Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

Simon
Whether or not Anderson's beliefs suited him to the job, they are relevant to any attempt to assess him.

I didn't say he was steered wrong. Since we don't fully know the evidence on which he based his conclusions, we can't assess the probability of them being right or wrong. I therefore don't know whether he was right or wrong. Neither do you.

But when I and others question all of this you go on the defensive. For once I agree we cannot for certain say. However in trying to get to the truth we have to way up all the facts for both sides of the arguments. It then becomes a case of the balance of probablity and which argument carries the most weight and tips the scales.

When those scales are tipped firmly against your beleifs you should at least be prepared to take the blinkers off and consider the other side of the argument not as you do now flatly dismiss these.

[Trevor Marriott]

Would you care to explain what you mean?

No, I don't feel I am fighting a losing battle. What I feel is that you have an agenda which has nothing to do with the truth. It's all to do with getting a name for yourself by adopting a highly controversial stance, be it claiming that Eddowes used her apron as a sanitary towel to challenging the authenticity of the marginalia, and there is consequently no point in arguing with you because you're not interested in the truth. Your agenda is simply to argue, to be talked about.

I simply asked you to explain the comments you have made twice on here regarding the exoneration of Kosminski as described by MM.

You suggest the marginalia is an important part of this mystery well I would suggest that the MM is far more important because its where the name Kosminski first appears. Remove the the name Kosminski as a suspect from that document and it weakens any further claims that Kosminski could have been the ripper.

As far as accepting that the word exonerates appears and is a direct reference to the name Kossminski you have suggesetd that MM is writing that Kosmniski is not the ripper but cannot be ruled out as a suspect.

You wont comment on the fact that Anderson makes no mention of any suspect or any ID procedure until his book is published in 1910.

You wont comment on the fact that many other senior officers and officers on the ground make no mention of the ripper being identified.

Both of the above are ascertained facts and should not be dismissed and must add weight to the suggestion that Anderson either made it up or was confused.

My agenda is to seek the truth if that includes destroying and burying the myths theories and pie in the sky suggestions made by you and others then so be it.

As to getting a name Monty has already given me one and I quite like it, could catch on "Marriott the Messiah"

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil,

I agree re evidentially correct ID procedure. However, if you knew that your suspect (whoever it was) was stark raving bonkers, to the extent that he would never stand trial, there would only be a need to confirm the identity of the offender, not to adhere to protocol. Have we got the right man?

Regards, Bridewell.

Another point I missed in my earlier reply if the police were simply doing it for recognition purposes why not simply show the witness a photograph of the suspect.

[PaulB]

Just to cannibalize my own previous post for a moment:

Historically speaking, of course, there is quite a lot left: the senior police administrator and the operational head of the case, both competent, highly regarded, and honest men, advocated this suspect as the best, as a near certainty, and they did so both publicly and prvately; both with other people and when entirely alone.

That's quite something which some here do not fully absorb: an annotation that is just for one set of eyes. It's like over-hearing somebody thinking.

The Swanson Marginalia is a tremendous primary source because, arguably, it shows that Swanson in private did not have a different opinion from the one provided to the public by Anderson, as often public figures can or must have

Which is why some people challenge its authenticity! The understandable difficulty for most people is that the story is implausible, as so many stories are when we only have a very limited knowledge of the facts, which leaves us having to accept that, as improbable though it is, it is what the source believed. What then happens, of course, is that people question whether or not the source actually did believe it - so it is suggested that the source was mistaken or confused or lied. Or, in extreme cases, it is argued that the source isn't authentic. We can see all that in action on these pages. So, the marginalia isn't authentic, but if the marginalia is authentic then Swanson isn't an independent sources because he was only repeating what Anderson told him, and if he was only repeating what Anderson told him then Anderson was mistaken or lying or confused or can't be trusted or was anti-Semitic or was anything you can think of that makes him utterly untrustworthy.

The same can happen with Macnaghten. The core of his story is the 'private information', but let's discount that as rubbish, the fanciful imaginings of an over-wrought family member, a nasty piece of slander by a homophobic minor MP, and Macnaghten was a red-nosed boozy buffoon who never bothered to check any of the 'facts' and just blithely accepted Druitt's guilt because he wanted to claim having 'caught' Jack when his hated boss couldn't, or because he keenly felt the criticism of the Yard, or he wanted a little something to help sell his book...

As you know, it is not uncommon to have sources which tell us stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and it is understandably difficult to just stand back and admit we have no explanations for it, and that's especially tough when somebody has an agenda which requires that obstacles like Anderson and Swanson and Macnaghten be removed.

