Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

"But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain."

By public you mean those who have not studied the case in great depth and only rely on information you claim is correct?

Like those who attend your talks and are oblivious to the finer details which show your 'evidence' to be nothing more than interpretation based on personal opinion.

And Hearsay evidence can convict Trevor, it is evidence none the less.

You are correct but not as an automatic matter of course. Now I am sure you dont want me to give you a refreseher course in evidence and procedure if you do I could bring a book along to York so that you have something to do in your room at nite !

Monty

I present the facts in an unbiased fashion and I am happy just doing that unklike others I do not seek to impose my will..

I will continue to fight my cause to the bitter end and if If I should later sink then I know that if that be the case then there will be a few going down with me rest assured of that.

Now I must go and pack going to spend a few days relaxing in France- Au Revoir

[PaulB]

Why should we be discussing it as evidence when the police in 1888 didnt regard it as evidence. Do we know something now that they didnt know then ?

I don't want a discussion, Trevor. What I want is for you to justify and substantiate a conclusion you have reached.

I hesitate to say this, Trevor, but all the case papers of the City police have been destroyed, so actually you don't have the remotest idea whether the police regarded it as evidence in 1888 or not.

I also hesitate to point out that Anderson was critical of the erasure, maintaining that the graffiti could have provided a valuable clue, and he wasn't altogether alone in that view, so the police in 1888 did regard it as evidence.

And whether they regarded it as evidence or not is irrelevant to your certain assurance that the murderer didn't write it. All I am asking you is to explain the evidence on which you base that conclusion.

And just so you know, whilst I am unable to say whether the murderer wrote the graffiti or not, I quietly incline to the view that he didn't, largely, I confess, because I can't see the murderer squatting down to write a message. So, I don't have the least vested interest in arguing against you on this. The difference between us, though, is that I freely and openly admit that I don't know who wrote the graffiti. You, on the other hand, claim that you do at least know who didn't write it. Evidence please.

[m_w_r]

I have no doubt whatsover but of course whatever and whenever all of this is later disclosed It wil come under close scrutiny which I whole heartedly subscribe to. because I would do exactly the same.

No doubt. But will you accept fair-minded objections, and well-reasoned disagreement? Or will you come out fighting in your usual way?

But what I do object to is the likes of Paul Begg and certain others who firstly cannot conlcusively prove the facts they seek to rely on to prop up their outdated theories and further more when anything new is introduced to negate those outdated theories, rather than consider accepting the new material which in the case of many aspects this mystery are as plausible as the original theories and go along way to suggest the original theories and what has been historically written is not totally correct. Consistently attempt to destroy them.

I don't think any of that is reasonable - the newness of a theory is not a guarantee of its superiority, and the fact that the historical evidence as we know it today doesn't lead us to a firm conclusion as to the identity of the Ripper doesn't indicate that the evidence needs to be thrown out. Instead, the various evidential threads need to be balanced and weighed against each other. Underlying all of this is must be the assumption that some things which were once known are now not known, accounting for some of the gaps in the fabric of the evidence. If, after taking into account all of these factors, Paul, or anyone, is cautious to restrict the scope of his theorising to the limits which the evidence imposes on it, then this is what I'd call being responsible, and I think most reasonable people would be inclined to agree with me.

It all that starts with the facts from 1888. Take a look at what evidence there is from 1888 to start with almost none in the true sense.

I disagree - there is evidence, but your frustration at the failure of the case to form itself into a coherent whole indicating the guilt of any given individual has, quite wrongly, persuaded you to throw the evidence out. Everything seems to be very black and white with you, Trevor - but the preferred approach must be to take proper account of the historical evidence, each part in balance with each other part.

All you keep hearing from Mr Begg and others is "Where is you evidence" it all gets back to people having the abilty to assess and evaluate and fully understand exactly what the term evidence means. Evidence it is split into different catergories, Primary, secondary,hearsay and circumstantial. When it comes down to it much of what people have sought to rely on is nothing more than hearsay and has no real evidential value and would need strong corroboation for it to have any value.

I'm afraid that the irony of your remarks in this paragraph appears to have eluded you. I would only add that, as far as I know, the process of solving a crime in real-time, for example as a serving police officer, must be in at least some of its dimensions a different one from that used by historians to assess historical evidence.

