Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[PaulB]

Perhaps you would care to explain whereby you keep saying Kosminski was dismissed as being the ripper but in the next breath you infer that he remained a suspect. That is totally illogical if he is eliminated as being the ripper how can he remain a suspect ?

Do you get the feeling that you are fighting a losing battle !

Would you care to explain what you mean?

No, I don't feel I am fighting a losing battle. What I feel is that you have an agenda which has nothing to do with the truth. It's all to do with getting a name for yourself by adopting a highly controversial stance, be it claiming that Eddowes used her apron as a sanitary towel to challenging the authenticity of the marginalia, and there is consequently no point in arguing with you because you're not interested in the truth. Your agenda is simply to argue, to be talked about.

[Jonathan H]

Just to cannibalize my own previous post for a moment:

Historically speaking, of course, there is quite a lot left: the senior police administrator and the operational head of the case, both competent, highly regarded, and honest men, advocated this suspect as the best, as a near certainty, and they did so both publicly and prvately; both with other people and when entirely alone.

That's quite something which some here do not fully absorb: an annotation that is just for one set of eyes. It's like over-hearing somebody thinking.

The Swanson Marginalia is a tremendous primary source because, arguably, it shows that Swanson in private did not have a different opinion from the one provided to the public by Anderson, as often public figures can or must have

[PaulB]

Just to cannibalize my own previous post for a moment:

Historically speaking, of course, there is quite a lot left: the senior police administrator and the operational head of the case, both competent, highly regarded, and honest men, advocated this suspect as the best, as a near certainty, and they did so both publicly and prvately; both with other people and when entirely alone.

That's quite something which some here do not fully absorb: an annotation that is just for one set of eyes. It's like over-hearing somebody thinking.

The Swanson Marginalia is a tremendous primary source because, arguably, it shows that Swanson in private did not have a different opinion from the one provided to the public by Anderson, as often public figures can or must have

Which is why some people challenge its authenticity! The understandable difficulty for most people is that the story is implausible, as so many stories are when we only have a very limited knowledge of the facts, which leaves us having to accept that, as improbable though it is, it is what the source believed. What then happens, of course, is that people question whether or not the source actually did believe it - so it is suggested that the source was mistaken or confused or lied. Or, in extreme cases, it is argued that the source isn't authentic. We can see all that in action on these pages. So, the marginalia isn't authentic, but if the marginalia is authentic then Swanson isn't an independent sources because he was only repeating what Anderson told him, and if he was only repeating what Anderson told him then Anderson was mistaken or lying or confused or can't be trusted or was anti-Semitic or was anything you can think of that makes him utterly untrustworthy.

The same can happen with Macnaghten. The core of his story is the 'private information', but let's discount that as rubbish, the fanciful imaginings of an over-wrought family member, a nasty piece of slander by a homophobic minor MP, and Macnaghten was a red-nosed boozy buffoon who never bothered to check any of the 'facts' and just blithely accepted Druitt's guilt because he wanted to claim having 'caught' Jack when his hated boss couldn't, or because he keenly felt the criticism of the Yard, or he wanted a little something to help sell his book...

As you know, it is not uncommon to have sources which tell us stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and it is understandably difficult to just stand back and admit we have no explanations for it, and that's especially tough when somebody has an agenda which requires that obstacles like Anderson and Swanson and Macnaghten be removed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil,

I agree re evidentially correct ID procedure. However, if you knew that your suspect (whoever it was) was stark raving bonkers, to the extent that he would never stand trial, there would only be a need to confirm the identity of the offender, not to adhere to protocol. Have we got the right man?

Regards, Bridewell.

Another point I missed in my earlier reply if the police were simply doing it for recognition purposes why not simply show the witness a photograph of the suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

Would you care to explain what you mean?

No, I don't feel I am fighting a losing battle. What I feel is that you have an agenda which has nothing to do with the truth. It's all to do with getting a name for yourself by adopting a highly controversial stance, be it claiming that Eddowes used her apron as a sanitary towel to challenging the authenticity of the marginalia, and there is consequently no point in arguing with you because you're not interested in the truth. Your agenda is simply to argue, to be talked about.

I simply asked you to explain the comments you have made twice on here regarding the exoneration of Kosminski as described by MM.

You suggest the marginalia is an important part of this mystery well I would suggest that the MM is far more important because its where the name Kosminski first appears. Remove the the name Kosminski as a suspect from that document and it weakens any further claims that Kosminski could have been the ripper.

As far as accepting that the word exonerates appears and is a direct reference to the name Kossminski you have suggesetd that MM is writing that Kosmniski is not the ripper but cannot be ruled out as a suspect.

You wont comment on the fact that Anderson makes no mention of any suspect or any ID procedure until his book is published in 1910.

You wont comment on the fact that many other senior officers and officers on the ground make no mention of the ripper being identified.

Both of the above are ascertained facts and should not be dismissed and must add weight to the suggestion that Anderson either made it up or was confused.

My agenda is to seek the truth if that includes destroying and burying the myths theories and pie in the sky suggestions made by you and others then so be it.

