Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[S.Brett]

Hello Jonathan!

It seems to me the MET found (some days after the Kelly Murder) a man in an asylum. A man called "Kosminski". Maybe he was not the first time there. There and everywhere they called him only with his (former) surname. I could imagine, no one, neither family nor friends, would call such "Nobody", "Aaron". Rather people called him, "The crazy Jew" or "Kosminski" or "The mad Pole".

I suppose we cannot expect that people called (affectionately) "Dear Aaron" or "Mr. Kosminski"! To someone who was as "Jack the Ripper"? People laughed at Aaron Kosminski. As well as in December, 1889. They did not expect his "verbal skills". He had none. Aaron Kosminski had none, "Kosminski" had none and Jack the Ripper had none. No one of them had social skills.

I guess the MET had a Jewish witness. And I guess the City Police had a Jewish witness (Lawende) and a constable. In the first identification (that asylum) the MET witness said Yes, then No, however. A Yes, a No. No other proofs. "Kosminski" remained as a `Suspect`(Swanson). The City Police knew nothing about the first identification. The second identification took place at the Seaside Home. The Jewish (City Police) Witness said No! The constable said: I am not sure. He resembles the man I have seen. And for this reason the City Police watched "Kosminski". Later, the City Police ascertained facts.

Sagar:

"...a man, who, without a doubt, was the murderer"

Cox:

"Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes."

Years later:

Anderson found out ascertained facts (City Police) and added them to the identifications ("his" Jewish "Yes/No" witness and the Mitre Square PC).

Swanson wanted to find again, Kosminski. He found David Cohen. And Martin Fido found Swanson´s man.

But I think,this man was not "Kosminski".

[PaulB]

I have not the time to go back searching the many posts which have been going back and forth on this thread. So I will summarise what I have been led to beleive.

It is accepted by all that there are differences in some of swansons handwriting in the marginalia to the control samples which were supplied for comparison purposes.

These differences have been explained away by the examiners and others including yourself suggesting that age and the fact that swanson could have been suffering from a neurological disorder in later years which could have effected his handwriting.

My post was not written to include Anderson however he was obvioulsy suffering from "being liberal with the truth" syndrome for most of his police service and into his retirement as is well known.

As I have said before negate Andersons rambling in the book and bingo biq question mark over the marginalia and its contents.

The thing is you and i look at this mystery in two totally different ways you look at it from a historical perspective. I from an investigative perspective.

From an historical perspective, the historical facts surrounding this case should not always be taken as gospel and written in stone. What is written is there to be proved or disproved. As is the case with new stuff.

Take the bible which is supposed to be a historial document can the contents of the be proved or disproved the answer is no

Now take the documents and comments written and spoken by all protagonaists in the ripper case can we prove or disprove these beyond a reasonable doubt as being totally reliable and accurate. The answer is yes we can disprove some of these in some cases in others no so in the cases where we can disprove these historical facts the orginals relative to those should be devalued or should now be totally disregarded but they are not some people will just not let go no matter what is put before them they still cling to the old views and i have to ask why?

With regards to new theories and evidence can we prove or disprove some or all of the new stuff that has been introduced and suggest as being fact beyond a reasonable doubt the answer is yes we can. So the new stuff then becomes a modern day edition to historical facts of the case and should be acceptd by the old guard but they wil not accept them or even consider them..

Lets take the graffiti is there any evidence to show the killer wrote it- NO

Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO

Is there any evidence to show it relates to the murder _NO

can it proved that it had not been written day before it was found -NO

Does anyone know the meaning of the graffiti-NO

Now to me that should negate it totally from this mystery. Yet there are some researches who still suggest it has some connection. Yet offer nothing in support of their weak views.

Lets look at Aaron Kosminski as another example with what we know

Was Aaron ever arrested for an offence of violence- NO

Was he ever known to mix with prostitutes-NO

Was he ever arrested as a suspect for the murders NO

was he ever seen with any of the victims- NO

was he ever seen at or near to the crime scenes at the times of the murders _No

Did any of the witnesses decsribe anyone as young as 25 -NO

Going back the The MM why was Cutbush named ? because of the incident with the knife which led to his arrest- totally unconnected MO to the Ripper. Yet someone decided to categorise him as a likley suspect because of this

Why was Kosminski named ? could it have been with regards to the incident involving his sister and a knife, again that MO totally different MO to the ripper.
Again if this was the reason Aaron Kosminsko wrong catergorised as a ripper suspect, and MM soon realsied that fact and exonerated him. BUt know some want to keep him alive as a viable and prime suspect.