In an earllier post I wrote a long list of the old theories which have formed the back bone to this case virtually of them can be challenged with the introduction of new evidence, but it seems Mr Begg and others dont know the defintion of evidence as previously stated. Whilst he and a handful of others continue to block and disregard the new material there is always going to be these heated discussions.

Ditto. But I don't think these 'discussions' have to become 'heated'. I think there's often more heat than light, granted, but the heat which is consistently generated on the threads in which you participate leads me towards a conclusion that you use banal personal invective and stones-out generalisations as a form of defence mechanism to prevent anyone seeing the evidential vacuum at the centre of your case. Perhaps, when you produce the evidence you've been hinting at, you'll be able to say that I was wrong about this, but I'll take my chances with that one.

Personally I have beendirectly involved in these discussions over and over again and its now becoming tiresome, as it must be for the posters who have to sit and endure this sabre rattling which then finishes up with a tirrade of personal abuse being hurled back and forth.

See above. I hope that you will recognise that you, like me, and like the rest of us, are an imperfect individual and that the role you play in the sabre-rattling is very often an active one.

Why should I worry in fact I dont there is a hardcore of perhap 20 regular vistiors to casebook and maybe the same amount to JTR Forums.many sit on the fence and dont become embroiled in the argument so its difficult to understand their views on the challenges to the old theories. Others clearly and whole heartedly support the new evidence and theories. The remainder that wont are so set in their ways and so blinkered in the way they look at this they will never change they are addicted to the point of obsession.

Au contraire, I think that the interest of the reasonable majority in new evidence is as strong as it ever was. What they quite properly want, though, is evidence which can be tested, whose quality can be judged, and which can be set alongside existing knowledge and assimilated or rejected as its credentials dictate. If you're going to provide this, I'm afraid that you will need to play the same game as the reasonable majority, to some extent. We teach schoolchildren to assess the reliability of historical sources, and quite rightly so, for the ability to do one's own critical thinking is at the centre of the character of the democratic citizen (or, at least, it should be). It protects us from tyranny and demagogues, and from people who tell us to believe things because they do, or to do things because they think we should. I personally believe that one of the problems which modern Ripperology has is that post-structuralist and post-modern historical techniques have been co-opted by people who think that it's now all right to believe whatever you want, and have your belief, however crazy and counter-evidential it is, assessed as the perfect equal of any other belief, including beliefs which are based on robust ratiocination and a solid understanding of the evidence. But I digress.

But it would not be good for everyone to agree that never happens in anyhting in life so it wont ever happen in this mystery. So i am going to continue to do as I have done from the outsest to introduce other new facts other new evidence and I certainly wont lose any sleep over the fact that a handful of moronic posters wont agree or accept it or are not even prepared to consider it..

I'm not sure the word 'moronic' helps your case. Anyway, see above on all of this, and please explain whether you consider your apron piece / sanitary device scenario a 'fact'. If so, please explain where Catherine Eddowes was keeping the - minimum - 17% body fat below which the body ceases to menstruate. Also, please account for the facts - well, they are, aren't they? - that she was forty-four, a drinker, and undernourished, all of which would also tend towards an early cessation of menstruation.

Its the general public that have been misled over the years with the publication of an assortment of suspect based books lacking in any real evidence and many documenraties all formulated on the original facts again lacking in any real evidence which many of the objectors have themselves been directly involved in.

Well, we can all think of Ripper books which seem to have been designed purely to separate the public from their money, and documentaries which didn't, eventually, go anywhere. No names mentioned, though, eh, Trevor?

But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain.

I'm really not sure that the public are that much involved, except to the extent that your tours and other speaking engagements tend to bring the Ripper case to small provincial audiences - and even then I've been advised that they're not being fed a very reliable interpretation of the case in the time they spend with you. I don't know. Perhaps another way to look at this is to revisit Tracey Hookway's e-petition relating to the disclosure of 'all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to [the Whitechapel] murders', established in October 2011. 100,000 signatures in one calendar year would bring the petition into the political spotlight, and give it a chance of being discussed in Parliament. The petition closes on 3 October 2012, which is in 94 days' time. So far, it has collected 76 signatures. It needs another 999,924. It needs, on average, 10,637 every day from this point in. It needs a little over seven-and-a-half signatures every minutes. It needs a signature every eight seconds. If the public were really involved, this would be their opportunity for direct action. But they're not. The only involvement they've really got in this case is commercial, and I'm afraid that, if you're the chap who believes himself to be standing, dimly lit and on stage before the Basingstoke Women's Institute, between the public and the nexus of lies and deceptions which you consider other people's Ripperology to be, then we're all in more trouble than we thought.