As to getting a name Monty has already given me one and I quite like it, could catch on "Marriott the Messiah"

[Trevor Marriott]

Simon
Whether or not Anderson's beliefs suited him to the job, they are relevant to any attempt to assess him.

I didn't say he was steered wrong. Since we don't fully know the evidence on which he based his conclusions, we can't assess the probability of them being right or wrong. I therefore don't know whether he was right or wrong. Neither do you.

But when I and others question all of this you go on the defensive. For once I agree we cannot for certain say. However in trying to get to the truth we have to way up all the facts for both sides of the arguments. It then becomes a case of the balance of probablity and which argument carries the most weight and tips the scales.

When those scales are tipped firmly against your beleifs you should at least be prepared to take the blinkers off and consider the other side of the argument not as you do now flatly dismiss these.

[Monty]

As evidence that you either do not read what is presented, or you do not comprehend.....

......Monty actually states "Trevor isn't the Messiah he thinks he is"

To keep up old man.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

My dear old Monty !

As evidence that you either do not read what is presented, or you do not comprehend.....

I take after you then ?

......Monty actually states "Trevor isn't the Messiah he thinks he is"

To keep up old man.

Many a good tune played on an old fiddle providing your bow doesnt break !


Monty

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

That is fairly obvious Phil,

There is no arrest nor conviction. It continues.

Nor is there any statement by Swanson, I believe, saying that he believed in the positive ID.

You beleive, ? just your opinion !

Yep, hence the term "I believe". I cannot find reference, can you?

Can you not see that the marginalia and Anderson book entry stand or fall together, and I suggest that latter is more appropriate.

Again, you suggest based on what evidence?

I have many issues re the ID parade, and on a few points I agree with Trevor. However, to state the marginalia is a forgery with nothing more than opinion is wrong.

My opinion but many others concur with it. However but I have backed it up with enough to suggest that there is a need for further tests to be carried out to try to conlcusively prove whether Swanson wrote the marginalia in whole or part or not at all

Not disputing that.

If Trevor wants to discredit it then he should do it with a little more decorum and a little less lip. He should take a leaf out of Simon Woods book. His decimantion of the Knight theory is a prime example of how it should be done. Simon states and provides evidence, Trevor merely states and has a tantrum, often in bold text.

I am beginning to think that in your old age you have forgotten the definition of evidence and how to interpert it.

I can only call it as i see it if I dont put it in a such an eloquent way as others might thats down to me because I dont have those eloquent ways like Simon and others but however it is put it doesnt detract from the points argued.

Leave it out Trevor, Im not that green. Your evidence wouldnt even make it to court. and I use the word 'evidence' loosely.

As I've stated many times, question the evidence. That's not an issue, just support that with counter evidence instead of presenting a showmans stance of all glam and little substance.

The counter evidence is there for all to see an evaluate but of course there are those that dont want to see it and pretend its not there and continuosly state there are no issues with the marginalia.

heh heh heh, glad to see you have kept your sense of humour.

Trevor isn't the Messiah he thinks he is, he is just a very....

Now I have been promoted from Chief Inspector on here to Messiah I hope I get a pay rise.

Dont worry. The book you are planning will soon see you wealthy.

Monty

[Monty]

My dear old Monty !


Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty
As evidence that you either do not read what is presented, or you do not comprehend.....

I take after you then ?

......Monty actually states "Trevor isn't the Messiah he thinks he is"

To keep up old man.

Many a good tune played on an old fiddle providing your bow doesnt break !


Monty

No, you dont take after me. I get my facts right and comprehend....plus Im good looking, and intelligent. In fact Im all you are not.

Yes, I know you are indeed a good fiddler Trevor.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

My dear old dicrepid Monty

No, you dont take after me. I get my facts right and comprehend....plus Im good looking, and intelligent. In fact Im all you are not.

Oh dear what mirror you been looking in ?

[Yes, I know you are indeed a good fiddler Trevor.

Comes with years or practice I now have an extensive repotire ! Could fiddle from morning to night but dont want to disturb the neighbours

I might just take my fiddle and play all night hope I get the room next to you in York

I see you are taking your lamp to York perhaps you can get some extra work while you are there in the local cinema showing people to their seats.


Monty

[PaulB]

I simply asked you to explain the comments you have made twice on here regarding the exoneration of Kosminski as described by MM.

I have already explained them. What exactly don’t you understand.

You suggest the marginalia is an important part of this mystery well I would suggest that the MM is far more important because its where the name Kosminski first appears. Remove the the name Kosminski as a suspect from that document and it weakens any further claims that Kosminski could have been the ripper.

Why would anyone remove the name from the Macnaghten Memorandum?

Sorry, Trevor, but Macnaghten states, clearly, that ‘there were many circs. Which made Kosminski a strong suspect’. Even if Macnaghten felt inclined to exonerate him, the ‘circs’ which made him a strong suspect still remain. So what happens if Macnaghten’s re-evaluation of the evidence available to him wasn’t as strong as he thought, or was biased in favour of Druitt, or he didn’t have all the evidence… does ‘Kosminski’ stay out in the cold, or does he wander back into the frame again?

