Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

The problem for me with Tumblety being arrested on suspicion of murder is that there is no court record of it happening, the only court records are for the known charges relating to gross indecency involving gentlemen...is this not correct?

You are referring to the 'Offense as charged' column on the Marlborough Street Court record, which was written down AFTER the case. Note the comment 'Recognizances of Defandant Estreated'. This was after the re-arrest. If the reporter in the court saw the relatively famous American doctor merely being charged with gross indecency, then that would have been reported, but where on earth did the reporter get the info about him being connected to the murders AND THEN get the info about being re-arrested with the 'Babylon' charge? Clearly, he was informed by someone in the know.

The only semi official evidence is a private letter from an ex-policeman to a journalist. Neither is there any police document known to contain evidence of such an arrest on suspicion?

Actually, at this very same moment (around 18 November), we see Sir Robert Anderson soliciting information about Tumblety as a Ripper suspect from Brooklyn's Chief of Police (Roger Palmer made a convincing case for San Francisco's Chief of Police AT THE SAME TIME). So, we have primary evidence of Tumblety being a significant suspect in November 1888 by two top Scotland Yard officials, so why is this not enough? When the ripper murders continued past November 1888 -in the mind of Swanson and Anderson- then Tumblety was clearly innocent.

So we are reliant here on newspapers telling us Tumblety was arrested for suspicion. Those newspapers, as you know are almost all in the USA. Please correct me if I am wrong?

As corrected by the above statement.

Since this is not a Tumblety thread, I'll stop, but the UK reporting practices are an important issue that Jonathan addressed quite well. Also, just as Donald Rumbelow had stated, Scotland Yard was not in the practice of communicating with the press about their cases (as evidenced by Tumblety's November 7 arrest not being known until the charges at Marlborough Street Court on November 16), so it shouldn't be a huge concern about what Scotland Yard was thinking in November 1888.

Thanks for the reply Phil,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

You can spout as much drivel as you like and I wouldn't raise a note of protest, but you throw out vile accusations that hurt people, that damage them,

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

[Monty]

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

Excellent post Mark,

Spot on.

Prepare for the bold text rant.

Monty

[Bridewell]

The Concept Of Outdated Theory

What are some of these old outdate theories:
The killer only killed five women

Why is this theory 'outdated'?

The killer wrote the graffiti

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

the killer removed the organs from the victims at the crime scene

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

the killer cut/tore a piece of Eddowes apron to carry organs away/wipe hads/knife

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.

the killer deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street

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

There is case to show that each and every one of the aforemtnioned is not written in stone

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.

Regards, Bridewell.

[m_w_r]

The killer only killed five women
The killer wrote the graffiti
the killer removed the organs from the victims at the crime scene
the killer cut/tore a piece of Eddowes apron to carry organs away/wipe hads/knife
the killer deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street
Kosminski,Tumblety and others were prime suspects.
the killer was a mad polish jew
the killer was a mad butcher

What's really disturbing, though, what really demonstrates just how profound your ignorance of this subject really is, is that you list those things as if they were new, as if nobody had ever queried them before. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

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

[PaulB]

Is that your best shot try to discredit me thats all you can do well if it is its a cheap shot but hey ho do I care I am holding all the aces !

Hmmmmmmmmmm lunatic fantasist have you not looked in the mirror lately ?

Not a cheap shot at all. It's those kind of accusations that distinguish you, that make you what you are. And I am not trying to discredit you, Trevor. That was my point. You can spout as much drivel as you like and I wouldn't raise a note of protest, but you throw out vile accusations that hurt people, that damage them, and I object to that. You don't have a jot of evidence that the marginalia isn't wholly authentic, and if you do have some then you should lay it out in full before you start casting aspersions on the integrity of Jim Swanson, who you never met, who you don't know, and about whom you know nothing. But you don't lay our your evidence, you insinuate. Nasty.

And I didn't say you were a 'lunatic fantasist', I said I would discount you as a 'lunatic fringe fantasist', which means I think you are akin to those good folk who think the world is flat, that men didn't land on the moon, and that the crew of Mary Celeste were abducted by little green men. That sort of thing.

