Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Bridewell

"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!

Thank you for clarifying that yes by his logic and reasoning no suspect should ever be removed from the list

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

Yes you are right and he was known to carry a long bladed knife and cut his victims throat with the same long knife.

But we digress this isnt a Feigenbaum thread

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

But we digress this isnt a Feigenbaum thread

You're quite right. My apologies.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

You're quite right. My apologies.

Regards, Bridewell.

A little digression is sometimes stimulating to the mind

[Phil Carter]

Hello Colin,

Are we then to allow only "suspects" that were either/and/or "arrested in Whitechapel"/"documented in Whitechapel"?

Apart from cutting that down to a very very few known and named "suspects".. it rules out Druitt.... amongst many others.

Why not REALLY use a partition? I mean.. why not rule out all those NOT KNOWN to have been violent? Or does ANY arrest count? Tumblety was arrested for being a very naughty boy with a few other naughty boys. Kozminski, Aaron, for the atrociously appalling felony of not knowing how to walk a woof woof in public lawfully.

There is going to be a very short shortlist of real suspects... which is EXACTLY what certain policemen and at least one doctor throughout and after the Whitechapel murders said.. they had no idea who the killer was. That included Anderson (pre his Blackwood's comment). That included Swanson (pre 1896). It included Reid. It included many many others.
So why can't that be accepted, instead of Anderson and his late night fairytales, Swanson and his change of mind "marginalia and endpiece annotations" and MacNagthen and his factually incorrect "memoranda", c/w his daughter's problemtic version of the memoranda which she seemed to completely ignore when commenting on the "truth" (13 or so years after Dan Farson visited her) and hinted at someone totally different?

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Colin,

Are we then to allow only "suspects" that were either/and/or "arrested in Whitechapel"/"documented in Whitechapel"?

Apart from cutting that down to a very very few known and named "suspects".. it rules out Druitt and Sickert, amongst many others.

Why not REALLY use a partition? I mean.. why not rule out all those NOT KNOWN to have been violent? Or does ANY arrest count? Tumblety was arrested for being a very naughty boy with a few other naughty boys. Kozminski, Aaron, for the atrocious felony of not knowing how to walk a woof woof in public lawfully.

There is going to be a very short shortlist of real suspects... which is EXACTLY what certain policemen and at least one doctor throughout and after the Whitechapel murders said.. they had no idea who the killer was. That included Anderson (pre his Blackwood's comment). That included Swanson (pre 1896). It included Ried. It included many many others.
So why can't that be accepted, instead of Anderson and his late night fairytales, Swanson and his change of mind "marginalia and endpiece annotations" and MacNagthen and his factually wrong "memoranda"?

best wishes

Phil

Because Mr Begg insists that you have to have evidence to prove all of this but he has no idea what evidence is in the real world,or how he should assess and evaluate it. His view is that historically all the documents are kosher and that all what was said by these individuals was correct, and we should not be challenging them.

[Bridewell]

Mea Culpa

Hello Colin,

Are we then to allow only "suspects" that were either/and/or "arrested in Whitechapel"/"documented in Whitechapel"?

Apart from cutting that down to a very very few known and named "suspects".. it rules out Druitt.... amongst many others.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

That serves me right for going off-topic. My post was quoting an earlier one of Trevor's when he was debating with PaulB. I was having a bit of a dig that the hypothetical list to which he alluded of people "arrested and documented in Whitechapel" (for carrying a knife) would not have included his preferred suspect.

Apologies for the unnecessary confusion caused.

Regards, Bridewell

[Phil Carter]

Hello Colin,

No, by all means...no problem at all!
It is nigh on impossible to stick rigidly to any one specific topic in Ripperology.. look at most any long thread.
My apologies for exploitation of the comment, sir!

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

With the exception of the Swanson Marginalia, the notion in the primary sources, when they were published, that the Polish Jew suspect was the best bet to be the Ripper was specifically rejected by other primary sources.

For example George Sims, by implication, rejects this solution in 1903 and 1907, and then pointedly accuses Anderson, in 1910, of perpetuating an anti-Semitic 'fairy tale'.

That does not mean, automatically, that the one, lonely source is wrong -- in this case it's just Anderson in the public arena -- but it does mean that, in some secondary sources, the resurrection of the Polish Jew suspect as the best bet takes some explaining.

It takes some explaining as to why people who were on the police force at the time, or those had access to those policemen's opinions, were likely to be wrong, and Anderson -- after all -- likely to be right.

Secondary sources, eg. works of history, elevating one primary source over others to show that it was right at the time but was unfairly treated as wrong, is nothing new.

The question I am proposing is this:

Is the argument that the other primary sources of the day were likely mistaken, and this primary source correct (and seemingly backed by another: Swanson) a strong one?

