Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I have not declared it a forgery I merely agreed with what another poster wrote which is a big difference

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.

Well you would argue that what I have said carries no weight you are one who contiues to prop up Kosmisnki as a suspect and one who has no doubt benefited and continues to do so from him being referred to as a suspect. But what i dont understand is how you can champion someone who only exists in a surname and cannot be formally identified.

As to my expert obvioulsy that expert cannot give an expert statement not having examined and compared the original but even experts can give an opinion by looking at copies. That is why I have made this an issue and given Nevil swanson the opportunity of having it re examined.

Obvioulsy I have to abide by his decison however there now must be a serious doubt surrounding the authenticity until it is re examined forensically and that doubt either confirmed or removed.

The Swanson comparison sample is a three page official memo writen by Swanson in 1894 and is not relvevant to the Ripper investigation so there is nothing to be gained by publishing it on here

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.

You are correct this is the excuse given however it wasnt an issue when you and Leahy were using it etc when making the documentary and when you and others were looking at it in the past.

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?

It appears they have noticed them and put the differences down to swansons age when he purportedly wrote the marginalia. Nevill swanson told me that the experts state in the reports that there is only an 80% chance that swanson wrote the marginlia. thats not conclusive ! and now we have control samples of his writing dated 6 years after the orginal control samples which were used.

Another question if he did write it why would he sign it, the book was in his possession at that time it wasnt going anywhere no one was presumabaly going to look at it ?


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.

You keep referring to the MM but how do you account for ther fact that MM exonerates his suspect in the AV ? You cant have it both ways


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

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.

I would say the differences are more than slight and why would he write it at different time doesnt make sense you are flanneling !

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.

Its is material firstly an expert could compare the 1888 handwriting to the 1894 handwriting. Then a comparison could be made with the original marginalia and the 1894 sample

You are also forgetting the forensic tests in relation to the pencil annotations which could be carried out in determing the age of the graphite.

My handwriting hasnt changed over the past 30 years has yours.?[/B]

In concluding everything else connected to this does not stand up to close scrutiny it seems you want to cherry pick the parts which seem to suit your argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

Completely agree with you Trevor, thats not the issue.



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.



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?



Thats a matter for them to decide, not you.



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.



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

You keep coming, to the victor the spoils !

My act wont change in fact its getting better by the day you aint seen nothing yet .

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

Of course you can 'eliminate' a police suspect in a theory. In an historical theory based on limited and contradictory sources.

I agree that Macnaghten directly in his 1894 (or perhaps 1898, eg. 'Aberconway'), and indirectly in his 1913 comments and 1914 memoirs, and in what Sims wrote as his proxy in 1907, did exonerate the Polish Jew as a Ripper suspect.

But that is, in itself, an interpretation of a very enigmatic and ambiguous primary source, who seems to talk out of differents sides of his mouth depending on his audience.

Therefore it could be wrong.

Perhaps Macnaghten thought 'Kosminski' was a very strong suspect indeed, but so hated Anderson he could not let him have the credit? Or, Mac was such an anti-anti-Semite that he let a kind of Edwardian political correctness drive his diminution of the Polish Jew suspect in favour of another who was more the kind of chap he could have had round for tea -- and about whom he wrongly thought had killed himself the same night as the final murder (so much for the 'awful glut' clincher).

That's a legitimate interpretation too, as to why Mac was so certain -- and yet wrong; that he can be debunked as unreliable and Anderson judged much more reliable (and more consistent, at least from 1895 to 1912).

If we had more sources to measure them against then we might be more certain, or an argument might be strengthened or we might have a new theory.

Therefore a provisional opinion is the best we can do, if you believe the sources are more compelling towards one of the police suspects rather than the others.

I do, for example, but nobody agrees.

On the other hand, to be absolutely definite that Aaron Kosminksi and Frances Tumblety and Montague Druitt (and for some Goerge Chapman, and for nobody Michael Ostrog) can be permanently eliminated as the Whitechapel fiend when they each had -- to controversial degrees -- police 'patrons', is a step way too far in my opinion.