Some here might feel there are grounds for questioning your sanity. Not me. No, not me. I think you are sane.

[PaulB]

Mr Begg here we go again

Actually, here you go again. And, incidentally, why can't you use the "quote" feature like everyone else instead of inserting your replies in my post?

Okay, whilst Jonathan's posts are far from tiresome, yours are [I]very[I] tiresome, but let's just give your argument a look at...

There is nothing to suggest that Aaron Kosminski was a suspect?

Okay, there isn’t. There's nothing at all.

Except that Aaron Kosminski is the only Kosminski so far found in the asylum records and he fits the details provided by Anderson, right down to his ‘utterly unmentionable vices’. So ther are reasons for identifying him with the ‘Kosminski’ named by Macnaghten and identified as Anderson's suspect by Swanson.

And 'Kosminski' was a suspect. Without doubt.

And not only was ‘Kosminski’ a suspect – without any doubt whatsoever – in the view of one senior and informed source he was the murderer. Again, there is no doubt about that (no doubt that a senior and informed source believed he was, not no doubt that he was).

Whether or not the police in 1888 lacked reasonable grounds to take their suspicions further is neither here nor there. What matters is whether or not the source, Anderson, based his conclusion on good evidence or not. You, of course, think evidence is an unnecessary obstacle, so you easily dismiss my little peccadillo of requiring evidence. So let me rephrase that: the question is, why did Anderson think what he did, and was he possibly correct to think it?

Alas, nobody knows. I don’t know. You don’t know.

As for more and more people challenging the basic facts… In your dreams, maybe, but not in reality. What's really disturbing, though, what really demonstrates just how profound your ignorance of this subject really is, is that you list those things as if they were new, as if nobody had ever queried them before. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But, hey, let's look on the bright side. You have this new evidence - if you'll allow me to use such an objectionable word - about to be published, don't you? It's going to be damning to old thinking, isn't it? You're whole reputation is resting on it after all, so it's going to be dramatic stuff. I'm really looking forward to it.

[S.Brett]

"Henry Cox's views on the murders, with an account of the surveillance of a suspect, were published in an article in Thomson's Weekly News on 1 December 1906,[2] which was one of a long series on his career."

`He begins by saying that all the published portrayals of "the criminal whom the police suspected" have been woefully wrong, and in no case has the writer discovered the suspect he is about to describe, who at the time "was looked upon as a man not unlikely to be connected with the crimes". He cannot enter into the theories of his brother officers (Macnaghten Memorandum and the MET?), but he has no hesitation in dispelling certain claims: that the murderer was known to the police and is incarcerated in "one of His Majesty’s penal settlements" (Ostrog?), that he "jumped over London Bridge or Blackfriars Bridge" (Montague Druitt?) and that he is the inmate of a private asylum (Kosminski?). Later in the article he also rejects the idea that the murderer was "an educated man who had suddenly gone mad".`

Cox´s surveillance:

"...he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls.”

Sagar´s surveillance:

"There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum"

It seems Cox and Sagar might be talking about two different observations. It seems...

But why did Cox "dispelling certain claims" "that he is the inmate of a private asylum"?

His fellow Sagar:

"...and suspicion fell upon a man, who, without a doubt, was the murderer." and "removed to a private asylum"

It seems Cox words containing some references to the MET Police and the memorandum. It seems the City Police was right, the MET Police was wrong.

To Cox it was important:

The City Police found Jack The Ripper, not the MET Police.

Nevertheless, we know:

“He was watched by police (City CID) by day & night” (Swanson, MET)

[Trevor Marriott]

No, I have not written books championing Kosminski. As I have said several times, I do not and never have believed that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. Nor was I responsible for any championing of Kosminski in any documentary. Quite the opposite.




As, indeed, would I, and as I have done so.