Regards,

Mark

[PaulB]

No theory is "written in stone". If it were, it wouldn't be a theory. A theory cannot be outdated. It's either credible or it's not. I accept that, when new evidence comes to light, that judgement may need to be re-assessed, but because of the new evidence, not because of its date. Novelty is not a proper yardstick by which to measure the quality of a theory.

Perhaps you best tell Paul Begg that

No need to, Trevor. I understand what a theory is. I understand what re-assessing a theory in light of new evidence means. The only problem is that you haven't presented any new evidence. Indeed, you criticized me for demanding evidence.

By the way, you are correct. You are spon on when you say that the graffiti goes out of the window if the apron was not dropped by the murderer. Absolutely. No question about that. If the apron wasn't dropped by the murderer then we'd have no reason to suppose that the murderer went anywhere near Goulston Street and the probability that he wrote the graffit drops to a notch above absolute zero.

The fly in the ointment is that there is no evidence at all that the apron wasn't dropped by the murderer.

Unfortunately, your idea that Eddowes used the apron for sanitary purposes is ridiculous. She was destitute and broke, she wore the clothes she owned, she’d pawned John Kelly’s boots to buy some basic necessities like tea and sugar. Do you seriously think she would have ruined her only apron, an important garment in those days, by tearing it and using it for sanitary purposes?

Do you seriously believe that she would have torn and ruined a top outer garment when she had under garments which would have served the same purpose?

Do you really believe that she would have torn and ruined her apron when she had other material in her pockets which she could have used and which may even have been intended for that purpose?

Even if you have answered yes to those questions, they still represent very serious doubt about your theory that Eddowes used a portion of her apron as a sanitary towel.

So, if Eddowes didn't use the apron as a sanitary towel and didn't drop it in Goulston Street herself, how did it get there?

[Trevor Marriott]

Same old, same old, Trevor. The only answer you have to criticism of your ideas and thinking is that your critics are blocking you because they're too wedded to old and outmoded ideas, whereas 'the public' is waking up to your thinking. Yeah, right, and that oink oinking you can hear is the flock of pigs flying overhead.

If I don't understand what evidence is, you tell me what it is.

If you think there is evidence that the murderer did not write the graffiti and that the graffiti can be dismissed, then say what that evidence is. That's how things should be done, Trevor.

Why should we be discussing it as evidence when the police in 1888 didnt regard it as evidence. Do we know something now that they didnt know then ?

[The Good Michael]

Trevor, Everyone,

I'm no ripperologist. It's an interest, yes. I'm in a country where I have no subject books. Shipping such things costs several hundreds of dollars a box, so they sit back in a safe place awaiting my return... if return I do. I come to this site to relearn things and to get opinions from experts and the fact is there is so little evidence for anything, that everything becomes possible.

I've been here for several years off and on. I was here when Feigenbaum was discussed, beaten-up, chewed on, spat out, and rebuilt again. I was here when the apron became a massive tampon that was able to plug several orifices at once according to Trevor and no organs were taken by the killer, also according to Trevor. For the most part, everyone was respectful of Trevor's opinions, but they were (in Radka's term) an Alternative Ripperology, and deserved to be taken apart and evaluated. It was all done fairly respectfully.

I was hiding in the wings a bit when Trenouth raped the boards for information and people respectfully helped her with her Q and A sessions, though in hindsight it may have not been such a great thing.

I was a part (I admit) of the Hutchinson signature debacle that sorely divided people into a few camps and involved a sociopath who played people like fiddles until being cast off. Folks were pretty respectful then until she came along with her "expertise". The rift sort of healed after time leaving behind one casualty (Sam Flynn) which was a loss.

Yet, we are all pretty respectful, though I now and then am flippant and dismissive, though I never plan to be (perhaps that's how it all works).

My point is this: Trevor, every time you come on the boards, people give you the benefit of the doubt at first. You have a good sense of humor and that could go a long way. Yet... you always go on the offensive. It's as if you believe you command respect and by God, we're going to give it to you...but we never do after your ranting begins. That's as it should be. Give respect to people. Treat them as human beings who put their pants on one leg at a time (except for Wescott who had that hunting accident) just as you do. You know Trev, we really want to like you. We really want to hear what you have to say. We absolutely respect your duty to your country as a police officer. How about respecting us too? Give it a go. It's addictive and it moves everything forward. Even the secret cabal can be touched by such a gesture.