With what is known of him he does not fit into the catergory of likely or prime suspect. and as has been suggested should be taken off the list,

In my opinion there is a serious doubt about the contents of the marginalia and a serious doubt about Andersons motive behind the entry in his book. Until such time it can be conclusivley proved that Anderson was truthful and the marginalia is totally authentic, I will continue to challenge those that stand by Anderson and the marginalia.

Trevor,
You seriously misrepresented something I said and therefore you should make the time to search through the posts to find out why.

There is much I could say about what else you have written, not the least about the historicity of the Bible, but let's just look at two things to see how they reflect your application of logic.

Lets take the graffiti is there any evidence to show the killer wrote it- NO
Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO
Is there any evidence to show it relates to the murder _NO
can it proved that it had not been written day before it was found -NO
Does anyone know the meaning of the graffiti-NO

Now to me that should negate it totally from this mystery. Yet there are some researches who still suggest it has some connection. Yet offer nothing in support of their weak views.

Okay, 'Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO'. So, there is no evidence who wrote the graffiti, therefore it follows that you don't know whether it was written by the murderer or not. So, here's piece of writing that the murderer could have written, yet you discard that evidence because you can't prove he did. That's not just appalling history, Trevor, that's appalling detective practice as well. And unfortnetaly it is the sort of faulty reasoning that permeates almost every assessment of the evidence you make.

Lets look at Aaron Kosminski as another example with what we know

Was Aaron ever arrested for an offence of violence- NO
Was he ever known to mix with prostitutes-NO
Was he ever arrested as a suspect for the murders NO
was he ever seen with any of the victims- NO
was he ever seen at or near to the crime scenes at the times of the murders _No
Did any of the witnesses decsribe anyone as young as 25 -NO

In this example you ask a question, then answer it when you in fact don’t know the answer. You have not got the remotest idea whether Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested for a violent offence, so why do you answer ‘no’. Did he ever mix with prostitutes? You don’t know whether he did or not. You don’t know the answer to any of those questions, yet you are answering them with the answer you want.

So what’s going on here? Well, you are posing a series of questions, you have little or no evidence on which to base an answer to those questions, so you provide a purely subjective answer (an answer that suites your preconceived ideas and conclusions), and then you base your action on that. Thus, you ‘negate it (the graffiti) totally from this mystery’, but the graffiti was real, it existed, it was there, and you have absolutely no evidence at all that it wasn’t written by the murderer!

Do you have any idea how much of the past would be erased if your approach was taken?

Do yu have the slightest comprehension of how ludicrous - and utterly wrong - your reasoning (to use the word lightly) is here?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
You seriously misrepresented something I said and therefore you should make the time to search through the posts to find out why.

There is much I could say about what else you have written, not the least about the historicity of the Bible, but let's just look at two things to see how they reflect your application of logic.



Okay, 'Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO'. So, there is no evidence who wrote the graffiti, therefore it follows that you don't know whether it was written by the murderer or not. So, here's piece of writing that the murderer could have written, yet you discard that evidence because you can't prove he did. That's not just appalling history, Trevor, that's appalling detective practice as well. And unfortnetaly it is the sort of faulty reasoning that permeates almost every assessment of the evidence you make.

Please dont insult my ability to assess and evaluate evidence i have been doing that for 40 years and still do that to this very day in many recent serious criminal cases. It is yours that is questionable

According to you logic every piece of graffiti on every piece of wall in Whitechapel was potentially written by the killer, thats how your logic pans out. So if the words "Kilroy was the killer" was found on a wall in whitechapel would be looking for a suspect called Kilroy just because it appears on a wall. NO ! but with your logic you probabaly would be.


In this example you ask a question, then answer it when you in fact don’t know the answer. You have not got the remotest idea whether Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested for a violent offence, so why do you answer ‘no’. Did he ever mix with prostitutes? You don’t know whether he did or not. You don’t know the answer to any of those questions, yet you are answering them with the answer you want.

There is nothing to show he was ! i can only answer with the right answer

All of your negative answers are based on all this rubbish about files being lost stolen or detsroyed, thats wearing thin now.