To use a tiresome truism they were there and we were not. They could not have all been right and may have all been wrong.

It is reasonable to argue that while Swanson made mistakes in an unofficial source, he could have been writing -- for his eyes only -- about the best bet to be 'Jack the Ripper', who was a Polish Jew, was mad, and did have a brother, and who fell apart when confronted by an eyewitness whom he recognised -- and who recognised him.

I counter-argue that a putative hoaxer is not likely to have added the complication of the 'Seaside Home' or that the suspect was deceased unless they knew they were true details (the former is very unlikely and the latter is demonstrably false).

An hoaxer, in say 1987, would have simply repeated the terrific titbit in 'Aberconway': eg. a beat cop witness who affirmed, but the suspect -- still alive in 1910 -- was already sectioned and thus beyond the reach of the law.

There are a number of factors which overwhelmingly argue in favour of the authenticity of the Marginalia, only one of which are Swanson's errors about 'Kosminski'. For these [potentially] undermine its reliability as a police, primary source. Now, to what degree is the subject of modern historical debate, but the alternate opinions which emerge from that debate can only be contingent.

[Carotid Capers]

Thanks Bridewell, a pleasure to be amongst such esteemed company, even if they do go straight for the jugular (Carotid, i mean)?!
A forgery? Why? By whom? For what purpose?! i don't think so. All very odd i agree, especially the hazy vaguery of this Seaside Home I.D., but then as they say, truth is often stranger than fiction..., perhaps some mind expanding elixir to assist lateral thinking, eh? pass the laudanum, Sherlock!!! But seriously, thanks for all these interesting responses.

[Monty]

You keep coming, to the victor the spoils !

My act wont change in fact its getting better by the day you aint seen nothing yet .

I haven't seen anything yet?

Yes, indeed I haven't.

Monty

[PaulB]

Well you would argue that what I have said carries no weight you are one who contiues to prop up Kosmisnki as a suspect and one who has no doubt benefited and continues to do so from him being referred to as a suspect. But what i dont understand is how you can champion someone who only exists in a surname and cannot be formally identified.

Nice try, Trev. But no banana. We don’t know who the expert is, what they are an expert in, what qualifications and experience they have, or what the evidence for their conclusion is. That’s got nothing whatever to do with whether or not I prop up Kosminski, and I don’t, it’s got everything to do with the quality of your evidence, which since we know nothing about it, is zilch.

As to my expert obvioulsy that expert cannot give an expert statement not having examined and compared the original but even experts can give an opinion by looking at copies. That is why I have made this an issue and given Nevil swanson the opportunity of having it re examined.

Nobody has said otherwise, have they?

Obvioulsy I have to abide by his decison however there now must be a serious doubt surrounding the authenticity until it is re examined forensically and that doubt either confirmed or removed.

There isn’t any ‘serious doubt’ about the authenticity of the marginalia, Trevor. None at all. There’s just you saying that there is.

The Swanson comparison sample is a three page official memo writen by Swanson in 1894 and is not relvevant to the Ripper investigation so there is nothing to be gained by publishing it on here

I’m not asking you to publish it on here or anywhere else. I’m simply saying that one needs to know the document against which the marginalia writing was compared. There are several reasons why this is important, one which has caused a problem or two in the past is that Swanson, Anderson, and others, had reports and correspondence copied out by a secretary which they then signed. Care therefore has to be taken to ensure that a document was actually written by the signatory. You are claiming that there are differences between the marginalia and an exemplar document which are obvious even to a non-expert eye. Since two experts have compared the marginalia to known examples of Swanson’s handwriting and have not noticed such obvious differences, one can only wonder what your exemplar document is, and, if it is this 1894 memo, if it has definitely been established that the handwriting is Swanson’s.

It appears they have noticed them and put the differences down to swansons age when he purportedly wrote the marginalia. Nevill swanson told me that the experts state in the reports that there is only an 80% chance that swanson wrote the marginlia. thats not conclusive ! and now we have control samples of his writing dated 6 years after the orginal control samples which were used.

Another question if he did write it why would he sign it, the book was in his possession at that time it wasnt going anywhere no one was presumabaly going to look at it ?

To answer your last question first: habit. I believe Swanson also initialled other marginal writing which you are, of course, aware of, unless you are claiming that was forged too.

80% was Nevill’s spontaneous and generous estimate. The report does not give any percentage. It states, as has been published: ‘I have not found any differences between the known and questioned writings
in features that I consider are clearly fundamental structural features of the writing. However, in certain circumstances my findings might occur if Swanson were not the writer of the questioned writing. Consequently, my findings do not show unequivocally that Swanson is the writer of the
questioned writing but they do support this proposition. I have therefore concluded that there is strong evidence to support the proposition that Swanson wrote the questioned annotations in the book The
Lighter Side of My Official Life.’

In other words, whilst allowing for the caution all experts now display when being asked for an unequivocal answer, and given the impossibility of giving a definitive answer, the conclusion was that Swanson authored the marginalia. Indeed, the argument that Swanson authored the marginalia was supported by ‘strong evidence’.

On balance I’d say that was a probability percentage way higher than 80% - that the marginalia was written by Swanson was supported by strong evidence and that ‘no differences were found…’

You keep referring to the MM but how do you account for ther fact that MM exonerates his suspect in the AV ? You cant have it both ways

Trevor, let’s set this straight. Macnaghten doesn’t exonerate anyone. He says he is inclined to exonerate two. There’s a big difference between a feeling and a fact. And he only reaches this inclination in light of the evidence he has received about Druitt, and we do not know what that evidence was and cannot assess it and have no idea whether it was good evidence or not. All we can say is that Macnaghten found it persuasive. It is also questionable whether he knew about the positive eye-witness identification, so he may have ‘exonerated’ Kosminski without knowing the full facts.

But even accepting without reservation that Macnaghten exonerated Kosminski, he only exonerated him as the Ripper. He did NOT exonerate him as a suspect.

“I would say the differences are more than slight and why would he write it at different time doesnt make sense you are flanneling !”

Are you unaware that the handwriting report clearly states the conclusion that the marginalia was written at different times, the writing possibly separated by a substantial interval? This conclusion was based on the fact that different pencils were used and the passage of time was indicated by an ‘occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonism.’

Whether it makes sense or not, it’s what was said. But the point I was making is that the differences in handwriting were noted between the handwriting in the marginalia, not between the marginalia handwriting and that of the exemplar document. It’s hardly me flannelling. It’s you being wrong.

Its is material firstly an expert could compare the 1888 handwriting to the 1894 handwriting. Then a comparison could be made with the original marginalia and the 1894 sample

You are also forgetting the forensic tests in relation to the pencil annotations which could be carried out in determing the age of the graphite.

My handwriting hasnt changed over the past 30 years has yours.?[/B]

I'm not forgetting the forensic tests at all, Trevor. I am simply ignorant about pencil manufacture and whether or not the constituents of pencil lead have changed significantly since 1910. Determining the age of the graphite, which I assume could be in the millions of years, obviously isn't going to help anyone, so can be determined that the pencil 'lead' in the marginalia dates from sometime after the time when Swanson could have written it? Was pencil 'lead' different in the mid-80s from 1910 or 1920?

In concluding everything else connected to this does not stand up to close scrutiny it seems you want to cherry pick the parts which seem to suit your argument.

Hardly, Trev. You are making very serious claims which aren't really supported by any evidence except that of an expert you claim has examined the marginalia. We only have your word that this expert exists and that an examination has been made, and whilst I don't doubt either statement, neither that expert's knowledge or ability nor the evidence on which the conclusion can be assessed. That's not cherry-picking. Nor is the fact that you seem to be ignorant of the (published) findings of previous expert examination of the marginalia.

The marginalia is a potentially valuable piece of source evidence. Examination of it strongly indicates that it was written by Swanson, there is impeccable provenance, and there is no reason to suppose that any member of the Swanson family (the only people who could have tampered with it) have behaved improperly. The doubts you raise, based on the scant reasoning you have produced, are serious.