Unfortunately, no new material has been offered up. You mouth off about being about to provide it, but apart from your assertion that it exists, you haven't put anything on the table at all. All you do is claim that the theories are outdated and that suspects like Kosminski shouldn't be considered suspects at all. And you throw completely unsupported claims that the source materials are forged in whole or part. That the theories are outdated and the suspects are non-suspects is your fantasy, it isn't a reality at all, and you're fallback positions of hackneyed one-liners or claims that I and everyone else who thinks your arguments are naive to the point of imbecilic are biased just proved it's a fantasy. And the only thing that stops me dismissing you as a lunatic fringe fantasist is that you do unpardonable things like call Keith Skinner a liar and cast aspersions without evid..., without good reason, on people like Jim Swanson. They I defend...

Is that your best shot try to discredit me thats all you can do well if it is its a cheap shot but hey ho do I care I am holding all the aces !

Hmmmmmmmmmm lunatic fantasist have you not looked in the mirror lately ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Mr Begg here we go again

Jonathan,
This is really a waste of time. We have a bunch of sources telling us different stories and we have no idea of the evidence is on which their stories are based, but we do have the word of Trevor Marriott that evidence doesn't matter in the real world. So just pick a source and pick a suspect and shout as loudly as you can that they're the right one. And if anyone challenges you, just tell them they live in a fairy tale world, wear blinkered rosy-hued glasses and ride a wagon with the wheels going round.

No not lets pick any suspect lets pick the suspect named Aaron Kosminski and assess and evaluate what there is to suggest he was ever a viable suspect or should remain on the list of suspects.

At the end of that excercise what is the end result nothing to connect or suggest he was ,but that wont be accpetable to you because you will come back with your favourite and well used question "Well how do you know there wasnt " the stock answer to not only in relation to this but other contentious issues where you keep throwing up this question is simple.

If the police at the time could not prove or justify their suspicions is it right for us to question their ethics and the results of their enquiries, just to keep a suspect name aline and on the list.

If the police in 1888 had reasonable grounds to take any of these matters further they would have done so and would have been documented. I have no doubt they carried out extensive enquiries in relatiion to all leads that came their way in an attempt to catch the killer.

More and more people now are challenging the basic facts to which the mystery has grown from, many looking at it in a postive way not as you do in a negative way. What are some of these old outdate theories

The killer only killed five women
The killer wrote the graffiti
the killer removed the organs from the victims at the crime scene
the killer cut/tore a piece of Eddowes apron to carry organs away/wipe hads/knife
the killer deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street
Kosminski,Tumblety and others were prime suspects.
the killer was a mad polish jew
the killer was a mad butcher

There is case to show that each and every one of the aforemtnioned is not written in stone and following modern day reserach all are now highly contentious issues.

Do I hear that question "Well you cant prove it" Wel it can be proven in many of those original facts.

The general publics pereption of this mystery is changing rapidly because they are not blinded in a way that you are they can look at this with impartiality having no hidden agendas and come to a unbiased view.


Who has made and who is making that argument? If somebody is making it, I assume they presented the evid..., er, I assume they explained their reasons. Do you think their reasons were/are good ones?

The point, surely, is that a degree of personal preference creeps into any evaluation of the ev...,

The point, surely, is that a degree of personal preference creeps into why the researcher chooses one source or suspect or theory over another and devotes their energy towards gathering evid..., um, towards gathering information or whatever, like, to support that preference.

The truth is that we don't know why the sources said what they said, so arguing which of them takes priority over the others is ultimately pointless. All we can do is assess the runes, the tealeaves in your cup, the bumps on your head, the feeling in your gut, or, if you have the misfortune to live in a fairly tale world, the evidence at your disposal, and state what you think.

Why does MAcnaghten have to take priority over Anderson, or vice versa?

[PaulB]

I appreciate how tiresome you find this line of argument, and you have been very polite and very patient.

Not tiresome, Jonathan. Not at all tiresome. I don't agree with a fair bit of your theorising, but that's not a problem. My problem is that I find it misplaced. You don't have to go up against any other suspect, real or imagined. Macnaghten speaks quite eloquently for himself.

[PaulB]

Havent you written at several books in which you champion Kosmisnki, and were you not directly involved in the Defintive documentary which also championed Aaron Kosminski as the prime suspect.