That's all.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

If, as you contend, Anderson's Polish Jew suspect wasn't JtR, where does that leave us with Swanson's suspect—a Jew named Kosminski who appears to have undergone much the same inconclusive ID procedure as Anderson's Polish Jew and also happened to share the same family name as a Polish Jew named by Macnaghten whom he was "inclined to exonerate"?

How many Jews [Polish or otherwise] were being written about?

What we really need to make this conundrum work is another Kosminski. But I believe there was only one in the LVP asylum system.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Mark
I have no doubt whatsover but of course whatever and whenever all of this is later disclosed It wil come under close scrutiny which I whole heartedly subscribe to. because I would do exactly the same.

But what I do object to is the likes of Paul Begg and certain others who firstly cannot conlcusively prove the facts they seek to rely on to prop up their outdated theories and further more when anything new is introduced to negate those outdated theories, rather than consider accepting the new material which in the case of many aspects this mystery are as plausible as the original theories and go along way to suggest the original theories and what has been historically written is not totally correct. Consistently attempt to destroy them.

It all that starts with the facts from 1888. Take a look at what evidence there is from 1888 to start with almost none in the true sense.

All you keep hearing from Mr Begg and others is "Where is you evidence" it all gets back to people having the abilty to assess and evaluate and fully understand exactly what the term evidence means. Evidence it is split into different catergories, Primary, secondary,hearsay and circumstantial. When it comes down to it much of what people have sought to rely on is nothing more than hearsay and has no real evidential value and would need strong corroboation for it to have any value.

In an earllier post I wrote a long list of the old theories which have formed the back bone to this case virtually of them can be challenged with the introduction of new evidence, but it seems Mr Begg and others dont know the defintion of evidence as previously stated. Whilst he and a handful of others continue to block and disregard the new material there is always going to be these heated discussions.

Personally I have beendirectly involved in these discussions over and over again and its now becoming tiresome, as it must be for the posters who have to sit and endure this sabre rattling which then finishes up with a tirrade of personal abuse being hurled back and forth.

Why should I worry in fact I dont there is a hardcore of perhap 20 regular vistiors to casebook and maybe the same amount to JTR Forums.many sit on the fence and dont become embroiled in the argument so its difficult to understand their views on the challenges to the old theories. Others clearly and whole heartedly support the new evidence and theories. The remainder that wont are so set in their ways and so blinkered in the way they look at this they will never change they are addicted to the point of obsession.

But it would not be good for everyone to agree that never happens in anyhting in life so it wont ever happen in this mystery. So i am going to continue to do as I have done from the outsest to introduce other new facts other new evidence and I certainly wont lose any sleep over the fact that a handful of moronic posters wont agree or accept it or are not even prepared to consider it..

Its the general public that have been misled over the years with the publication of an assortment of suspect based books lacking in any real evidence and many documenraties all formulated on the original facts again lacking in any real evidence which many of the objectors have themselves been directly involved in.

But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain.

Same old, same old, Trevor. The only answer you have to criticism of your ideas and thinking is that your critics are blocking you because they're too wedded to old and outmoded ideas, whereas 'the public' is waking up to your thinking. Yeah, right, and that oink oinking you can hear is the flock of pigs flying overhead.

If I don't understand what evidence is, you tell me what it is.

If you think there is evidence that the murderer did not write the graffiti and that the graffiti can be dismissed, then say what that evidence is. That's how things should be done, Trevor.

[Monty]

"But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain."

By public you mean those who have not studied the case in great depth and only rely on information you claim is correct?

Like those who attend your talks and are oblivious to the finer details which show your 'evidence' to be nothing more than interpretation based on personal opinion.

And Hearsay evidence can convict Trevor, it is evidence none the less.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

In reply

Why is this theory 'outdated'?

That's not a theory, Trevor. It's an either/or. He did or he didn't. There's no evidence either way.

Thats very true and because 124 years later it is still as meaningless today as it was in 1888. How can anyone today suggest it relates to the murder? The question of did he or didn’t he is academic.

To get a definitive answer you have to go back to 1888. It was never suggested then that the killer wrote it. So therefore why are we 124 years later arguing did he or didn’t he. Its a myth created over the years as part of the apron piece/ organ removal theory. If you cast a doubt that the killer didn’t deposit the apron piece then the graffiti goes out the window.

A theory doesn't become 'outdated' just because you disagree with it.

But if you disprove the theory it does

How can this possibly be described as an 'outdated theory'? It's the most likely explanation! Far more likely than your tampon theory that a 46-year-old drab was using a piece of her filthy apron as a sanitary towel.

By a country mile the most likely explanation of its presence there. Not the only possible explanation, just the most likely.

I don’t propose to comment further on the above simply because I will be introducing new material on both the graffiti and the apron piece at York.

No theory is "written in stone". If it were, it wouldn't be a theory. A theory cannot be outdated. It's either credible or it's not. I accept that, when new evidence comes to light, that judgement may need to be re-assessed, but because of the new evidence, not because of its date. Novelty is not a proper yardstick by which to measure the quality of a theory.

Perhaps you best tell Paul Begg that

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the extraordinary thing about Trevor's list is that he presents these 'old outdate theories' as if they are cherished and held to be true by Ripperologists everywhere. A quick glance at any number of threads on Casebook will show that there's a spectrum of opinion as regards 'The killer only killed five women', for example.

The problem with the suggestion that there is consensus about all or any of the topics Trevor mentions is that it's usually a rhetorical technique used by writers who have parachuted into Ripperology with irresponsible theories which are then subjected to reasonable and responsible scrutiny by interested third parties. While, to you and me, a bit of scrutiny isn't normally a bad thing, people who find that the faults of their theories are fairly swiftly detected can, as we know, react with Ripperologists can't handle the truth - it's a closed shop and they won't open their minds to new information - they seek to destroy people who arrive on the scene and to protect their monopoly, and that sort of thing. Again, even a cursory glance at the message boards, or of the published literature, disproves the idea that the field is a cosy and conservative one. But we are lucky enough to have plenty of Ripperologists who know what they're doing, and who ensure that some reasonable disciplinary principles are upheld, despite the free-for-all on the fringes.

If Trevor is adopting the tactics of the crank outsider already, one wonders whether his proposed dismantling of various warhorses of Ripperology will stand up to scrutiny later.

Regards,

Mark

Mark
I have no doubt whatsover but of course whatever and whenever all of this is later disclosed It wil come under close scrutiny which I whole heartedly subscribe to. because I would do exactly the same.

But what I do object to is the likes of Paul Begg and certain others who firstly cannot conlcusively prove the facts they seek to rely on to prop up their outdated theories and further more when anything new is introduced to negate those outdated theories, rather than consider accepting the new material which in the case of many aspects this mystery are as plausible as the original theories and go along way to suggest the original theories and what has been historically written is not totally correct. Consistently attempt to destroy them.

It all that starts with the facts from 1888. Take a look at what evidence there is from 1888 to start with almost none in the true sense.

All you keep hearing from Mr Begg and others is "Where is you evidence" it all gets back to people having the abilty to assess and evaluate and fully understand exactly what the term evidence means. Evidence it is split into different catergories, Primary, secondary,hearsay and circumstantial. When it comes down to it much of what people have sought to rely on is nothing more than hearsay and has no real evidential value and would need strong corroboation for it to have any value.

In an earllier post I wrote a long list of the old theories which have formed the back bone to this case virtually of them can be challenged with the introduction of new evidence, but it seems Mr Begg and others dont know the defintion of evidence as previously stated. Whilst he and a handful of others continue to block and disregard the new material there is always going to be these heated discussions.

Personally I have beendirectly involved in these discussions over and over again and its now becoming tiresome, as it must be for the posters who have to sit and endure this sabre rattling which then finishes up with a tirrade of personal abuse being hurled back and forth.

Why should I worry in fact I dont there is a hardcore of perhap 20 regular vistiors to casebook and maybe the same amount to JTR Forums.many sit on the fence and dont become embroiled in the argument so its difficult to understand their views on the challenges to the old theories. Others clearly and whole heartedly support the new evidence and theories. The remainder that wont are so set in their ways and so blinkered in the way they look at this they will never change they are addicted to the point of obsession.

But it would not be good for everyone to agree that never happens in anyhting in life so it wont ever happen in this mystery. So i am going to continue to do as I have done from the outsest to introduce other new facts other new evidence and I certainly wont lose any sleep over the fact that a handful of moronic posters wont agree or accept it or are not even prepared to consider it..