[The Good Michael]

Trevor, let’s set this straight. Macnaghten doesn’t exonerate anyone. He says he is inclined to exonerate two. There’s a big difference between a feeling and a fact. And he only reaches this inclination in light of the evidence he has received about Druitt, and we do not know what that evidence was...

Though this isn't the place for it, here is an opportunity to weigh in on this idea, and perhaps I can keep it on topic. Macnaghten may have suffered from the same thing we all suffer from. We all change our opinions slightly as we get new information, and especially when the old information wasn't particularly satisfying. I believe it is very important to stress that Macnaghten didn't dismiss Kosminski. Instead, he may have become excited about new information that replaced the ennui of the old ideas. If i were a betting man, I might even say that had Macnaghten been privy to all the new theories that have come out or have evolved somewhat over the years, he would have wavered on his Druitt stance, and maybe over and over again. I can't be sure, but we all have changed our minds over the years with the exception of two or three Hutchinsonians who bear no mentioning here (though I did). Why would Macnaghten be different, and why would a switch in emphasis make Kosminski less suspect. The answers: He wasn't different and Kosminski hasn't diminished.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

To TGM

Yes, that's possible.

But it can be also be argued that it is more likely Macnaghten had a better sense of 'Kosminski' as a suspect than did Anderson/Swanson, let alone the evidence against Druitt about they have nothing to say.

This is based on Mac in 'Aberconway' seeming to know that the sspect was still alive, and Anderson/Swanson not knowing this, in fact under a very false delusion. Furthermore, Swanson has the suspect dying 'soon after' his incarceration which seems to be where Macanbgteh placed it: about March 1889. Anderson too seems to place the witness identification back there too.

But Sims, Mac's mouthpiece, has the same suspect alive and out and about long after the Kelly murder, in his 1907 piece.

So who really knew the most about Aaron Kosminski lying behind 'Kosminski'?

Plus, Macnaghten arguably did eliminate this suspect, as anything important, by implication in 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (1914)because he has the only chief suspect as a Christian Gentile, denies that he had ever been detained in an asylum, that 'Jack' wrote anti-Semitic graffiti, and that there was only one witness, a beat cop, and he saw nothing of value.

So any other story about a Jewish suspect and a Jewish witness is, as Sims' would claim in 1910, a 'fairy tale'.

[PaulB]

Though this isn't the place for it, here is an opportunity to weigh in on this idea, and perhaps I can keep it on topic. Macnaghten may have suffered from the same thing we all suffer from. We all change our opinions slightly as we get new information, and especially when the old information wasn't particularly satisfying. I believe it is very important to stress that Macnaghten didn't dismiss Kosminski. Instead, he may have become excited about new information that replaced the ennui of the old ideas. If i were a betting man, I might even say that had Macnaghten been privy to all the new theories that have come out or have evolved somewhat over the years, he would have wavered on his Druitt stance, and maybe over and over again. I can't be sure, but we all have changed our minds over the years with the exception of two or three Hutchinsonians who bear no mentioning here (though I did). Why would Macnaghten be different, and why would a switch in emphasis make Kosminski less suspect. The answers: He wasn't different and Kosminski hasn't diminished.

Mike

Hi Mike
As Macnaghten wrote the memorandum in 1894 and was still advocating Druitt in his autobiography in 1913, I think it is fair to say that he stuck to his guns, though it is entirely possible that he wavered and wobbled now and again. The thing is, though, that Macnaghten could have been wrong, in which case 'Kosminski' (and other suspects) would go back in the frame. Likewise, if Anderson was wrong, Druitt goes back in the frame. (The reality, though, is that they are all in the frame because we don't know whether Macnaghten, Anderson, or the Man in the Moon was right about their favoured suspect being the Ripper.) But Macnaghten did not exonerate anyone, at least in the sense that he had evidence to show that they were innocent.

[Jonathan H]

The counter-argument to that, Paul, is that 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (which is written in 1914, not 1913) is not just another Macnaghten source.