No, I have not written books championing Kosminski. As I have said several times, I do not and never have believed that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. Nor was I responsible for any championing of Kosminski in any documentary. Quite the opposite.

Now I would call that having a vested interest in Kosminski, beacuse if someone approached me as they have done in the past to promote a suspect If i did not feel that the suspect was a viable or likley suspect I would decline.

As, indeed, would I, and as I have done so.

Yet here you are 20+ years later with a small band of disciples refusing to accept new material flogging to death outdated theories, and suspects who as has been said should no longer be catergorised as suspects.

Unfortunately, no new material has been offered up. You mouth off about being about to provide it, but apart from your assertion that it exists, you haven't put anything on the table at all. All you do is claim that the theories are outdated and that suspects like Kosminski shouldn't be considered suspects at all. And you throw completely unsupported claims that the source materials are forged in whole or part. That the theories are outdated and the suspects are non-suspects is your fantasy, it isn't a reality at all, and you're fallback positions of hackneyed one-liners or claims that I and everyone else who thinks your arguments are naive to the point of imbecilic are biased just proved it's a fantasy. And the only thing that stops me dismissing you as a lunatic fringe fantasist is that you do unpardonable things like call Keith Skinner a liar and cast aspersions without evid..., without good reason, on people like Jim Swanson. They I defend...

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Havent you written at several books in which you champion Kosmisnki, and were you not directly involved in the Defintive documentary which also championed Aaron Kosminski as the prime suspect.

Now I would call that having a vested interest in Kosminski, beacuse if someone approached me as they have done in the past to promote a suspect If i did not feel that the suspect was a viable or likley suspect I would decline.

Yet here you are 20+ years later with a small band of disciples refusing to accept new material flogging to death outdated theories, and suspects who as has been said should no longer be catergorised as suspects.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Paul, that's very judicious of you, so we'll leave it that.

I appreciate how tiresome you find this line of argument, and you have been very polite and very patient.

My provisional conclusion is that it's [probably] not a mystery, which is not the same as saying there was ever a provable case against Druitt -- he may simply have been delusional (and tragically would been exonerated had he not taken his own life). A senior officer, nevertheless, posthumously thought it was case closed in 1891 and revealed this to the public in 1898, and broadly confirmed this solution in 1913 and 1914 (he judged the Polish Jew competing solution as nothing more than an idiosyncratic 'fairy tale'). What complicated that straight line between 1891 and 1914 is the same police chief's shifty need to fictionalise his chief suspect for fifteen years -- which forever cost this affable officer posterity's confidence in his reliability.

[PaulB]

Sorry, I had to go do the dishes.

Look, they both can't be right but they both can be wrong.

But it might be Macnaghten who was right and not Anderson -- and that is what is new in this ongoing debate.

For there is nobody else advocating that interpretation but me.

Therefore what I have tried to show is that the primary sources begin to change shape, to lose their equipoise, and to alter their gravitational pull in terms of value and limitations if Sir Melville Macnaghten is persuasively shown to be in command of his data; to know Druitt very well -- albeit posthumously -- and to be just as certain as Anderson.

The next element which upends the checkmate balance is if you can show that Macnaghten knows Anderson's preferred suspect better than the latter does.

I believe that you can, as an argument based on limited and contradictory sources.

The police sources are therefore not equal to each other in opacity, but rather return to what was their original relationship in the Edwardian Age: Macnaghten, both under his own name and that of credible writers, quashing the objections or alternative prognostications of Anderson, Reid, Smith, Abberline, Cox and Sagar,and in a private letter to Sims, Jack Littlechild too Swanson privately wrote about the deceased suspect, but it was the wrong dead one).

Sorry, Jonathan, but lots of people have and continue to advocate Macnaghten and Druitt, and quite rightly too, and I don't write off either. Both are up there, looking down from the top of the totem pole. And your arguments about the weight given to and the interpretation of Macnaghten is made and understood.

But it should be a stand alone theory, not dependent on downplaying Anderson or anyone else. Kosminski isn't up there because Macnaghten was downplayed, but because at one time Anderson seemed a better and potentially more authoritative witness. But Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis...