Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Phil Carter]

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

Helo Mke,

Thanks for that. 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?
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?
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?

With all the speculation of this man or that man arrested, almost daily, in the newspapers in England, it is strange that such a major arrest isnt completely documented in the newspapers in the country of the origin of the murders. To my mind at least. And if Scotland Yard ordered a blanket thrown over the newspapers in GB about it, why? Again we have no indication from any official source that it did happen that way in any case?

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

PaulB, you have every right to characterize it as a pointless and circular argument.

Your 2006 book is excellent and beautifully written, as I have praised on several occasions.

Furthermore, it judiciously looks at the police sources and comes to openly provisional conclusions. In fact, 'conclusions' is not the right word.

Evaluations -- evaluations of their strengths and limitations as sources. You show Macnaghten be talking out of his hat. On the other hand you also write that he was a senior officer, presumably he had access to everything pertinent, and he was not an idiot. You are just as fair with the other police primary sources.

It is a model of that kind of logical analysis.

But my counter to the reasonable theory of Macnaghten and Anderson kind of checkmating each other is this:

This checkmate theory also rests on Sir Melville, unlike perhaps Sir Robert, obviously not having access to basic biographical information about his 'preferred' suspect -- hence his errors -- and what is more never claiming to be, unlike Sir Robert, as 'certain' about his alternate Ripper suspect.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this thread of the checkmate theory is unsustainable based on Sir Melville's 1913 comments and his 1914 memoirs.

It may well be unsustainable, but the point I am desperately trying to make is that it doesn't much matter. Macnaghten received information which persuaded him that Druitt was the murderer, and if he knew all the evidence against Kosminski and every other suspect under the sun, we must therefore conclude that the information he received was very impressive. Even if he didn't know the full evidence against Kosminski et al, his information about Druitt nevertheless persuaded him and must be treated very seriously indeed.

And, it persuaded other people too, or so we assume if we accept that Macnaghten's information came from or from a common source with Farquharson.

But that doesn't negate Anderson's suspect. It doesn't even negate the opinion of those informed sources who said nobody had he faintest idea who the Ripper was. It just means that we have various informed people who thought different things. One may have been right and the rest wrong. Or they may all have been wrong. No one source is better than the others. Not really, although we may have objectively (or even subjectively) arrived at preferences. That's why we hope to find the evid..., the reasons on which these people reached the conclusions they did, be it that so-and-so committed the murders or that nobody knows who committed the murders.

You can therefore advance you scenario about Macnaghten and Druitt and be challenged only on the inconsistencies in it, if there are any, but not because someone prefers a different suspect or source or feels it in their water that you're wrong.

That's all.

[Jonathan H]

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).

[Jonathan H]

Checkmate?

PaulB, you have every right to characterize it as a pointless and circular argument.

Your 2006 book is excellent and beautifully written, as I have praised on several occasions.

Furthermore, it judiciously looks at the police sources and comes to openly provisional conclusions. In fact, 'conclusions' is not the right word.

Evaluations -- evaluations of their strengths and limitations as sources. You show Macnaghten be talking out of his hat. On the other hand you also write that he was a senior officer, presumably he had access to everything pertinent, and he was not an idiot. You are just as fair with the other police primary sources.

It is a model of that kind of logical analysis.

But my counter to the reasonable theory of Macnaghten and Anderson kind of checkmating each other is this:

This checkmate theory also rests on Sir Melville, unlike perhaps Sir Robert, obviously not having access to basic biographical information about his 'preferred' suspect -- hence his errors -- and what is more never claiming to be, unlike Sir Robert, as 'certain' about his alternate Ripper suspect.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this thread of the checkmate theory is unsustainable based on Sir Melville's 1913 comments and his 1914 memoirs.

[TomTomKent]

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.

Well, the good news is that if your insistance was the root cause for historians, detectives, archeaologists, scientists, and academics from any field needing evidence for the last few hundred years, you are a shoe in for the James Randi Educational Foundation $1 million prize. The irony of course being that you would need evidence (because you insist...)

[PaulB]

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?

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.

On the other hand,

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?

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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