Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

My dear Monty

That is fairly obvious Phil,

There is no arrest nor conviction. It continues.

Nor is there any statement by Swanson, I believe, saying that he believed in the positive ID.

You beleive, ? just your opinion !

Can you not see that the marginalia and Anderson book entry stand or fall together, and I suggest that latter is more appropriate.

I have many issues re the ID parade, and on a few points I agree with Trevor. However, to state the marginalia is a forgery with nothing more than opinion is wrong.

My opinion but many others concur with it. However but I have backed it up with enough to suggest that there is a need for further tests to be carried out to try to conlcusively prove whether Swanson wrote the marginalia in whole or part or not at all

If Trevor wants to discredit it then he should do it with a little more decorum and a little less lip. He should take a leaf out of Simon Woods book. His decimantion of the Knight theory is a prime example of how it should be done. Simon states and provides evidence, Trevor merely states and has a tantrum, often in bold text.

I am beginning to think that in your old age you have forgotten the definition of evidence and how to interpert it.

I can only call it as i see it if I dont put it in a such an eloquent way as others might thats down to me because I dont have those eloquent ways like Simon and others but however it is put it doesnt detract from the points argued.

As I've stated many times, question the evidence. That's not an issue, just support that with counter evidence instead of presenting a showmans stance of all glam and little substance.

The counter evidence is there for all to see an evaluate but of course there are those that dont want to see it and pretend its not there and continuosly state there are no issues with the marginalia.

Trevor isn't the Messiah he thinks he is, he is just a very....

Now I have been promoted from Chief Inspector on here to Messiah I hope I get a pay rise.

Monty

[Monty]

When he gave a quote to the newspaper in 1895 he stated that the ripper was dead. Yet no mention of the ripper dying in the marginalia or in Hans Christians book. Now isnt that a tad strange ? You would have thought that he might have ended the marginalia by saying "after the suspect was removed by his family to wherever he later died" Just one extra sentence to bring to and end the mystery of Jack the Ripper.

Now those are undisputable facts would you not agree ?

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.

And no on the second part as you are speculating.

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

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Colin,

"I never found a high regard for the truth, and the adherence to it as a principle, to be in any way incompatible with police service."

I'm delighted to hear it.

But this is Sir Robert Anderson—hardly a monument to veracity—with whom we're dealing.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for that Simon,

However he was still on the circulation list in 96 and reviewing documentation. As the case was never closed it seems a prudent move to keep him in the loop on major developments.

In other words, whilst Swansons employment ended directly on the case, he was still invoved in some capacity as the case file indicates.

Monty

When he gave a quote to the newspaper in 1895 he stated that the ripper was dead. Yet no mention of the ripper dying in the marginalia or in Hans Christians book. Now isnt that a tad strange ? You would have thought that he might have ended the marginalia by saying "after the suspect was removed by his family to wherever he later died" Just one extra sentence to bring to and end the mystery of Jack the Ripper.

Now those are undisputable facts would you not agree ?

[Bridewell]

ID

Hello Colin,

True re Jim Swanson.

Re the ID,, the evidence of how known ID parades were taken at the time make this possibility very unlikely.

best wishes

Phil

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

When he began writing his book, Martin assessed the information available to him and concluded that Anderson’s unnamed Polish Jew was to be identified with the suspect called ‘Kosminski’ by Macnaghten, a connection which hitherto nobody had made, Don Rumbelow actually making a strong case for Anderson’s suspect being Pizer, which was, until Martin’s book in 1987, the prevailing opinion. Having made the connection with Macnaghten’s ‘Kosminski’, Martin undertook a search of the asylum records in the hope of identifying him. When, eventually, he found Aaron Kosminski he concluded that he was a harmless imbecile who couldn’t have been the Ripper.

In responding to Jonathan I was agreeing that Martin discounted Aaron Kosminski, when writing the second piece I was referring to Martin's original groundbreaking connection of Anderson's unnamed suspect with Macnaghten's 'Kosminski'.

Martin, who believes that Anderson’s suspect was the Ripper returned to the conclusion he had earlier reached, that Anderson’s suspect was in the asylum under the name David Cohen, and he suggested a scenario whereby two suspects, David Cohen and Aaron Kosminski, became confused. We need not go into that, but I differ from Martin in that I do not and never have accepted that Anderson’s suspect was Jack the Ripper, therefore I don’t think Aaron Kosminski need be dismissed as Anderson’s suspect; as far as I am concerned, Aaron Kosminski could have been Anderson’s suspect and Anderson was simply wrong about him being the Ripper. The problem is that I don’t know the full extent of the evidence on which Anderson based his conclusion, therefore I can’t evaluate and assess it, and I can’t say whether he was likely to have been right or wrong. And, sadly, neither can anyone else.

Whether or not Anderson told the truth, the fact is that we don't have sufficient information on which to form any hard and fast judgement, but the balance of probability favours him doing so, both because born again evangelical Christians tend to have a high regard for the truth as it is a basic and fundamental tenet of their fundamentalism, and because I know of no reason to suppose that he lied. But I have no vested interest in him telling the truth or in him lying. In fact, if anything, I am inclined to think he was telling a truth but was wrong in his conclusion. As said, though, none of us know what evidence he based his conclusion on.

However, our source materials are important and need to be treated with professionalism and respect, neither being apparent in some of the arguments being advanced here. That is my concern.

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 !

