Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Bridewell]

Mea Culpa

Hello Colin,

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

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

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

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

Apologies for the unnecessary confusion caused.

Regards, Bridewell

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Colin,

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

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

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

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

best wishes

Phil

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

[Phil Carter]

Hello Colin,

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

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

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

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

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

You're quite right. My apologies.

Regards, Bridewell.

A little digression is sometimes stimulating to the mind

[Bridewell]

But we digress this isnt a Feigenbaum thread

You're quite right. My apologies.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Bridewell

"Feigenabum" (?!) was never (as far as I know) "arrested and documented in Whitechapel" & so wouldn't have made it into Paul's enormously long list of suspects!

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

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

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

But we digress this isnt a Feigenbaum thread

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Feigenbaum

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.

"Feigenabum" (?!) was never (as far as I know) "arrested and documented in Whitechapel" & so wouldn't have made it into Paul's enormously long list of suspects!

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

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

1987 and probably 1988/89, if by 'original' you mean the actual marginalia.

Why?

and it took you 12 months to get a look at it thats unlike you to wait so long when you latch onto something new you are normally like a ferret up a drainpipe to get a look at whatever it is, why the long delay ?

Yes i do mean the actual marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, Trevor, but instead of resorting to the personal comments, why don't you answer the specific points. If you really, really believe you can say 'is there any evidence that Jack the Ripper wrote the graffiti' and answer it 'no' and dispose of the graffiti as if it doesn't exist, despite the fact that there is no evidence that anyone else in the whole world wrote it either, then explain why.

In reation to the graffiti you argue that there is no evidence to show JTR didnt write the graffiti, well if you want to look at in that way so be it but what evidence was there in the first place which led the police belive it to have been written by the killer- NONE. did anyone in 1888 state catergorically that it was connected to the murder, because no one could interpret it then and hasnt to this day.

So therefore if there was none to start off with and nothing has come to light in the ensuing years one can draw an inference that it was not written by the killer or connected to the murders.

That's all you have to do. Defend your specific argument. Leave all the 'go sit in a dark room' rubbish in your playpen and justify your argument. Come on, Trevor, come and play in the big boy's world where you need a little bit more than hackneyed one-liners and meaningless platitudes.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

All those suspects and no Feigenbaum!

(Sorry, Trevor. Couldn't resist it).

Regards, Bridewell.

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.

[Bridewell]

Feigenbaum

The way you think would put every man ever arrested and documented in Whitechapel for carrying a knife hitting a prostitute etc etc as a ripper suspect.

All those suspects and no Feigenbaum!

(Sorry, Trevor. Couldn't resist it).

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

Don,

Rhetorical?

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Are you suggesting that the marginalia was altered after Paul first saw it? Or simply sloppy writing on your part?

Don,

Rhetorical?

Mike

[PaulB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
Trevor,
You seriously misrepresented something I said and therefore you should make the time to search through the posts to find out why.

There is much I could say about what else you have written, not the least about the historicity of the Bible, but let's just look at two things to see how they reflect your application of logic.



Okay, 'Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO'. So, there is no evidence who wrote the graffiti, therefore it follows that you don't know whether it was written by the murderer or not. So, here's piece of writing that the murderer could have written, yet you discard that evidence because you can't prove he did. That's not just appalling history, Trevor, that's appalling detective practice as well. And unfortnetaly it is the sort of faulty reasoning that permeates almost every assessment of the evidence you make.

Please dont insult my ability to assess and evaluate evidence i have been doing that for 40 years and still do that to this very day in many recent serious criminal cases. It is yours that is questionable


That's scary.

Trevor, there is no evidence, no evidence at all, to show who wrote the graffiti. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So you can't say the murderer did not write it. You just can't. No matter how much you'd like to. If you think otherwise, explain why.

According to you logic every piece of graffiti on every piece of wall in Whitechapel was potentially written by the killer, thats how your logic pans out. So if the words "Kilroy was the killer" was found on a wall in whitechapel would be looking for a suspect called Kilroy just because it appears on a wall. NO ! but with your logic you probabaly would be.