Rather it is the only one which Mac published under his own knighted name, and is the [de-facto] third version of his 'memo' (he had 'Aberconway' at his elbow to adapt, though he disingenuously claims to be writing from memory).

For the first and only time Macnaghten would be held accountable for a Ripper opinion.

It is also anti-Anderson through and through in its content and themes, eg. Anderson himself is airbrushed out of existence, plus Mac asserts: I found the Ripper, albeit posthumously, and I found the 'Dear Boss' hoaxer about a year after I started at CID, and I found it was 'one of us' while, guess who, was uselessly chasing a phantom!

Remember, from the public's point of view, Macnaghten's 1913 retirement comments and subsequent 1914 memoirs were his first known contributions on this subject at all (Littlechild in 1913 is quite clueless that Mac is Sims' source for 'Dr. D').

So, according to the retiring Commissioner, the Ripper really was a man who took his own life about twenty-four hours after the Kelly murder.

Is this the 'drowned doctor' of Griffiths and Sims? Hmmm ... That was the same night though -- wasn't it?

Well, perhaps not as 'doctor' and 'drowned' are not even part of Mac's opaque profile (actually it is the same suspect, but you would need other sources, decades later, to know this.)

Mac is reticent but says in 1913 that he knows exactly who the Ripper was, but many things have to be kept 'secret' -- even apparently destroyed, implying that they are his papers and not owned by the police -- and that the maniac was 'remarkable' and 'fascinating'.

On the other hand, in the 1894 archived Report 'Kosminski' and M. J. Druitt and Michael Ostrog are all three dismissed by the same source as weak suspects, about which there was no hard evidence -- just all three are better than Cutbush (?!).

The difference being that Druitt, a minor, hearsay suspect, who might have been a doctor and then again might not have been, andsupposedly investigated whilst alive, was definitely known to be a sexual maniac and so his 'good' family, understandably, 'believed' he was Jack the Ripper(?!)

Which bring us back as to why Swanson does not give 'Kosminski's' first name? Because Macnaghten did not, and the suspect begins with him in the extant record -- at least for now.

[Bridewell]

First Name

Which bring us back as to why Swanson does not give 'Kosminski's' first name? Because Macnaghten did not, and the suspect begins with him in the extant record -- at least for now.

Hi Jonathan,

Or because there was only one suspect by the name of Kosminski, so there was no need to include a first name in order to distinguish between two or more?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

Yes that's possible, Bridewell.

Macnaghten could have written in his memoirs that there was a Polish Jewish suspect who could not be totally eliminated from suspicion.

Instead he just eliminated him altogether.

Swanson is writing to himself, after all, so he doesn't have to put any name at all.

I was just applying basic historical methodology; eg. how are certain sources similar and different from each other -- and why?

Is that elastic enough to lead to different and competing interpretations.

I sure think so, but some do not; that there can be one only explanation.

[Trevor Marriott]

I haven't seen anything yet?

Yes, indeed I haven't.

Monty

Take the blinkers off and the rose tinted spectacles

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jonathan,

Or because there was only one suspect by the name of Kosminski, so there was no need to include a first name in order to distinguish between two or more?

Regards, Bridewell.

That argument doesnt stand up MM prepared the memo for a specific purpose with the intention of someone presumabaly higher in the chain of command to read.There would be no point in giving half a name even if he himself knew the full name someone reading the memo would surely want to know and question it.

Werent you taught to include as much information as possible when compiling reports. ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jonathan

Yes that's possible, Bridewell.

Macnaghten could have written in his memoirs that there was a Polish Jewish suspect who could not be totally eliminated from suspicion.

Instead he just eliminated him altogether.

Swanson is writing to himself, after all, so he doesn't have to put any name at all.

Why write to himself and initial his writings ?

I was just applying basic historical methodology; eg. how are certain sources similar and different from each other -- and why?

Is that elastic enough to lead to different and competing interpretations.

I sure think so, but some do not; that there can be one only explanation.