Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[PaulB]

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.

Sorry, Jonathan, but are you offering a counter argument to my reply to TGM, or to your preceeding post which I had not seen when I posted. Because the above isn't a counter-argument to what I wrote to TGM, which was simply that Macnaghten expressed his belief that Druitt was the Ripper in 1894 and again in 1914 (I stand corrected), which he did, and the point is that he did not change his mind on the matter. It's irrelevant that the latter was his first public pronouncement on the subject. The rest is your slanted take on the subject ('weak suspects', 'no hard evidence' - which is neither known to be what Macnaghten thought nor known to be what Macnaghten knew to be the truth) which basically amounts to a reliance on Macnaghten, which may be right.

[PaulB]

Hi Jonathan
Why write to himself and initial his writings ?

You know something, Trevor; if you don't think Swanson would have initialed his own writings, why do you imagine that a forger would have thought he would? Why do you think a forger would take a book that has been in Swanson's family for decades, that was an inscribed presentation copy to Swanson, that was among a bunch of other documents unquestionably belonging to Swanson, and was one of a bunch of other books, and think he ought to initial is fake marginal writing DSS?

And it isn't the only marginal writing initialed. It's what Swanson did. Year in, year out, he initialed reports. He probably initialed his to-do lists and shopping list. It's what he did.

[Bridewell]

Marginalia

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.

This is a thread about the Swanson Marginalia, which was the subject of my post. Jonathan mentioned the MM. I didn't.

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

We're discussing the Swanson Marginalia, not my reports or anybody else's.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

The answer to your questions only become relevant when my expert has examined them and has published the results, it is then you can question their credibilty. I am happy with the reults to date. I have done all that I can and have offered up the olive branch but it has been declined so be it.

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

You try taking similar evidence to court in a criminal trial see how far it gets

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.

The handwriting is definatley Swansons trust me on that


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’.

But not conclusive !!!!!!!!!!!!

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 are not an expert !

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.

Oh dear for an educated man you do talk twaddle at times

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

Well I cant see how you can still be a suspect for being Jack The Ripper if you are eliminated from being the actual perpretator. END OF STORY,END OF KOSMINSKI


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.’

Written at different times hmmmmmmm would those times be between 1980 -1987 ?

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?

I have no idea but its a test which might go to determine when the annotations were written

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.

So far no everyone has declined to publish either of the experts reports.

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.

I disagree its not as valuable as you make out the name Kosminski appears in The MM. MM exonerates him in 1894.

The marginalia couldnt have beenwritten before 1910, in it the same surname that appears in The MM is mentioned, along with a mythical ID parade. which is not mentioned anywhere in any officila police record, why is that ,because it never happened.

You will continue to champion someone called Kosminski but please remove the name Aaron from all future reference if you dare !

[Trevor Marriott]

You know something, Trevor; if you don't think Swanson would have initialed his own writings, why do you imagine that a forger would have thought he would? Why do you think a forger would take a book that has been in Swanson's family for decades, that was an inscribed presentation copy to Swanson, that was among a bunch of other documents unquestionably belonging to Swanson, and was one of a bunch of other books, and think he ought to initial is fake marginal writing DSS?

And it isn't the only marginal writing initialed. It's what Swanson did. Year in, year out, he initialed reports. He probably initialed his to-do lists and shopping list. It's what he did.

I have my own personal belief as to who when why and for what purpose this could have been forged if it is forged but as you know I cannot prove that at this time. The first stage in that process would be to prove that Swanson did not or could not have written some or all of the annotations. If that is proved the rest of the puzzle will fit.

I dont propose to argue these matters further

[Monty]

Trevor,

Put up or shut up.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Put up or shut up.

Monty

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm truth hurts doesnt it

[Monty]

What truth Trevor?

You gonna lay down some evidence or just lay down a comeback with no substance?

Whilst I wait, I got proper work to do.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

What truth Trevor?

You gonna lay down some evidence or just lay down a comeback with no substance?

Whilst I wait, I got proper work to do.

Monty

You wouldnt know evidence if it jumped up and smacked you in the face.

Have fun on your paper round dont fall off your bike !

[Bridewell]

Onus Probandi?

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

You try taking similar evidence to court in a criminal trial see how far it gets

Has the burden of proof shifted onto the defence while I wasn't looking?

