Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Bridewell]

Forgery

Its quite simple the marginalia has not been proved to have been conclusivly written by Swanson.

Hi Trevor,

Doubt is one thing. An accusation of forgery is another. This is the post:

I prefer to think that whoever forged the bit about Kosminski in the Marginalia was simply depending on the Memorandum by Macnaghton which only surfaced in the 1960s and didn't give Kosminski a first name.

totally agree

That's not an expression of doubt (which is what you have defended), it's an accusation of forgery. Where is the evidence that the marginalia are forged?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Doubt is one thing. An accusation of forgery is another. This is the post:



That's not an expression of doubt (which is what you have defended), it's an accusation of forgery. Where is the evidence that the marginalia are forged?

Regards, Bridewell.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as far as i am concerned when i have an expert saying that the writing is not Swansons then doubts must be cast. This has been gone through and argued many times in the past.

If you want to accept its genuine in its entirety then so be it, but taking everything into account the balance of probablity sways in the opposite direction which ever way you look at it. So if swanson didnt write it then someone else must have would that would then make it a forgery or part forgery would it not ?

[lynn cates]

Let's all give him a hand.

Hello Trevor. Thanks for that.

See, I thought his recreational pursuits were ambidextrous. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Nope

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as far as i am concerned when i have an expert saying that the writing is not Swansons then doubts must be cast. Thgisd has been gone through and argued many time in the past.

If you want to accept its genuine in its entirety then so be it, but the balance of probablity sways in the opposite direction.

It's not about what I accept or don't accept though, is it? Nor is it about the balance of probability swaying. It's not about opinion either. It's about whether or not a charge of forgery can be supported by evidence.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Supe]

but taking everything into account the balance of probablity sways in the opposite direction which ever way you look at it.

Can anyone explain, far less parse, what this means? It seems utter nonsense.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bridewell. I think the point is that even though a charge of forgery could not legally be supported by evidence, the mere suggestion of the possibility of forgery - in the eyes of some - will devalue the marginalia as evidence. That might be what Trevor is getting at.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Tom,

the mere suggestion of the possibility of forgery - in the eyes of some - will devalue the marginalia as evidence.

And sell more books for Trev next time around?

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

And Stephen Thomas.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

I think that Trevor has a right to believe that the Marginalia is some kind of hoax or prank, and one which may have fooled the Swanson family and to which they are not party.

Do I believe that?

No. I think that's extremely unlikely, but not impossible.

I think that the balance of the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Swanson Marginalia as authentic, but als that it is not a reliable account of literal events.

I think, Trevor that you are right -- broadly speaking -- about Anderson and/or Swanson not being sure until 1895, eg. the agitation over Grant.

But from that year Anderson did begin telling people that he was confident the Ripper was a locked-up lunatic, and not as late as 1910. Though the tale of the Super-witness arguably is a late addition -- at least in the painfully meagre extant record.

In the unofficial version of his 'Report', but disseminated to the public from 1898, this is what Macnaghten wrote about the Polish Jew suspect:

"No 2. Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in the very heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies. He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

According to his son's biography, Anderson shared Swanson's mistaken belief that 'Kosminski' had passed away in an asylum -- Swanson even claiming it to be 'soon after' the incarceration. Yet Macnaghten knew, in 1894, that he was still alive, and if the 'draft' was actually written in 1898 then he knew then too.

For it was important for Mac's 'awful glut' thesis that 'Kosminski' and Mcihael Ostrog both still be alive after the charnal house of Miller's Ct. -- and they were -- and to have Druitt pass this litmus test by killing himself maybe the same night, which the real Druitt does not pass in terms of suicidingimmediately.

So how is that Macnathen knows that Aaron Kosminski is still alive and does not share it with his superior or his subordinate?

The reason Swanson writes 'Kosminski' is because I believe Mac is his source for the entire story, reshaped for Anderson-Swanson. He left off the first names and so Swasnon had no choice but to do the same.

We can see this reshaping between the primary sources on Aaron Kosminski, the official version of his 'Report', the unofficial version and the Marginalia, each step a vivid escalation:

'Kosminski' goes from an unlikely 'suspect' -- though better than Cutbush -- to a possibility because he may have been spotted by a policeman, to definitely the fiend who was positively identified at a police location, and who very satisfyingly 'died soon after'.

I think the Marginalia, supplying us with Anderson's full tale, is the culmination of this evolution.

Yet running counter to this steady march to the 'definitely ascertainedf fact' is Sims, a Mac source-by-proxy, who in 1907 claims that the Polish Jew is a minor, sideshow suspect compared to the leading 'two theories' sanctioned by the state: the bearded, middle-aged, English doctor who drowned himself and a young, American medical student.