You keep going on about my evidence where is yours to prove all of these old outdated theories you cling to

So what’s going on here? Well, you are posing a series of questions, you have little or no evidence on which to base an answer to those questions, so you provide a purely subjective answer (an answer that suites your preconceived ideas and conclusions), and then you base your action on that. Thus, you ‘negate it (the graffiti) totally from this mystery’, but the graffiti was real, it existed, it was there, and you have absolutely no evidence at all that it wasn’t written by the murderer!

Thats true but nor do you to suggest it was. So why say it was when clearly there is nothing to suggest it was. This is you favourite trick on here playing with words.

These are not all my ideas anyone with a modicule of common sense would come to the same conclusions, not sit on the fence as you do waiting for someone to post something which goes against your beliefs and then you swoop to destroy well you may have destroyed many in the past but I can tell you now you wont detsroy me.

Do you have any idea how much of the past would be erased if your approach was taken?

Well if some of the past can be disproved lets get rid of it and move on.

Do yu have the slightest comprehension of how ludicrous - and utterly wrong - your reasoning (to use the word lightly) is here?

My reasoning is logical it is your thats incomprehensible

Its time to erase some of the past because it does no tstand up to close scrutiny

The way you think would put every man ever arrested and documented in Whitechapel for carrying a knife hitting a prostitute etc etc as a ripper suspect.
If there is a list of suspects by varying methods they are elimanted, but by your your logic everyone stays a suspect despite being eliminated. Some have to fall of the radar at some point.

Go sit in a dark room and firmly get a grip on all of this because you are in your own little world.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
You seriously misrepresented something I said and therefore you should make the time to search through the posts to find out why.

There is much I could say about what else you have written, not the least about the historicity of the Bible, but let's just look at two things to see how they reflect your application of logic.



Okay, 'Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO'. So, there is no evidence who wrote the graffiti, therefore it follows that you don't know whether it was written by the murderer or not. So, here's piece of writing that the murderer could have written, yet you discard that evidence because you can't prove he did. That's not just appalling history, Trevor, that's appalling detective practice as well. And unfortnetaly it is the sort of faulty reasoning that permeates almost every assessment of the evidence you make.



In this example you ask a question, then answer it when you in fact don’t know the answer. You have not got the remotest idea whether Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested for a violent offence, so why do you answer ‘no’. Did he ever mix with prostitutes? You don’t know whether he did or not. You don’t know the answer to any of those questions, yet you are answering them with the answer you want.

So what’s going on here? Well, you are posing a series of questions, you have little or no evidence on which to base an answer to those questions, so you provide a purely subjective answer (an answer that suites your preconceived ideas and conclusions), and then you base your action on that. Thus, you ‘negate it (the graffiti) totally from this mystery’, but the graffiti was real, it existed, it was there, and you have absolutely no evidence at all that it wasn’t written by the murderer!

Do you have any idea how much of the past would be erased if your approach was taken?

Do yu have the slightest comprehension of how ludicrous - and utterly wrong - your reasoning (to use the word lightly) is here?

I have a couple of questions to ask if you be so kind as to answer

1. When were you first made aware of the existence of the marginalia ?

2. When did you first view the original marginalia ?

[Supe]

Trev,

2. When did you first view the original marginalia ?

Is that a "wife beating" question? That is, what do you mean by "original marginalia"? Are you suggesting that the marginalia was altered after Paul first saw it? Or simply sloppy writing on your part?

Don.

[PaulB]

My reasoning is logical it is your thats incomprehensible

Its time to erase some of the past because it does no tstand up to close scrutiny

The way you think would put every man ever arrested and documented in Whitechapel for carrying a knife hitting a prostitute etc etc as a ripper suspect.
If there is a list of suspects by varying methods they are elimanted, but by your your logic everyone stays a suspect despite being eliminated. Some have to fall of the radar at some point.

Go sit in a dark room and firmly get a grip on all of this because you are in your own little world.

Sorry, Trevor, but instead of resorting to the personal comments, why don't you answer the specific points. If you really, really believe you can say 'is there any evidence that Jack the Ripper wrote the graffiti' and answer it 'no' and dispose of the graffiti as if it doesn't exist, despite the fact that there is no evidence that anyone else in the whole world wrote it either, then explain why.