[Jonathan H]

Just to cannibalize my own previous post for a moment:

Historically speaking, of course, there is quite a lot left: the senior police administrator and the operational head of the case, both competent, highly regarded, and honest men, advocated this suspect as the best, as a near certainty, and they did so both publicly and prvately; both with other people and when entirely alone.

That's quite something which some here do not fully absorb: an annotation that is just for one set of eyes. It's like over-hearing somebody thinking.

The Swanson Marginalia is a tremendous primary source because, arguably, it shows that Swanson in private did not have a different opinion from the one provided to the public by Anderson, as often public figures can or must have

[PaulB]

Perhaps you would care to explain whereby you keep saying Kosminski was dismissed as being the ripper but in the next breath you infer that he remained a suspect. That is totally illogical if he is eliminated as being the ripper how can he remain a suspect ?

Do you get the feeling that you are fighting a losing battle !

Would you care to explain what you mean?

No, I don't feel I am fighting a losing battle. What I feel is that you have an agenda which has nothing to do with the truth. It's all to do with getting a name for yourself by adopting a highly controversial stance, be it claiming that Eddowes used her apron as a sanitary towel to challenging the authenticity of the marginalia, and there is consequently no point in arguing with you because you're not interested in the truth. Your agenda is simply to argue, to be talked about.

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

No, that's too ambiguous for a lazy hill-billy like myself?

I meant that among the bits and pieces on 'Kosminski': eg. from the meagre hospital records, from Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, and Sims as a Mac source-by-proxy, then we have, arguably, a 'suspect' who lived in the area, may have been on some kind of police list in 1888 along with a lot of other possibles, and was permanently incarcerated after apparently threatening a female relation -- but only as late as Feb 1891!

So weak was this 'suspect' that for Macnaghten to convince his literary chums -- both true crime writers -- not only did he have to maintain the ruthless backdating of his incarceration to March 1889, but he also had to add that there was quite a reliable witness who maybe put 'Kosminski' with a victim.

And that the family 'suspecting the worst' (arguably Mac is borrowing details from Druitt: the family who 'suspected', and that the suspect was deceased) and so it originated with his nearest and dearest.

All to try and meet Macnaghten's 'awful glut' litmus test; that after the Kelly murder-horror this madman-suspect completely and incriminatingly fell apart, eg. was masturbating constantly and had to be sectioned forever.

But in the Edwardian Era, Macnaghten himself and via Sims strips back even these dodgy elements: 'Kosminski' was functioning for quite some time after Kelly, and he was certainly not deceased, and the witness saw nothing useful and nothing reliable.

If the 'Seaside Home' identification is not a literal event, and certainly Mac by implication rejected any such 'fairy tale' (Sims, 1910), then what is actually left according to this rigorous line of argument?

Aaron Kosminski lived in the area, he was mentally ill, and and he briefly wielded a knife -- but did not hurt anybody.

Historically speaking, of course, there is quite a lot left: the senior police administrator and the operational head of the case, both competent, highly regarded, and honest men, advocated this suspect as the best, as a near certainty, and they did so both publicly and prvately; both with other people and when entirely alone.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

Sir Robert Anderson's evangelical Christianity and high regard for the truth has little to do with anything. He was in the wrong profession to adhere to such principles.

I'm more interested in your "balance of probability" which makes him mistaken but at the same time telling the truth.

Who, or what, steered him wrong?

Regards,

Simon

Simon
Whether or not Anderson's beliefs suited him to the job, they are relevant to any attempt to assess him.

I didn't say he was steered wrong. Since we don't fully know the evidence on which he based his conclusions, we can't assess the probability of them being right or wrong. I therefore don't know whether he was right or wrong. Neither do you.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Jonathan,

... without the slam dunk witness what have you really got with 'Kosminski' ...??

You've got Melville Macnaghten.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

Farson, Cullen, and Rumbelow (of 1975) thought that Anderson must have meant Pizer because, among other factors, the retired police chief gives the sincere but misleading impression that the events about which he writes -- a Jewish suspect incarcerated; a Jewish witness who affirmed but declined; the murders over with Kelly -- happened either in late 1888 or early 1889.

We now know that Sims in 1910 lampooned this opinion as an anti-Semitic 'fairy tale', and that Macnaghten never corrected him in his public statements or writings (quite the opposite).