Regards, Bridewell

[Monty]

You chose the latter,

Shame. You had an opportunity to put your money where you gob currently is.

You didn't. Cos you couldn't.

Nothing wrong with a paper round Trevor, good honest living, as opposed to.....

......Nah, that one will keep my friend ;-) Your secret is safe for now.
Monty

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by PaulB
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.

The answer to your questions only become relevant when my expert has examined them and has published the results, it is then you can question their credibilty. I am happy with the reults to date. I have done all that I can and have offered up the olive branch but it has been declined so be it.

I do wish you’d learn to answer within the quotes just like everybody else.

Anyway, I didn’t ask a question (but see below, where I did ask a question and you didn't answer it), I stated that your expert’s opinion was worthless until his/her credentials and the evidence upon which the opinion was based were known. You apparently agree. Good. So shut up about them until they are published and can be properly assessed.

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

You try taking similar evidence to court in a criminal trial see how far it gets

You try doing the same. A witness you won’t name, credentials you won’t give, an exemplar you won’t show, and evidence you won’t state.

But this isn’t a court of law. It’s history. And there isn’t any serious doubt. You are the only person claiming otherwise.

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’.

But not conclusive !!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite right, not conclusive. But what would be conclusive for you, Trevor?

You see, handwriting is an art, not a science, and it is doubtful that any expert could or would give you a conclusive opinion, and if they did then it is more likely that it would be that somebody did not write something rather than that they did. This is because the more differences they find between the known and questioned handwriting, the greater the probability that the questioned is not genuine. However, as Dr Davies honestly and clearly stated, even when there are no differences at all there can be circumstances when this cannot be taken as conclusive proof that the questioned document is genuine. So, a conclusive opinion is not possible. However, Dr Davies conclusion (subject to certain caveats) was about as close as it gets. It was written by Swanson.

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 are not an expert !

True. Very true. I’m not an expert. Neither is Nevill Swanson. You cite his 80% though. Maybe you’ll cite my 95%. Or maybe you’ll drop percentages altogether and simply acknowledge that Dr Davies concluded that subject to certain caveats the marginalia was written by Swanson.

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.

Oh dear for an educated man you do talk twaddle at times

No doubt. But so far that’s just your unqualified opinion. It’s for you to qualify it with examples of me doing so. Nothing in that paragraph was twaddle. If it was, show me where and why. Simples.

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

Well I cant see how you can still be a suspect for being Jack The Ripper if you are eliminated from being the actual perpretator. END OF STORY,END OF KOSMINSKI

You act as if Macnaghten proved that two of the three were innocent. He didn’t. He simply thought the ‘evidence’ against one of them was better than against the other two. He was just volunteering an opinion, Trevor. Just an opinion.

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.’

Written at different times hmmmmmmm would those times be between 1980 -1987 ?

Odd how you answer a question I don’t ask, and don’t answer the question I do ask? I’ll ask it again, Did you know that the Davies report suggested that the marginalia was written at different times?

And, no, not between 1980 and 1987.

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?

I have no idea but its a test which might go to determine when the annotations were written

And how might it determine that, Trevor? I think you are just shooting the breeze when you bang on about forensic examination of the pencil 'lead', and it would certainly help your case considerably if you actually bothered to find out what forensic testing of the faded and much rubbed pencil marginalia could tell us before you try to persuade anyone to release the marginalia.

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.

So far no everyone has declined to publish either of the experts reports.

Well, that is frustratingly true, although the salient parts of Dr Davis report have been published, and we know who Dr Davies is and who he works for and what his qualifications are and what his experience is, and we are able to form some sort of judgement about the accuracy of his conclusions. One the other hand, your experts is… er… well, um…

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.

I disagree its not as valuable as you make out the name Kosminski appears in The MM. MM exonerates him in 1894.

The marginalia couldnt have beenwritten before 1910, in it the same surname that appears in The MM is mentioned, along with a mythical ID parade. which is not mentioned anywhere in any officila police record, why is that ,because it never happened.

You will continue to champion someone called Kosminski but please remove the name Aaron from all future reference if you dare !

I said ‘potentially valuable’, but we'll not split hairs. It doesn’t make any difference whether the name was mentioned in the Macmaghten memoranda or not. And, as explained, Macnaghten does not exonerate ‘Kosminski’ in any sense other than in his own mind. But even if it did exonerate him, the marginalia would still be important because it identified ‘Kosminski’ as Anderson’s suspect and possibly confirms the positive eye-witness identification, of which Macnaghten appears ignorant.