Whereas the Polish Jew is just an addendum to the English medico suspect, and is dismissed because he was out and about for some considerable time after the Kelly murder and did not harm anybody. The witness, the beat cop, apparently claimed that the resemblance was not definitive, only approximate, when he somehow saw him later. Sims also writes that the Polish Jew (and the Russian doctor) were alive long after the Kelly murder (does that mean that to be alive shortly after would be ok for the litmus test?), yet if Anderson and/or Swanson read this, and I think he did, it made no impression on him/them.

In Mac's memoirs the Polish Jew 'suspect' is reduced to nothing at all.

The 1907 Sims' magazine article source arguably provides the bridge between a Polish Jew suspect with no witness, and then having a witness who had a look at him later and could not confirm, or rather would not affirm.

[Monty]

Stephen and Trevor have the right to believe what they wish,

However to state outright its a forgery, other than these alledged 'experts' of Trevors (who seem to crop up to bolster his claims yet are never revealed) is competely wrong in my opinion, which I've paid my money for.

Its a hefty accusation, one not to be made without complete and damning evidence, supporting evidence.

So my question is, rather than seeing a copy, has Trevors expert seen the genuine article?

Why am I asking questions to which I already know the answers?

Monty

[Jonathan H]

People have a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

[Trevor Marriott]

Stephen and Trevor have the right to believe what they wish,

However to state outright its a forgery, other than these alledged 'experts' of Trevors (who seem to crop up to bolster his claims yet are never revealed) is competely wrong in my opinion, which I've paid my money for.

Its a hefty accusation, one not to be made without complete and damning evidence, supporting evidence.

So my question is, rather than seeing a copy, has Trevors expert seen the genuine article?

Why am I asking questions to which I already know the answers?


Monty

In the light of all that is known about this margialia and coupled with the expert opinion I belive I have every right to question its authenticity and I should add that there are many many more who also question it, So it is not just my own beliefs.

What would be the point of disclosing the name of my expert it would only give the likes of you and others the oportunity of questioning the credibilty of that expert.

In answer to your question my expert has not seen the original because access to the original has been declined. But it doesnt even take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swansons 1888 writing that surely must ring the warning bells.

I would have thought that Nevil Swanson and all the others who have been pulling his strings would want this matter cleared up once and for all, hurtful as it may be to perhaps find out the real truth.

The lack of co-operation and silence speaks volumes. Just think of the reprecussions if the marginalia were to be proved not to be genuine. Kosminski gone for ever, to be fair he has almost gone in any event.

You ask, why are you asking questions ?

The answer is simply because thats all you can do, you have no answers and you cant handle the truth your supercilious and arrogant attitude never changes on here. You are one of only a handful now on here who have been and are still living and beleiving in the original accepted theories surrounding this mystery well Mr, times have changed things have moved on, the old accepted theories are rapidly being disproved, time for you to change perhaps. I doubt that will happen try as you may though you will not belittle or intimidate me.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that Trevor has a right to believe that the Marginalia is some kind of hoax or prank, and one which may have fooled the Swanson family and to which they are not party.

Do I believe that?

No. I think that's extremely unlikely, but not impossible.

I think that the balance of the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Swanson Marginalia as authentic, but als that it is not a reliable account of literal events.

I think, Trevor that you are right -- broadly speaking -- about Anderson and/or Swanson not being sure until 1895, eg. the agitation over Grant.

But from that year Anderson did begin telling people that he was confident the Ripper was a locked-up lunatic, and not as late as 1910. Though the tale of the Super-witness arguably is a late addition -- at least in the painfully meagre extant record.

In the unofficial version of his 'Report', but disseminated to the public from 1898, this is what Macnaghten wrote about the Polish Jew suspect:

"No 2. Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in the very heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies. He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

According to his son's biography, Anderson shared Swanson's mistaken belief that 'Kosminski' had passed away in an asylum -- Swanson even claiming it to be 'soon after' the incarceration. Yet Macnaghten knew, in 1894, that he was still alive, and if the 'draft' was actually written in 1898 then he knew then too.

For it was important for Mac's 'awful glut' thesis that 'Kosminski' and Mcihael Ostrog both still be alive after the charnal house of Miller's Ct. -- and they were -- and to have Druitt pass this litmus test by killing himself maybe the same night, which the real Druitt does not pass in terms of suicidingimmediately.

So how is that Macnathen knows that Aaron Kosminski is still alive and does not share it with his superior or his subordinate?