In Sims in 1907 the Polish Jewish suspect is so low down on the totem pole of suspects that Sims places him after a suicided English doctor and an American medical student! eg. there are 'two theories' at the Yard but the Polish Jew is merely a footnote to the first theory -- and a footnote easily brushed aside.

This is partly because the Polish Jew was not sectioned soon after the murders ended, yet the murders had ended (which is a Druitt-centric backdating, and not how the police acted over the McKenzie and Coles murders) and because he was out and about not hurting anybody. He was alive and functioning long after the Miller's Ct. carnage.

One of the reasons that Martin Fido rejected Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's suspect was because this Polish Jew was sectioned so late: in Feb 1891. Had he access to the Sims' piece of 1907, and Fido did not, he would have seen that this Mac crony agrees.

Yet the Swanson Marginalia confirms this mistaken impression by not only having 'Kosminski' sectioned soon after his identification, but dying 'soon after' and the 'Jack' murders ceasing. You would never know from either Anderon or Swanson that they are writing about events which must have taken place in 1891, or that Swanson thought Coles was probably a Jack murder too (and that he may have entertained a 'two hats' theory?). Sims, again in 1907, has the Polish Jew being targeted for investigation only after the murders had ended.

Nor would you know, unless you had access to other primary sources, that both policeman are completely wrong in believing 'Kosminski' to be deceased 'soon after' the cessation of the murders -- which is of course very satisfying timing (Anderson's son's biog. of his dad claims that his father believed that the Ripper was locked up and then expired).

Swanson also makes the annotation that the identity of the reporter who hoaxed the 'Dear Boss' letter was known to all the heads of the police (Macnaghten claims in 1914 that he identified the hoaxer).

But what was not known to all was that Aaron Kosminski was very much alive.

Yet Macnaghten knew this. At the very least 'Aberconway' and Sims, 1907, show us that he knew what his superior did not know, let alone Chief Inspector Swanson.

Was Mac keeping it from Anderson? After all, you don't bother to check up on a suspect who is not just 'safely caged but safely stone dead too.

A suspect about whom he has wrong the dating of his incarceration, March 1889, supposedly accidentally wrong, yet knows the tiny detail that he was chronically masturbating. And has a pious, reactionary chief who equates such 'solitary' (eg. harmless) vices' with the most degrading and sinful kind of brutish behaviour!

The perfect profile-deflection to feed the old man to shut him up.

You think that's an unlikely fantasy because both men were professionals and not corrupt?

It happens every day in every bureaucracy, all of them seething with internecine rivalry to varying degrees.

And the Ripper murders threatened reputations both above and below, both among the cops and for their political masters.

All Swanson has in 1910 is what he received from Anderson, and all he had what he received from Macnaghten, his confidential assistant who hated him. a confidential assistant who outranked him in class, and who knows two critical things about this suspect that he did not share: that he was alive and that he was sectioned too late to be the fiend who otherwise got better and just stopped killing random harlots.

Sometime heading towards 1910, I believe that Anderson became sincerely confused and mis-remembered Lawende affirming to 'Kosminski' rather than Sadler. He had never before mentioned that the critical evidence was an eye- witness who allegedly refused to testify.

I can appreciate why his fading memory did that: without the slam dunk witness what have you really got with 'Kosminski' ...??

I think that Mac via Sims denounced Anderson's 1910 re-jigged 'locked-up lunatic' solution as a fantasy, as a 'fairy tale', and in his 1914 memoirs he went out of his way to confirm that the Ripper was never 'detained' in a madhouse, and was an anti-Semitic Gentile. This is why, for the only time, Mac exploits the graffiti calling it no less than the 'only clue left behind by the murderer' -- to lock this polemic securely into place. According to Macnaghten in 1914, Anderson in 1910, by implication, didn't know what he was talking about. It's calling him a spinner of 'fairy tales' without using the blunt words.

The give-away in the Marginalia is the dependence on Macnaghten for the name, for the truncated name, the surname only: 'Kosminski' -- which the family mostly did not go by.

I think that Macnaghten knew that Ostrog could not be the Ripper, and he thought the same of Aaron Kosminski -- though the latter did not have quite as good an alibi -- and he dropped both from his memoirs for that reason, along with the 'American' suspect (a nutshell/fusion of Druitt's youth, Tumblety's unsavoury eccentricity, and the specimen hunter).

The Swanson Marginalia, quite innocently, repeats a bureaucratic subterfuge which had outlived its usefulness, and then it was revived, again innocently, by some modern sources who gave this 'suspect' an elevated status he never enjoyed in most of the primary sources.

[Phil Carter]

So many holes in this ID procedure,Andersons book and the marginalia.

Hello Trevor,

Is this where I am supposed to say "Amen" to the Messiah?
"You're not the Messiah,you're a very naughty boy!"


best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil,

I agree re evidentially correct ID procedure. However, if you knew that your suspect (whoever it was) was stark raving bonkers, to the extent that he would never stand trial, there would only be a need to confirm the identity of the offender, not to adhere to protocol. Have we got the right man?

Regards, Bridewell.

Oh Come on !

After this mythical ID procedure are you suggesting that they brought him back with his stick of rock and candy floss and said "thank you for helping us today and please dont go out and kill anyone else cos we will be watching you" and then calmy dropped him off at his brothers house.

As to the right man if this ever did take place the witness could only have been Schwartz and what did he see that would incriminate anyone -nothing.

You can rule out Lawende as he is relative to Eddowes murder which came under the City, and in that respect I have to ask why didnt the Met liaise with the city and take Lawende down there or for that matter take the suspect somewhere locally and conduct such a parade involving him.

Note nothing in any City files to suggest they had a suspect either or were made aware of this identification but of course these papers could have also been lost or stolen

But then Major Smith states they didnt have a clue as to the identity of the killer.

So many holes in this ID procedure,Andersons book and the marginalia.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

I agree re evidentially correct ID procedure. However, if you knew that your suspect (whoever it was) was stark raving bonkers, to the extent that he would never stand trial, there would only be a need to confirm the identity of the offender, not to adhere to protocol. Have we got the right man?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

Yes, but again, logic tells me that it is
1) far easier to transport one normal person to an designated place in London than
2)take a man who was "stark raving bonkers" 60 miles to the coast, to
3)an unnamed and unproven place, no doubt in the escort of various others.

There is no way on God's planet he would have
4)traveled alone...especially if he was regarded as "stark raving bonkers"..it defies logic that
5)nobody, ever, has known of this and passed it on, from a.n.other policeman accompanying this lunatic, to a possible attendant or doctor, to the people running the home to the people staying at the home, which, if the policeman's home, possibly contained both women and children. Then you have the identification itself, by
6)an unknown person, that although in a policeman's home wasn't
7)necessarily a policeman,
8)the details of which are scant,
9)the traveling back to London AFTER being identified as being Jack the Ripper are unrecorded, now the man is identified as the multi murdering killer of East End women, and by whom. Then you have the fact that this identified killer, who may or may not have been a raving lunatic,
10) wasn't locked up and incarcerated on that suspicion alone and was actually free to move around, albeit under possible (but even this isn't certain) survellance until it is then conveniently decided, not by the police but this killer's family that he is too dangerous to have aroiund.
All based on the known facts that this "bonkers" mad man had
11)no other police record other than walking a woof woof without a leash. It is only Anderson, whom dear old McCormick says by the way said " Sir Robert Anderson showed marked predjudices against the Jews and was convinced that the "Ripper" belonged to this community."...who says that the man had terrible vices... which just happen to fit in with public masturbation.
12)There isn't a scrap of solid evidence to back up any of this tale in this marginalia nor annotations.
13)We don't know the situation happened because there is no evidence for it to have happened.
14)We have no known official paperwork in any way shape or form in existance on Kosminski, and
15)there isn't a scrap of official paperwork proof he was actually a recorded ripper suspect at all.
16)There is suspicion about the differences in the writing styles and pencil use between the two sets of writings that cause concern too.
17)The man himself, Kosminski has very conveniently no first name to be fully identified, and even IF he had been given the name Aaron, Martin Fido found out and concluded he wasn't anything more than a harmless loony, which in 1988 would have stopped this thing in its tracks had a first name been there in the annotations. Which means if it was a con-job, then it was very convenient that Kosminski DIDNT have a first name.... if it was a con-job.
18) The use of the photocopy as a method of forensically examining the possible differences is almost silly,
19)the re presentation through the media a few years ago to help re promote the re-opening of the museum is bordering on the ridiculous in terms of getting attention because of the constant underlining of the certainty (sic) that this piece if writing is the be all and end all of the police thoughts on the matter (the police had control over the situation and that one man knew what was going on..Donald Swanson..even though nigh on all others didnt have a clue about it apparently), and then the constant barrage of use of this piece of material to bring out more and more stuff pointing to Kosminski as the killer in book and film form (especially the latter)...talk about milking the sacred cow!.....
20) An ID parade that on known procedures makes it a highly unlikely occurrance.

21) The argument against all the way through is.. "You can't prove it DIDNT happen! So ner ner ner ner nerrrr ner! Good grief.

There is way too much to show this is anything but a wrong-un. The only problem is that the person or persons who may know the truth about this whole business are either dead or keeping very very quiet. If the former, then its a no win situation that only people seeking fame and fortune can profit from, because there is nothing more to add to give it any credence, and it will keep the wagon going with one hell of a wobbly wheel on it... if not, if the latter, then we can only hope that at some point or another in the near future the truth is revealed. But being the total cynic that I am, I don't think any person alive, if in possession of knowledge to prove this wrong-un to be bunkem, has the insides or even guts to tell us all. Too much ego at stake somewhere, methinks.

That's why it's a wrong-un. That's why some of us are fed up with this nonsense.. and we think it's about time it stopped. We may have differing ideas as to why, but the goal is the same. Kosminski should have been left to rest in peace a long long time ago.

If ANY of the above "evidence " had been presented to show that Prince Albert Victor had been the Ripper by Stephen Knight or any other, Frank Spiering for example.. not ONE person would have believed a word of it and called it utter rubbish. Because what we are expected to believe has no basis in documentary fact..but THIS is presented by a RELATIVE of Swanson...so the stuff MUST be A1.. At it's best it is third hand heresay. If we found a note from Abberline saying the same thing about Chapman... all hell would break loose. Ditto Sickert, ditto Druitt, ditto ..,..So why is this being so closely defended......?

Shame I'm cynical. No I don't buy into fairytales. Fairytales that have s*d all to do with getting the truth out. It's just oiling wheels of an industry that has shown a quenching thirst and hungry to fool the public.

In all fairness to Monty, who has stated he has problems with the marginalia etc, it's a damned fair comment to make. Trying to get Monty to sway is hard at the best of times. So I respect his comments made here today.
Mine might not be respected, but Im not interested in that. All I see is many many reasons why the marginalia and annotations are just plain wrong in the form they are presented.

A wrong-un. Period. Skullduggery or nay. A wrong-un.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

monty

No, on both counts.

No on the first part, Anderson is clear as to why he wouldn't expand on the suspects name. It therefore stands to reason why he would not expand further other than religion, which is only given in regards to why the witness wouldn't give evidence against the suspect.

But his book publishers offered to pay the costs of any libel case brought against him for him to disclose the name.

And how do you account for the fact that between 1888-1910 he gave many press interviews in which he stated they didnt have a clue as to who the killer was.Then bingo in 1910 when his book comes out a few lines mention a mythical Identification and a mad polish jew, who had already been baned in 1894 by MM.

And no on the second part as you are speculating.

If I amI am only doing what you and others do on here ?

I note you altered your post. I can imagine why.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty

I'm not saying you do Phil,

I'm merely pointing out that Trevor is a legend in his own lifetime, and making clear that his opinion that I steadfastly stand by the theories of old is a wrong one. I merely need more than bluster and misdirection.

I agree, there are issues, and I've said that. However you've followed you areguement up with words such as 'I believe' and 'I suspect'. There is nothing substantial other than personal conjecture.

The point is Anderson stated and event and Swanson backed it up. To dismiss Anderson Trevor is attacking the Swanson marginalia. Ok, fair play, however provide evidence, fact, something which catergorically dismisses it.

The thing has already been tested, and the results are clear. Trevor what's it retested. Good, that's great, however he has shot himself in the foot by placing unfounded allegations in public and wonders why the owners dont want to play.

Maybe they dont want to know the truth ?

The bottom line is they do not trust Trevor as he has shown himself to be that. He can accuse and stamp his feet all he likes. His lack of diplomacy has hamstrung his wishes.

I feel I have a good rapport with Nevil Swanson and have always been on on good terms with him he has given his reasons for not wanting the marginalia re examined and I have to accept that. He is aware of the issues that now surround it.

He needs to change his tact.

No I like being me why change a winning formula

It seems its always good to try to discredit me on here you do it Mr Begg does it by doing this you both think that it devalues the issues I have raised, but you only have to read others posts they can see through all of this Marriott discrediting that you both continuallyy resort to and I am sure are quite capable of forming their own views based on what is before them.

Monty


PS Bosie is more an Australian term isn't it? I've always called is a wrong un or an in outer. Also known as a bugger bowled again, time for tea.

Yes, I agree with Colin, the analagy is a good one and one I cannot argue against whole heartedly