Your penultimate paragraph makes no sense whatever.

I don’t champion ‘Kosminski’, I champion good and proper source analysis.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

We appear to have two opposing camps, neither of which can conclusively prove its argument.

And thus the flame of Ripperology burns eternally bright.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Simon,

That sir, is EXACTLY what some people want...because to keep it going in this fashion is the only way the wheels can't fall off the eternal 4 wheeled (Kosminski/Druitt/Tumblety/Sickert) wagon. The spare is PAV.

all,

The plain fact of the matter is that one camp is yet to produce viable counter examples between 1888 and 1895 that the police themselves either stated that they had no idea who the murderer was, that that were still chasing him nor that they hadn't locked the killer away in prison nor in an asylum.

Because the simple fact is, that if they were still chasing Jack the Ripper in 1892/3/4/5.. guess who wasn't and could not possibly have been Jack the Ripper? Not a dead man from 1888, drowned. Not a dead man dying in an asylum in 1889, not a man incarcerated in an asylum in 1891 and not a man known by the police to still be swanning around the USA. As for the painter... thank you Mr Gorman and Mr Knight for introducing the suspect in the first place..all built on a whopping fib.

Re the question of the marginalia? People don't try to con people in this game do they? McCormick, Lady Aberconway (she changed her story pdq in 1973)..Gorman, Knight, a Dairist or three, and a few other people. Nah.... Unthinkable that anyone would ever try to pull a fast one in Ripperology 1959 to 1990 odd. Nah....no person would ever do anything to make a bit of money. To make money in time for the Ripper Centenary and all that was coming up. To make money when the first attempt in 1981 didn't.....To promote the role of a police officer that stated that there were 7 murder victims of the Ripper...not 5... and who said that the chalk writing on the wall was blurred.. when nobody else did. You know, the man that was still chasing the Ripper after Kosminski was locked up. Nah.

Then re-present it 18 years later when the Museum it sits in needs a little re-promoting. Nah. There is nothing at all to wonder about there. All totally natural and in the interests of historical accuracy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5173314.stm

Except that..... IF Swanson wrote that marginalia 1910-24, he might just have been expanding on what Anderson MEANT.. i.e. ANDERSON's views...not his own. He might just have been telling all in his Marginalia that "what Anderson means here is...." "What I believe Anderson is referring to here is this story..what Anderson himself told me of the situation"

No doubt that thought will be pooh poohed by those not wanting the all holier than thou Swanson marginalia to be doubted in any way shape or form.

I must admit though, as the marginalia stood in 1987, it made really good copy to quote, research, use and write about. Excellent nearly official police case material to expand upon in various forms, I must say. Very nice indeed.




best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Paul

This is straight question: if I have a 'slant', do you?

You write that it is 'irrelevant' that in 1913 and in 1914 -- the latter in published form --Macnaghten put his own self and his own name to his Ripper opinion in public.

I could not disagree more, and cannot understand how you come to that conclusion.

For the first time Macnaghten broke cover and thus could be held accountable as to what he believed about this 'mystery'.

It is just as relevant as when Anderson began doing it from 1895, Abberline in 1903, Ried and Smith, et al.

Do I think that the reliability of the Marginalia, of Swanson's opinion -- if it is Swanson's opinion and not just recording Anderson's -- is less valuable because it was not for publication?

For sure. That's one way of looking at it.

That Macnaghten thought Druitt was the Ripper in 1894 I agree with.

I believe that according to his own 1914 account it began in about 1891 matching the leaking of the MP's 'doctrine'.

What complicates the above is that in the official version, filed in 1894, Macnaghten does not record such an opinion, eg. the family 'believed' not himself. Druitt is just one of three unlikelies. He is listed first seemingly at random.

Then in 1898, the MP story is reshaped and rebooted via a 'Home Office Report' which is a variation of that archived document, but when it was composed is unclear.

It is argued therefore that in 1894, in the one official document for file, Macnaghten judged Druitt to be really nothing much, despite the certainty of the family and the suggestive timing of his self-murder, eg. so close to the 'awful glut' -- which it wasn't.

Therefore the official opinion should trump anything Mac told credulous cronies, or any rejected 'draft' version, or colorful memoirs which have to sell.