The reason Swanson writes 'Kosminski' is because I believe Mac is his source for the entire story, reshaped for Anderson-Swanson. He left off the first names and so Swasnon had no choice but to do the same.

We can see this reshaping between the primary sources on Aaron Kosminski, the official version of his 'Report', the unofficial version and the Marginalia, each step a vivid escalation:

'Kosminski' goes from an unlikely 'suspect' -- though better than Cutbush -- to a possibility because he may have been spotted by a policeman, to definitely the fiend who was positively identified at a police location, and who very satisfyingly 'died soon after'.

I think the Marginalia, supplying us with Anderson's full tale, is the culmination of this evolution.

Yet running counter to this steady march to the 'definitely ascertainedf fact' is Sims, a Mac source-by-proxy, who in 1907 claims that the Polish Jew is a minor, sideshow suspect compared to the leading 'two theories' sanctioned by the state: the bearded, middle-aged, English doctor who drowned himself and a young, American medical student.

Whereas the Polish Jew is just an addendum to the English medico suspect, and is dismissed because he was out and about for some considerable time after the Kelly murder and did not harm anybody. The witness, the beat cop, apparently claimed that the resemblance was not definitive, only approximate, when he somehow saw him later. Sims also writes that the Polish Jew (and the Russian doctor) were alive long after the Kelly murder (does that mean that to be alive shortly after would be ok for the litmus test?), yet if Anderson and/or Swanson read this, and I think he did, it made no impression on him/them.

In Mac's memoirs the Polish Jew 'suspect' is reduced to nothing at all.

The 1907 Sims' magazine article source arguably provides the bridge between a Polish Jew suspect with no witness, and then having a witness who had a look at him later and could not confirm, or rather would not affirm.

Jonathan

Kosmisnki whoever Kosminski was should not now be regarded as a suspect. Macnagthen exonerates who ever he was referring to in the Aberconaway version. That was written before the marginalia so why would Swanson want to write what he is purported to have written in the marginalia it simply doesnt add up.

Anderson has a documented history of being less than liberal with the truth in matters.

And as for this mythical ID parade well that did not happen in the way described by Swanson, again reserachers have been wasting so much time in trying to find this mad polish jew living in Whitechapel who was incarcerated in a lunatic asylum for what purpose ? Even if he were found and identified what purpose would it serve, Macnagthen has already exonerated him.

If the part of the marginalia regarding the seaside home is an invention then it was well thought out because in later years it would have been widely known that there were no official records or documents to corroborate this so an almost perfect scenario to invent to prop up Kosminski, and having invented it and questions obvioulsy being asked the old chestnut surfaces yet again "this corroboration could have been contained in records that have now been lost stolen or destroyed"

Look at all the quotes from police officers in later years saying they didnt have a clue and one in particular DI Reid publicly challenges what Anderson wrote in his book. That part of Andersons book has formed the basis for the mythical ID parade decsribed in the marginalia.

[Monty]

In the light of all that is known about this margialia and coupled with the expert opinion I belive I have every right to question its authenticity and I should add that there are many many more who also question it, So it is not just my own beliefs.

Completely agree with you Trevor, thats not the issue.

What would be the point of disclosing the name of my expert it would only give the likes of you and others the oportunity of questioning the credibilty of that expert.

Likes of me? What are the likes of me? People who question the questioners?

Of course their credentials will be questioned. You labelled them as experts, we've only your word for it. When youve based your conclusions on their opinion then its only natural to ask from what qualification they speak from. This question will be asked at some stage Trevor. As you have done in the past, so quit the hypocrasy.

In answer to your question my expert has not seen the original because access to the original has been declined. But it doesnt even take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swansons 1888 writing that surely must ring the warning bells.

So they havent seen the original? So if they havent seen the original what did they see? A hi res copy? If so, bearing in mind that there is a reluctance for the holding parties to deal with you due to your biased views on the document, what the heck did they see?

I would have thought that Nevil Swanson and all the others who have been pulling his strings would want this matter cleared up once and for all, hurtful as it may be to perhaps find out the real truth.

Thats a matter for them to decide, not you.

The lack of co-operation and silence speaks volumes. Just think of the reprecussions if the marginalia were to be proved not to be genuine. Kosminski gone for ever, to be fair he has almost gone in any event.

The lack of co-operation is with you. There is a reluctance to deal with you due to your intimidation and accusatory nature (as seen with your libalous comments about Keith Skinner which have been removed).

The bottom line is they note your true intentions and prejudiced agenda. They dont trust you to be fair and objective.

You ask, why are you asking questions ?