That's all you have to do. Defend your specific argument. Leave all the 'go sit in a dark room' rubbish in your playpen and justify your argument. Come on, Trevor, come and play in the big boy's world where you need a little bit more than hackneyed one-liners and meaningless platitudes.

[PaulB]

I have a couple of questions to ask if you be so kind as to answer

1. When were you first made aware of the existence of the marginalia ?

2. When did you first view the original marginalia ?

1987 and probably 1988/89, if by 'original' you mean the actual marginalia.

Why?

[PaulB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
Trevor,
You seriously misrepresented something I said and therefore you should make the time to search through the posts to find out why.

There is much I could say about what else you have written, not the least about the historicity of the Bible, but let's just look at two things to see how they reflect your application of logic.



Okay, 'Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO'. So, there is no evidence who wrote the graffiti, therefore it follows that you don't know whether it was written by the murderer or not. So, here's piece of writing that the murderer could have written, yet you discard that evidence because you can't prove he did. That's not just appalling history, Trevor, that's appalling detective practice as well. And unfortnetaly it is the sort of faulty reasoning that permeates almost every assessment of the evidence you make.

Please dont insult my ability to assess and evaluate evidence i have been doing that for 40 years and still do that to this very day in many recent serious criminal cases. It is yours that is questionable


That's scary.

Trevor, there is no evidence, no evidence at all, to show who wrote the graffiti. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So you can't say the murderer did not write it. You just can't. No matter how much you'd like to. If you think otherwise, explain why.

According to you logic every piece of graffiti on every piece of wall in Whitechapel was potentially written by the killer, thats how your logic pans out. So if the words "Kilroy was the killer" was found on a wall in whitechapel would be looking for a suspect called Kilroy just because it appears on a wall. NO ! but with your logic you probabaly would be.

That's being silly and sad. The Goulston Street writing was found just above or close to a piece of apron identified as without doubt having belonged to Catherine Eddowes. Setting aside what seems generally agreed to be your very highly unlikely notion that Eddowes used a portion of her only apron in the world as a sanitary towel and disposed of it where it was found herself, it is highly probable that her murderer dropped it there himself. So, the apron came from Eddowes, the murderer was at that location and probably dropped it where it was found. That distinguishes the Goulston Street writing from every other piece of graffiti in Whitechapel, the world, and the universe. So, now go ahead and please explain to me how you work out that according to my logic any piece of graffiti could have been written by the murderer?

In this example you ask a question, then answer it when you in fact don’t know the answer. You have not got the remotest idea whether Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested for a violent offence, so why do you answer ‘no’. Did he ever mix with prostitutes? You don’t know whether he did or not. You don’t know the answer to any of those questions, yet you are answering them with the answer you want.

There is nothing to show he was ! i can only answer with the right answer


There is nothing to show that he associated prostitutes. There is nothing to show that he didn't have wild parties with them every night of the week. You can't answer the question either way. So you don't have the right answer.

All of your negative answers are based on all this rubbish about files being lost stolen or detsroyed, thats wearing thin now.

Okay, let's sort this out now. I am not saying that anything was contained in any missing files. Do you understand that? I'll repeat it: I am NOT saying that anything was contained in any missing file. Okay? YOU are the one saying that stuff wasn't contained in the missing files. Do you follow me: YOU ARE SAYING THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE MISSING FILES. You are talking through your backside. You don't know what was in or was not in the missing files. You don't know. You therefore can't say. And there were files which have gone missing. A lot of them. So the only thing tat's wearing thin is you trotting out the old rubbish.

You keep going on about my evidence where is yours to prove all of these old outdated theories you cling to

I don't cling to any old, outdated theories. None. Not a one. It suites your twisted world view to think I do, to invest anyone with ideas contrary to your own with bias or a personal agenda. That saves you from having to counter their specific arguments. But you're the one who argued that we should flush the graffiti, I'm just asking that you present a cogent and reasonable argument rather than pose your own question and answer session.

You know, it's really easy. All you have to do is state the evidence on which you know that the murderer didn't write the graffiti.

So what’s going on here? Well, you are posing a series of questions, you have little or no evidence on which to base an answer to those questions, so you provide a purely subjective answer (an answer that suites your preconceived ideas and conclusions), and then you base your action on that. Thus, you ‘negate it (the graffiti) totally from this mystery’, but the graffiti was real, it existed, it was there, and you have absolutely no evidence at all that it wasn’t written by the murderer!