Its the general public that have been misled over the years with the publication of an assortment of suspect based books lacking in any real evidence and many documenraties all formulated on the original facts again lacking in any real evidence which many of the objectors have themselves been directly involved in.

But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain.

[PaulB]

Yes, an excellent post, Mark.

Good points, Colin.

Excellent opening para, Gary. (A good post, but an excellent and beautifully expressed first para).

[PaulB]

Correction: Anyone who has a modicum of experience on these boards is probably far beyond being hurt by these accusations. Irritated? Maybe. Bored? Certainly.

Mike

You would think so, but it isn't the case that people aren't hurt by the things said here. Look at the people who have gone from these message boards because of stupid, thoughtless, or insensitive things that have been said to and about them. I also had in mind researchers who work closely with the police and sometimes have sensitive and valuable material in their possession who are irresponsibly accused of theft by a former policeman. And people like Nevill Swanson, who I don't know is hurt or even upset by the innuendo cast by others about his father's integrity and honesty, but is sufficiently pi**ed by it not to look favourably on requests from certain quarters to release the marginalia for testing. Thankfully he is in contact with a number of sane and responsible people, but otherwise a clodhoppering approach to research can damage serious and responsible research if the owners of material just pull down the shutters, as some people [I]have[I] done in the past.

Otherwise, irritated and bored. Definitely.

[Garry Wroe]

To my way of thinking, it is perfectly clear that both Anderson and Swanson knew of the Seaside Home incident and believed that Kosminski had been identified as Jack the Ripper. Whilst such an event may appear unlikely or abstruse to some latter-day researchers, it would be poor scholarship to simply dismiss it out of hand as though it never happened. The sensible approach, I would suggest, would be to try and make sense of it given the available evidence. It may well be the case that the solution has been staring us in the face all along.

Anderson, for example, stated that the Seaside Home witness was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’, and that he ‘unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him’. In reflecting on this assertion, Swanson declared that the identification would ‘convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.’

According to Swanson, therefore, the identification would in itself have been sufficient to have secured a conviction. Since Lawende’s sighting could never have resulted in such an outcome, the witness must have been Schwartz. Thus the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders must have been construed as the initial stage of the attack that left Stride lying dead just a few feet away. If Dr Blackwell’s estimated time of death may be taken as reliable, moreover, the murder may have occurred within a minute of Schwartz departing the scene.

So Schwartz was Anderson’s mystery witness, and Kosminski was the man identified as Liz Stride’s attacker and thus Jack the Ripper.

All well and good. But there is a problem. Beyond a labyrinth of assumption and supposition there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the contention that Stride fell victim to the Whitechapel Murderer. In point of fact, everything about the Berner Street crime suggests that it was unrelated to the Ripper series. If so, the solution to the Kosminski conundrum has indeed been staring us in the face all along.

The sequence of events appears to have been that Kosminski came to the attention of investigators and was viewed by Schwartz, who identified him as the man he had seen assaulting Stride. Since this assault was considered integral to the murder itself, we have an explanation as to why Swanson believed the eyewitness evidence alone was sufficient to have secured a conviction, and why Anderson believed that the Whitechapel Murderer had been identified.

So whereas Anderson certainly exaggerated the situation when he claimed that the killer’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’, he wasn’t lying in the strictest sense of the word. If anything, he was guilty of wishful thinking, if possibly wilful wishful thinking. The real flaw in Anderson’s conclusions relates to the Stride murder and its automatic inclusion in the Ripper series. Had this crime been evaluated purely on the evidence it would have been treated as incidental, and Kosminski could not have been assumed to have been Jack the Ripper, even in the event that he did kill Stride – which to my mind is extremely doubtful.

This is a lesson from which many could benefit today.

[Roy Corduroy]

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?

No that's not it. You're putting words in my mouth.

After S Brett brought them up, I mentioned Henry Cox and Robert Sagar again for your benefit, Jonathan. So that you can (and I see you did, in a later post) include them in your list of primary sources that, in your opinion, Melville Macnaghten trumps. That's all.

What I said was :

I don't think you can just toss those two out of the equation.

Further you wrote –

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.

Again, you’re making up my lines for me, Jonathan. If we weren’t in such vastly different times zones this might be easier to do.

Roy