The answer is simply because thats all you can do, you have no answers and you cant handle the truth your supercilious and arrogant attitude never changes on here. You are one of only a handful now on here who have been and are still living and beleiving in the original accepted theories surrounding this mystery well Mr, times have changed things have moved on, the old accepted theories are rapidly being disproved, time for you to change perhaps. I doubt that will happen try as you may though you will not belittle or intimidate me.

Oh please, quit the Martyr act. You are hardly the shrinking wall flower.

I cant handle the truth? Youve been watching too many Tom Cruise films again Trevor. Now you think you know me. You dont. I have no theory regarding this mystery, nor suspect. A concept you seem to fail to understand. Its alien to you. So I will try to make it clear.

I hold to the facts. Now these facts are open to challenge. However you do not challenge. You state off hand they are wrong and provide NO independant evidence for that. You accuse and state arrogantly that what has gone on before is false.

This is damaging to true research and its that which I find annoying.

So Mr, if you want me off your back, pull your act together.

Monty

[PaulB]

In the light of all that is known about this margialia and coupled with the expert opinion I belive I have every right to question its authenticity and I should add that there are many many more who also question it, So it is not just my own beliefs.

Trevor, you most certainly do have the right to question the authenticity of the marginalia. Just like everybody has the right to question it. Just as we have all questioned it and done our best to answer it.

You do not have any right to declare it is a forgery, which is the point Bridewell has been making and you have been dodging.

All that is known about the marginalia in fact suggests it is genuine - two handwriting experts have confirmed the handwriting is almost certainly Swanson's, the provenance is impeccable, and there is no evidence to suggests that the handful of people who could have forged it or any part of it did so. As for your expert's opinion, it carries absolutely no weight as you have not revealed the evidence on which it is based, have not identified the exemplar document(s) against which comparisons have been made, and have not identified your expert so that his/her experience and qualifications can be assessed. Until this happens, your expert's opinion might as well not exist.

What would be the point of disclosing the name of my expert it would only give the likes of you and others the oportunity of questioning the credibilty of that expert.

Precisely. Which is one of the things that has to be done before either his conclusion or yours can be considered, let alone treated seriously.

In answer to your question my expert has not seen the original because access to the original has been declined. But it doesnt even take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swansons 1888 writing that surely must ring the warning bells.

I believe access has been declined because there are grave concerns about the condition of the book and writing therein. I may be wrong, but I always understand that you haven't indicated who would be undertaking the tests or what the test would involve or what the results of the tests might show.

If it doesn't take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swanson's 1888 writing, why haven't two experts noticed them?

I would have thought that Nevil Swanson and all the others who have been pulling his strings would want this matter cleared up once and for all, hurtful as it may be to perhaps find out the real truth.

The lack of co-operation and silence speaks volumes. Just think of the reprecussions if the marginalia were to be proved not to be genuine. Kosminski gone for ever, to be fair he has almost gone in any event.

You are mistaken. If the marginalia didn’t exist, ‘Kosminski’ would not be 'gone for ever'. ‘Kosminski’ remains as a suspect in the Macnaghten memoranda, and he would remain as the most likely person to be identified with Anderson’s unnamed Polish Jew. Apart from adding some details, the most important thing the marginalia does is confirm that identification. If the marginalia didn’t exist, you would be left with 'Kosminski' as a suspect and be faced with the possibility that Anderson’s Polish Jew was somebody else.

Just to return to one of your earlier posts to this thread:

The marginlia has been in the past few years examined by document examiners who according to those in direct contact with the marginalia state that it is somewhere around 80% certain that swanson wrote it.

However these persons will not make public any of these reports.

Furthermore I have sent a copy of the marginalia to my own expert who is of the opinion that the writing is not that of Swansons. Bearing in mind the explanation given by the original examiners was that the samples of Swanons handwriting used for comparison purposes were dated 1888. and that due to the passage of time his handwritng may have detoriated.

My sample of swansons handwriting were much later 1894.

It might improve your credibility, the willingness of people to make material available to you, and to give credence to your faith in your expert's opinion, if you showed that you understood what has actually been said and written about the marginalia. What was actually written was that very slight differences in the handwriting of the marginalia itself could suggest the onset of a neurological disorder, which, if so, could indicate that the marginalia was written at different times. It had nothing to do with the date of the documents against which the marginalia handwriting was compared.

The date of your samples of Swanson's handwriting is therefore largely immaterial, except that if it is significantly later than 1894 it might reveal the neurological disorder and thereby confirm Swanson's authorship. If it doesn't show it, that won't mean anything either because the neurological disorder is but one possible explanation.