That's being silly and sad. The Goulston Street writing was found just above or close to a piece of apron identified as without doubt having belonged to Catherine Eddowes. Setting aside what seems generally agreed to be your very highly unlikely notion that Eddowes used a portion of her only apron in the world as a sanitary towel and disposed of it where it was found herself, it is highly probable that her murderer dropped it there himself. So, the apron came from Eddowes, the murderer was at that location and probably dropped it where it was found. That distinguishes the Goulston Street writing from every other piece of graffiti in Whitechapel, the world, and the universe. So, now go ahead and please explain to me how you work out that according to my logic any piece of graffiti could have been written by the murderer?

In this example you ask a question, then answer it when you in fact don’t know the answer. You have not got the remotest idea whether Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested for a violent offence, so why do you answer ‘no’. Did he ever mix with prostitutes? You don’t know whether he did or not. You don’t know the answer to any of those questions, yet you are answering them with the answer you want.

There is nothing to show he was ! i can only answer with the right answer


There is nothing to show that he associated prostitutes. There is nothing to show that he didn't have wild parties with them every night of the week. You can't answer the question either way. So you don't have the right answer.

All of your negative answers are based on all this rubbish about files being lost stolen or detsroyed, thats wearing thin now.

Okay, let's sort this out now. I am not saying that anything was contained in any missing files. Do you understand that? I'll repeat it: I am NOT saying that anything was contained in any missing file. Okay? YOU are the one saying that stuff wasn't contained in the missing files. Do you follow me: YOU ARE SAYING THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE MISSING FILES. You are talking through your backside. You don't know what was in or was not in the missing files. You don't know. You therefore can't say. And there were files which have gone missing. A lot of them. So the only thing tat's wearing thin is you trotting out the old rubbish.

You keep going on about my evidence where is yours to prove all of these old outdated theories you cling to

I don't cling to any old, outdated theories. None. Not a one. It suites your twisted world view to think I do, to invest anyone with ideas contrary to your own with bias or a personal agenda. That saves you from having to counter their specific arguments. But you're the one who argued that we should flush the graffiti, I'm just asking that you present a cogent and reasonable argument rather than pose your own question and answer session.

You know, it's really easy. All you have to do is state the evidence on which you know that the murderer didn't write the graffiti.

So what’s going on here? Well, you are posing a series of questions, you have little or no evidence on which to base an answer to those questions, so you provide a purely subjective answer (an answer that suites your preconceived ideas and conclusions), and then you base your action on that. Thus, you ‘negate it (the graffiti) totally from this mystery’, but the graffiti was real, it existed, it was there, and you have absolutely no evidence at all that it wasn’t written by the murderer!

Thats true but nor do you to suggest it was. So why say it was when clearly there is nothing to suggest it was. This is you favourite trick on here playing with words.

There's no trick or word play, Trevor. What there is (or rather, what there isn't) is no evidence to say who wrote the graffiti. None at all. Therefore you can't say who wrote it. Neither can I. The difference is, I am not saying who wrote it or didn't write it. You are. The onus is therefore on you to prove it - with evidence, not because it's what you feel in your water.

These are not all my ideas anyone with a modicule of common sense would come to the same conclusions, not sit on the fence as you do waiting for someone to post something which goes against your beliefs and then you swoop to destroy well you may have destroyed many in the past but I can tell you now you wont detsroy me.

There you go again. No answer, so you switch into the old 'he's buased' routine. Sad. It doesn't alter the fact that you have no idea about who wrote the graffii.

Do you have any idea how much of the past would be erased if your approach was taken?

Well if some of the past can be disproved lets get rid of it and move on.

Sad.

Do yu have the slightest comprehension of how ludicrous - and utterly wrong - your reasoning (to use the word lightly) is here?

[PaulB]

I have a couple of questions to ask if you be so kind as to answer

1. When were you first made aware of the existence of the marginalia ?

2. When did you first view the original marginalia ?

1987 and probably 1988/89, if by 'original' you mean the actual marginalia.

Why?