (Yes Mike, I saw the post and it is noted), I can see some, those de-bunking the old suspects one by one included in that old research. It isn't appreciated because wheels fall off wagons. And an intense dislike of that is being shown in some quarters. That gets turned into the "awful state of Ripperology" comment. Some people must be very worried indeed the genre will dry up if the famous three are de-bunked once and for all!

Maybe it is just as it is. It's a case of some people seeing that the rubbish we've been served up for years, that ensures this genre never changes unless by the "almighty say so" of the "qualified" few is going out of the window. Shame. Just because it hasn't been challenged before by many, doesn't mean it can be pooh poohed away.

Times have changed Monty. One has to move with the times, like it or not. Blinkers off. That has to be accepted, however much we like it or not. It means that the impression of losing control, whether real or nay, of what is said publically and isn't is now gone.
NOBODY runs this genre, even though a few THINK they do. The internet has given very very many people the chance to research. Only a few are able (like youirself) to be places where things are kept. That's fortunate..but it isn't a level above anyone else trying to find answers to questions. It's an advantage, yes, but not a level above.And if Mr X the unknown researcher is getting access to documents you or Rob or John or X or Y or Z aren't, then brilliant. The MORE people with access to things the better. It's not a closed society.

As regards the new research, yes, we all look forward to seeing it. It would be interesting to see how much of this new research is based on new and hitherto unknown official (police or Home Office) documentation. I am only aware of your and Rob's research into a photograph of graffito of some sort, not that any of your research based upon official police or Home Officedocuments.? My apologies if it is, of course. But then, we aren't told so we don't know. If one is going to say that New research is ongoing, then without giving details, it would be great to know if that includes official paper documentation hitherto unseen and unknown. Is it of great quantity?
What would happen if Mr X suddenly started researching into the same stuff?
What if Mr X published before you? What if he announced here on Casebook the details? Is that wrong? What if he published as he found, instead of waiting for everything? Is that wrong?

Look, I have no beef with you or anyone else researching on the ground, as it were. But until something is produced, we are where we are. Commenting on what we have.

There are many many reasons why the Swanson Marginalia and End paper annotations should only be a curious bit of family memory...at best. Don't blame people like me for questioning its reliability and honesty.. Blame people like Donald McCormick for pulling the wool over people's eyes for years and years. Blame Stephen Knight. Blame Joseph Gorman. Blame the Diary inventors. Blame YOUR and my predecessors. People had the gall to attack Melvin Harris for exposing the rubbish going on.

THEY and they alone have caused the suspicion situation. And remember whilst you are doing it that in the case of the elder statesman McCormick, nice guy and gentleman that he may have been, and others, meticulously planned to deliberately fool people AND make money out of them. The past IS being revealed Monty. And the names of some are not sitting pretty. As you are a dedicated member of this genre I'm absolutely positive you welcome the de-bunking of myth and hoax, game players and hoaxers. But would you do it if those people were known to you personally? Would you dare confront them and say, "confess publically or I will?" Melvin Harris did.

Today it doesn't wash. No matter how careful tracks are covered. There are far too many people who are experts in other fields to reveal untoward hogwash. Woe betide the person who tries it I say. I may not be around to see it in some cases, but someone will be.

All everyone wants is to wipe the slate of hoaxes, cons, games, leg-pulls etc to be wiped clean. Then we can forgive and get on with the real search... for the truth, if it is possible to reach. But whilst old pieces of rubbish still stand around, it just hinders. Hence the clear out.

This is just an opinion. It isn't personal. It doesn't libel, it doesn't slander. It just says it as it is..and whether it is liked or not, doesn't bother me one iota. It isn't a PERSONAL BASH AT A PERSONALITY EITHER, which has been going on throughout this thread. But then for some, that's all part of the fun, isnt it?

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

That's a coincidence.

I too have a new article in the pipeline.

Old Ripperology may be about to have a stake plunged through its heart.

Watch this space.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

This theory would explain why no other police figure knew about the positive identification -- an impossibility

Hi Jonathan,

With respect, the fact that no other police figure wrote about such an identification is not the same as no other police figure knowing about it.

Regards, Bridewell.

[mklhawley]

In my opinion, no. It would actually do the one thing that I happen agree with a certain writer on here, for different reasons about. It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed. It is needed because the Kosminski/Tumblety/Druitt lines are all dried up and stale.

Hey, not yet!

I have a couple new articles coming up, and with new material!

Mike

[Bridewell]

If There Was One

If as you say the intended audience would have known why did none of those members of the audience speak out at the time or in later years?

The deafening silence and the absence of written corroboration suggests there was no audience.

Hi Trevor,

I did say "the intended audience (if there was one)".

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

"It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed"

New research?

Yeah, cos we are conducting old research.

Whilst people here just talk, others are conducting their research quietly and without self promotion.

This 'new' research is already being conducted.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

The original question was why no mention of the first name "Aaron" in the marginalia and or end page annotations.

We actually don't know. All is speculative.
To even suggest that D.S.Swanson KNEW the first name is speculative. Why? Because we do not know that Swanson had ever dealt with or come across, one "Aaron Kosminski". We have no evidence that he had ever seen the name nor known of it, as there is no official documentary police evidence in existence to tell us that Swanson saw the name. The only possible document is the MacNagthen Memoranda, which, although dated 1894, is not officially stamped, and seems to be private notes written on headed police paper, showing especially many errors of fact, and dated long after Swanson was at the "epicentre" of the enquiries. It's reliability has been questioned on this basis as well as others. (Do please excuse and bear with me Jonathan)

The Swanson marginalia and end page annotations present their own problems of proof as well. (as have been listed in previous posts and threads)
So given all of the above problems, together with the fact that we do not know why Swanson made the notes in the first place, the reasoning surrounding why "Aaron" isn't mentioned in them because a rather futile exercise in speculation. We cannot assume, either way, in any way.

I have a feeling the only reason some comment on here is in order to keep a game going. I have a feeling some...well... they know full well that the question of the Swanson marginalia is dubious, and that at best other interests lie at the nature of the continuation of argument.

Because I believe that some people here are worried what would happen if Kosminski, the suspect, is put to bed once and for all. And if that house of cards came down, what of Druitt? What of Tumblety?
What indeed would happen to Ripperology if these 3 "suspects" disappeared off the radar?

Would the life blood of Ripperology be taken away? Would it affect the books, films, tv programmes? Would it have any effect on conferences? Ripper tours? Would it, in actual fact, strangulate the essence of this genre?

In my opinion, no. It would actually do the one thing that I happen agree with a certain writer on here, for different reasons about. It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed. It is needed because the Kosminski/Tumblety/Druitt lines are all dried up and stale. Even Jonathan's excellent reasoning (thanks for bearing with me Jonathan) for Druitt's inclusion has a limit that cannot be proven nor even expanded upon without more documentary evidence from somewhere.

The deleting of the famous three from the Ripperological suspect list may even cause the truth to be found. Because it hasn't been found so far and on the basis of the material we have been speculating about until now, nothing at present will present the truth either.

"Aaron" Kosminski is somewhat of a misnomer. A bit like Druitt being a "doctor". A bit like Tumblety being arrested under suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. A bit like "Jack the Ripper" didn't exist before a newspaperman invented his name. A bit like all the top policemen having differing views on the subject, without any real uniformity.

"Aaron" wasn't in the marginalia/end paper because it wasn't written in it.
Whoever wrote either piece, whenever or however. That, as a certain writer once said, is "The bloody truth".
Just my opinion.


best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Good morning Trevor,



Let me help you out here, Trev.

The poster claiming Anderson and Swanson suffered brain cramps is Jonathan Hainsworth, a confirmed Druittist. In his version those two were simply addled nitwits being spoonfed mush by that eversharp cookie Melville Macnaghten.

(Jonathan I know you're sound asleep Down Under, but when you awake, please take no offense)

Roy

ps yes thank you Cadet Brett

Roy
Thank you
But I think I made my point in the first instance

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Trevor,

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Let me help you out here, Trev.

The poster claiming Anderson and Swanson suffered brain cramps is Jonathan Hainsworth, a confirmed Druittist. In his version those two were simply addled nitwits being spoonfed mush by that eversharp cookie Melville Macnaghten.

(Jonathan I know you're sound asleep Down Under, but when you awake, please take no offense)

Roy

ps yes thank you Cadet Brett

[Trevor Marriott]

Like Littlechild.

Even someone with a fading memory couldnt have got so many things wrong .

But we will leave the topic of Tumblety to another day !!!!

[Trevor Marriott]

Really? How interesting. Who, precisely, has said that either man suffered from a neurological disorder which affected their memory?

That is what you were suggesting when we were discussing the handwriting,

[S.Brett]

To Jonathan (Thanks for your answer)

Lawende stated (according to Swanson/MET):

"...appearance of a sailor."

Lawende? stated (according to Major Smith/City Police):

"...dressed in something like navy serge"

Yes, Lawende was probably the witness, who was called several times.

Tom Sadler/ Frances Coles:

´"Probably the only trustworthy description of the assassin", having seen him with a woman at the corner of the passage leading from Duke Street to Mitre Square on the night of Eddowes's murder.´

William Grant Granger/ Alice Graham:

"A story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7 May 1895, which reported that Grainger had been unhesitatingly identified by the one person whom the police believe saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found."

1891: Seaman Sadler + Lawende= Seaside Home?
1895: Granger + Lawende= "unhesitatingly identified"?

Anderson:

"...I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"

Anderson mixed up "Kosminski" with the cases of Sadler a n d Granger?

By the way:

Anderson:

"Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum."

Macnaghten about "Kosminski":

"He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889."

Swanson:

"...and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead."

They believed... believe he still is detained... believed that he died in an asylum... believed... a man who is now dead... they believe in 1889, in 1891, in 1895...

They believed... but they did not know what the City Police knew...

[PaulB]

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Really? How interesting. Who, precisely, has said that either man suffered from a neurological disorder which affected their memory?

[mklhawley]

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Yet none of the officers with nothing to gain and no hidden agendas who say the police didnt not have a clue appear to have ben quite normal with all of this faculties in later years with no memory impairments.

Its simply another cop out excuse the same as is the one whereby the missing,lost or stolen files keeps being used, and I think more and more people are now starting to believe that be the case.

Like Littlechild.

[Trevor Marriott]

To S. Brett

Yes. that's possible.

But let me offer you this for consideration.

Joseph Lawende, a Jewish witness, was used to assess Tom Sadler as the Ripper, and this is the 'confrontation' being misremembered by Anderson and Swanson (or the latter is quietly repeating the former's muddled opinion -- never to be shown to anybody, not even his family).

Lawende had seen a Gentile sailor and Sadler was a Gentile sailor.

Disappointingly this Jewish witness witness said 'no', just a few days after Aaron Kosminski went into permanent incarceration in an asylum -- which is when Anderson first said the 'confrontation' took place (in the 1910 magazine version).

That's too big a coincidence for Stewart P. Evans and Don Rumbelow, and for me too.

But if a fading, yet egocentric memory substitutes and eliminates Tom Sadler for 'Kosminski' then there is nagging loose end for the deteriorating nuerons: sailor: dressed like a sailor. A gentile sailor at that.

So, the mind shuffles the deck and out comes 'Seaside Home' as the [unlikely] location of the 'confrontation' arguably taking care of that loose end.

Feb-March 1891

- Aaron Kosminski permanently incarcerated.
- Jewish witness says no
- Jack the Seaman suspect not charged.

Becomes:

Late 1888-early 1889?

- Seaside Home location.
- Jewish witness says yes and then no.
- Suspect 'Kosminski' not charged and permanently incarcerated.

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Yet none of the officers with nothing to gain and no hidden agendas who say the police didnt not have a clue appear to have ben quite normal with all of this faculties in later years with no memory impairments.

Its simply another cop out excuse the same as is the one whereby the missing,lost or stolen files keeps being used, and I think more and more people are now starting to believe that be the case.