[Roy Corduroy]

Which brings us back to Cox and Sagar, Jonathan. They were primary sources too. Real detectives on the City investigative team. Their recalling the surveillance. Of a man in the Jewish quarter. Of a man who was removed to a private asylum. Here is an echo of what Swanson wrote about the suspect being watched night and day by City CID.

I don't think you can just toss those two out of the equation. Actually Rob had a good balanced discussion of them in his book.

Sims. Look how contorted Druitt is in his 1907 piece. Yet elements of his portrayal of the Polish Jew could fit Kosminski. Or not. And as you said umpteen times, Jonathan, Sims is a Mac-Proxy.

Cox and Sagar weren't repeating spoonfed driblets from Macnaghten. They weren't Proxelizing

Roy

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

Fair question.
Based on, for example, Reid's open challenge of Anderson's views. as well as many other factors, my personal opinion would be no. When one takes an overall view of all the comments of the day by all involved, I believe the Anderson story is well out-weighed. That's my opinion, for what little it is worth. And I am sorry to say that it applies to all the views, MacNagthen included. For some reason they all seem to negate each other. Whether they differed in view for whatever reason, ego, belief of truth of simply just telling stories, whatever, the overall impression is that nobody actually really knew, or if they did, then we have never actually heard the truth.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

So, the answer to my question from you, Roy, is that because Sagar and Cox might be talking about Aaron Kosminski -- and it just as easily can be argued that they are not -- then the argument is made that Sir Robert is more reliable than other contemporaneous sources?

Is that really it?

Cox and Sagar and their surveillance of a suspect, or different suspects, whom they never arrested, and details about which (the implicit early timing?; 'a private asylum') do not match Aaron Kosminski.

That's it ...? Well, for me that is very weak.

No arrests, no charges laid, and very strangely and suspiciously this self-serving theme of watching a suspect 'day and night' and thus preventing more murders returns in a press report of the 'Western Mail' of Feb 1892. By that time Aaron Kosminski was well and truly 'safely caged' -- the same press account which claims the police have dismissed Farquharson's suicided theory (but seemingly alone, Macnaghten most certainly did not).

I disagree that Robert House's book examines this aspect judiciously, or any aspect for that matter about this subject.

That's my 'politically incorrect' opinion.

But people need to make up their own mind about about any book, and I urge readers to buy House's book and read it for themselves. It has been favourably reviewed in trade papers, favourably supported by a couple of Big Guns in this field, many people love it and think it is very interesting -- even persuasive.

George Sims in 1907 has the Polish Jew coming to police attention after he has been incarcerated -- and after he has been out and about for some time not hurting anybody. Sir Robert, in the first version of his 1910 account, has the positive witness identification happening after the suspect has been incarcerated.

It can be equally argued that Aaron Kosminski never came to major police attention until after he was sectioned.

Also you are, in my opinion, Roy, underestimating how devastating it is for Anderson's reliability (and maybe Swanson's?) that he believed that 'Kosminski' was dead, and that he was a prominent suspect of the early phase of the investigation -- when he was neither, suggesting that he did not know much about him, or did recall much accurate data about him.

I am, I realise, committing lonely heresy here because I am inverting the established paradigm: instead of Anderson being [mostly] accurate and honest, I am arguing that he was honest but inaccurate and instead of Macnaghten being honest but inaccuate, he was dishonest and accurate [in his memoirs].

If anything Cox and Sagar have arguably a better sense of the local wretch-suspect, and it came to nothing.

[PaulB]

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.

No vested interest in Kosminski, Trevor. But, hey, I don't expect you to read. You've shown that you don't do that.

[mklhawley]

Tumblety was arrested for being a very naughty boy with a few other naughty boys.

Hi Phil,

Just to clarify, according to the London cable source most likely coming from the Marlborough Street Court on November 16th, Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders and only re-arrested for gross indecency. This is the subject of my 'Scotland Yard's Suspicion' thread: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6746

Sincerely,
Mike

[PaulB]

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

Yes, I suppose from where you are a land requiring evidence and reason and logic, and at least a basic appreciation of proper methodology, must be so far removed from your reality as to appear like a glorious fairy tale. But in all seriousness, Trevor, you are not in the big boy's world. The above response, one which does not address any of the challenges made to your thinking, if that word doesn't dignify what you do, puts you firmly in the playpen with your rattle.

Answer the points, Trevor.

[PaulB]

Because Mr Begg insists that you have to have evidence to prove all of this but he has no idea what evidence is in the real world,or how he should assess and evaluate it. His view is that historically all the documents are kosher and that all what was said by these individuals was correct, and we should not be challenging them.

Paul Begg 'insists that you have to have evidence'. My God, what an outrageous concept! It's almost too much for the human brain to comprehend. Let me see, have I really understood this: Paul Begg 'insists that you have to have evidence'. That's just so shocking, isn't it? That someone would actually do such as thing as insist on their being evidence.