Thats true but nor do you to suggest it was. So why say it was when clearly there is nothing to suggest it was. This is you favourite trick on here playing with words.

There's no trick or word play, Trevor. What there is (or rather, what there isn't) is no evidence to say who wrote the graffiti. None at all. Therefore you can't say who wrote it. Neither can I. The difference is, I am not saying who wrote it or didn't write it. You are. The onus is therefore on you to prove it - with evidence, not because it's what you feel in your water.

These are not all my ideas anyone with a modicule of common sense would come to the same conclusions, not sit on the fence as you do waiting for someone to post something which goes against your beliefs and then you swoop to destroy well you may have destroyed many in the past but I can tell you now you wont detsroy me.

There you go again. No answer, so you switch into the old 'he's buased' routine. Sad. It doesn't alter the fact that you have no idea about who wrote the graffii.

Do you have any idea how much of the past would be erased if your approach was taken?

Well if some of the past can be disproved lets get rid of it and move on.

Sad.

Do yu have the slightest comprehension of how ludicrous - and utterly wrong - your reasoning (to use the word lightly) is here?

[The Good Michael]

Are you suggesting that the marginalia was altered after Paul first saw it? Or simply sloppy writing on your part?

Don,

Rhetorical?

Mike

[PaulB]

Don,

Rhetorical?

Mike

[Bridewell]

Feigenbaum

The way you think would put every man ever arrested and documented in Whitechapel for carrying a knife hitting a prostitute etc etc as a ripper suspect.

All those suspects and no Feigenbaum!

(Sorry, Trevor. Couldn't resist it).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

All those suspects and no Feigenbaum!

(Sorry, Trevor. Couldn't resist it).

Regards, Bridewell.

Dont be sorry you lost me ! As far as Feigenabum is concerned he is more of a viable suspect than any of the others to date, But whether he killed one some or all of the victims cannot be conclusively proved.

Not even a mention either of Magrath,Obrien, or Churchill who are mentioned in official files as suspects. No one give a rats arse about considering them.Its as Phil Carter suggests the wagon keeps rolling driven by certain reserachers who have their reputations to protect and have no choice other than to cling to outdates theories.

Mr Begg is far to intent in preserving his vested interest in Kosminski and has been since the 1980`s right through to till now.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, Trevor, but instead of resorting to the personal comments, why don't you answer the specific points. If you really, really believe you can say 'is there any evidence that Jack the Ripper wrote the graffiti' and answer it 'no' and dispose of the graffiti as if it doesn't exist, despite the fact that there is no evidence that anyone else in the whole world wrote it either, then explain why.

In reation to the graffiti you argue that there is no evidence to show JTR didnt write the graffiti, well if you want to look at in that way so be it but what evidence was there in the first place which led the police belive it to have been written by the killer- NONE. did anyone in 1888 state catergorically that it was connected to the murder, because no one could interpret it then and hasnt to this day.

So therefore if there was none to start off with and nothing has come to light in the ensuing years one can draw an inference that it was not written by the killer or connected to the murders.

That's all you have to do. Defend your specific argument. Leave all the 'go sit in a dark room' rubbish in your playpen and justify your argument. Come on, Trevor, come and play in the big boy's world where you need a little bit more than hackneyed one-liners and meaningless platitudes.

I am in the big boys world and it is a real world not the fairy tale land you seem to be languishing in.

[Trevor Marriott]

1987 and probably 1988/89, if by 'original' you mean the actual marginalia.

Why?

and it took you 12 months to get a look at it thats unlike you to wait so long when you latch onto something new you are normally like a ferret up a drainpipe to get a look at whatever it is, why the long delay ?

Yes i do mean the actual marginalia

[Bridewell]

Feigenbaum

Dont be sorry you lost me ! As far as Feigenabum is concerned he is more of a viable suspect than any of the others to date.

"Feigenabum" (?!) was never (as far as I know) "arrested and documented in Whitechapel" & so wouldn't have made it into Paul's enormously long list of suspects!

In fairness, he is at least a proven killer, so he's ahead of most (including Kosminski) in that respect at least.

Regards, Bridewell.