But the fact is that Macnaghten didn’t clear anyone of the murders, he merely felt inclined to dismiss two of the suspects.

As far as accepting that the word exonerates appears and is a direct reference to the name Kossminski you have suggesetd that MM is writing that Kosmniski is not the ripper but cannot be ruled out as a suspect.

And…?

You wont comment on the fact that Anderson makes no mention of any suspect or any ID procedure until his book is published in 1910.

As a matter of fact, Trevor, Anderson doesn’t mention ‘any ID procedure’ in his book either. He merely states ‘that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him…’

As for ‘the fact’ that ‘Anderson makes no mention of any suspect’ prior to the publication of his book in 1910, he referred to him in 1901, 1905, and in 1907, and there is possibly even a reference to his thoughts on the matter in 1895.

Now, Trevor, let me try and express this as politely as possible: you come here shouting your mouth off, but time and again it is clear that your grasp of the facts is severely limited. There’s example after example after example, of which this is one. Here you are, batting on about Anderson and Swanson, yet you don’t even know, can’t even have been bothered to find out, if and when Anderson had expressed earlier opinions about the identity of the Ripper. When you can’t even be bothered to acquaint yourself with the facts, let alone actually read the books by the people whose opinions you are challenging, it becomes abundantly clear that you really don’t have any interest in the facts, that you are just blowing off a lot of hot air towards your personal agenda.

You wont comment on the fact that many other senior officers and officers on the ground make no mention of the ripper being identified.

Of course I mention it. How could I avoid it. But they are dead, Trevor. I can’t ask them. Maybe they didn’t know. But you are completely missing the point: we have a source which makes an improbable statement, but the source was in a position to know the facts and even to be party to confidential information, so it is possible, despite the absence of independent corroboration, that what he says is correct. So you look for corroboration, or the contrary. Now, there are several reasons why other officers may not have provided public corroboration, one being that unlike Anderson they respected the confidentiality of that information. I’m not saying that this what happened.

Both of the above are ascertained facts and should not be dismissed and must add weight to the suggestion that Anderson either made it up or was confused.

They don’t add weight to the suggestion, they are among the reasons why the suggestion has been made. A very long time ago too.

My agenda is to seek the truth if that includes destroying and burying the myths theories and pie in the sky suggestions made by you and others then so be it.

You’re definitely not after the truth, Trevor. Not at all. If you were you would have at the very least acquainted yourself with the facts, but your ignorance on every level is bad. I don’t mean that offensively, but the fact is that your knowledge of the subject shows no depth, your understanding of the period is minimal, your understanding of what history is shamelessly poor (as illustrated by your claim sometime back that historians unquestioningly accept any source that was old!). You seem utterly unaware of the fact that nothing you have said about the marginalia is original or new, but most of it is two decades old, you imagine that the likes of Martin and myself and others blithely accepted its authenticity, you betray absolutely no knowledge of the efforts we made to authenticate the document, and, perhaps most seriously, you apparently have no comprehension of the significance of what was done or why. You bat on about Nevill not releasing the marginalia to you for forensic testing, but you evidently couldn’t even be arsed to find out what forensic testing, if any, could determine when pencil writing was put on the paper, and goodness only knows if you are even aware than different pencils were used, one of the an indelible or a copying pencil, and I doubt you even know that there is a difference.

Sorry, Trevor, but either you are a silly, ignorant and lazy man, or you’re really not interested in the facts and the truth at all, but are just trying to make a name for yourself…

As to getting a name Monty has already given me one and I quite like it, could catch on "Marriott the Messiah"

There have been a lot of Messiahs. There is only one who wasn’t false, and Jesus you most certainly ain’t.

And Monty doesn’t call you Marriott the Messiah. Not even in polite company. You can believe me on that!

[PaulB]

But when I and others question all of this you go on the defensive. For once I agree we cannot for certain say. However in trying to get to the truth we have to way up all the facts for both sides of the arguments. It then becomes a case of the balance of probablity and which argument carries the most weight and tips the scales.

The trouble is that you don't seem to realise that none of your questions are new. They have all been asked a long time ago and the answers have been sought.

When those scales are tipped firmly against your beleifs you should at least be prepared to take the blinkers off and consider the other side of the argument not as you do now flatly dismiss these.

The arguments have been considered, Trevor. Many, many times. I'm not blinkered, I've just been kicking around in the dust of Ripperology a lot, lot longer than you and I am far better acquainted with the facts than you, and I had the opportunity of meeting and talking with and questioning the people involved.

[S.Brett]

...There are a thousand ways to say: I love you...

I´m a big fan of Paul Begg. Trevor Marriott, you're stubborn as I would like to be. I wish you were my parents.

Could it be that "Kosminski" was the nick-name of any leather apron suspect?

[Monty]

Again you assume Trevor,

Its not my room I will be in, as you are aware.

Monty