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Jim Swanson doesn't have to be a fly in the ointment for this to make sense. He just has to be wrong in his interpretation of what DSS meant when he wrote the marginalia. It's not as though he'd be the only one is it!

As for the ID Procedure being irregular and improbable. It would be both of those, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen that way. It certainly doesn't prove that it didn't.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

True re Jim Swanson.

Re the ID,, the evidence of how known ID parades were taken at the time make this possibility very unlikely.

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

most wanted?

Hello Colin. You rang? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Monty, Colin,

just for the sake of the analogy.. I think the Aussies kept the name instead of googlies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Bosanquet_%28cricketer%29

best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Why Not?

Hello Monty,

Then all I can say is this.

The only possible answer IF Swanson (Donald) wrote both the marginalia AND the annotations, is that Swanson was saying, when making this notes..
"What Anderson is getting at is this...his belief above surrounded a person known as Kosminski. It was Anderson's belief and his alone. He didnt know all the details of a supposed ID that Anderson had told him of, but what he did know was" ...etc etc. That way the marginalia is believable.. as an explanation, and expanded explanation of Anderson's beliefs. Nothing to do with Swanson's beliefs.
The only fly in this ointment is Jim Swanson declaring that the piece be made public to show Donald Swanson's part in the WM and how the police were in control of the situation. Then the idea of Swanson expanding Anderson's suspicion doesn't hold water.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

Jim Swanson doesn't have to be a fly in the ointment for this to make sense. He just has to be wrong in his interpretation of what DSS meant when he wrote the marginalia. It's not as though he'd be the only one is it!

As for the ID Procedure being irregular and improbable. It would be both of those, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen that way. It certainly doesn't prove that it didn't.

Regards, Bridewell.

[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.

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.

He needs to change his tact.

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

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Firstly, as a leg spin bowler of no distinction whatsoever, I approve of the cricketing analogy. We call them googlies where I come from though! It only makes sense if he believed that Anderson's suspect was wrongly identified (but I agree that is not consistent with a common-sense interpretation of the marginalia) or if the belief was that more than one person was involved in the murders. (Cue Mr Cates )

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

Googlies were originally called a "wrong-un" and a "Bosie", after Bosenquet, the bowler of the era 1896-1914.. I think Monty can confirm this, if I'm correct or not.
Errrm... if Jack was left handed.. does that make "Kosminski" a "Chinaman"? lol

best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Googlies!

In near perfect timewise cricket parlance.. it's a "Bosie". I just cant understand why the emphasis on Kosminski holds water when the man suppoosedly still involved in the investigation, who later CONFIRMS and NAMES Anderson's "FACT".. would still be out hunting the Ripper if he KNEW that Anderson's killer was locked away.

Hi Phil,

Firstly, as a leg spin bowler of no distinction whatsoever, I approve of the cricketing analogy. We call them googlies where I come from though! It only makes sense if he believed that Anderson's suspect was wrongly identified (but I agree that is not consistent with a common-sense interpretation of the marginalia) or if the belief was that more than one person was involved in the murders. (Cue Mr Cates )

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

That is fairly obvious Phil,

There is no arrest nor conviction. It continues.

Nor is there any statement by Swanson, I believe, saying that he believed in the positive ID.

Hello Monty,

Then all I can say is this.

The only possible answer IF Swanson (Donald) wrote both the marginalia AND the annotations, is that Swanson was saying, when making this notes..
"What Anderson is getting at is this...his belief above surrounded a person known as Kosminski. It was Anderson's belief and his alone. He didnt know all the details of a supposed ID that Anderson had told him of, but what he did know was" ...etc etc. That way the marginalia is believable.. as an explanation, and expanded explanation of Anderson's beliefs. Nothing to do with Swanson's beliefs.
The only fly in this ointment is Jim Swanson declaring that the piece be made public to show Donald Swanson's part in the WM and how the police were in control of the situation. Then the idea of Swanson expanding Anderson's suspicion doesn't hold water.

I really am trying to see some sense in this.. but when all is seen and done.. I believe it's a wrong-un. On balance.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

I don't follow any Messiah.. I make up my own mind. And I'll make no comment on personal opinion of how people are regarded. I'll stick to the point if I can.
And I have in my previous three posts pointed out it's a "wrong-un". In near perfect timewise cricket parlance.. it's a "Bosie". I just cant understand why the emphasis on Kosminski holds water when the man suppoosedly still involved in the investigation, who later CONFIRMS and NAMES Anderson's "FACT".. would still be out hunting the Ripper if he KNEW that Anderson's killer was locked away.

It's a wrong-un. The ID parade is non-sensical as there isnt another example of that type of thing ever happening before, or since (to our knowledge), when we have a prime example in Pizer, how exactly and where a suspect ID parade WAS made involving a suspect for the Whitechapel murders.

It's a wrong-un. That is why, after having seen everything that has been written by many many experts in this field, I believe there is a great possibility that the annotations in the end paper were added long after Donald Swanson died. By whom? I have no idea. Why? Well only the guilty party can answer that if so.. but when the attention wasnt given by the NOTW in 1981, I suspect it was because the endpaper name wasnt there and it wasn't worth printing in that form.
Its possible. I don't say its a fact...but its possible. People do all sorts of things to deceive in this game as we all know Monty. And at that period in Rippertime... playing wrong-uns was the name of the game.

best wishes

Phil