Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[PaulB]

My reasoning is logical it is your thats incomprehensible

Its time to erase some of the past because it does no tstand up to close scrutiny

The way you think would put every man ever arrested and documented in Whitechapel for carrying a knife hitting a prostitute etc etc as a ripper suspect.
If there is a list of suspects by varying methods they are elimanted, but by your your logic everyone stays a suspect despite being eliminated. Some have to fall of the radar at some point.

Go sit in a dark room and firmly get a grip on all of this because you are in your own little world.

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

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

[Supe]

Trev,

2. When did you first view the original marginalia ?

Is that a "wife beating" question? That is, what do you mean by "original marginalia"? Are you suggesting that the marginalia was altered after Paul first saw it? Or simply sloppy writing on your part?

Don.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
You seriously misrepresented something I said and therefore you should make the time to search through the posts to find out why.

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

2. When did you first view the original marginalia ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
You seriously misrepresented something I said and therefore you should make the time to search through the posts to find out why.

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reasoning is logical it is your thats incomprehensible

Its time to erase some of the past because it does no tstand up to close scrutiny

The way you think would put every man ever arrested and documented in Whitechapel for carrying a knife hitting a prostitute etc etc as a ripper suspect.
If there is a list of suspects by varying methods they are elimanted, but by your your logic everyone stays a suspect despite being eliminated. Some have to fall of the radar at some point.

Go sit in a dark room and firmly get a grip on all of this because you are in your own little world.

[PaulB]

I have not the time to go back searching the many posts which have been going back and forth on this thread. So I will summarise what I have been led to beleive.

It is accepted by all that there are differences in some of swansons handwriting in the marginalia to the control samples which were supplied for comparison purposes.

These differences have been explained away by the examiners and others including yourself suggesting that age and the fact that swanson could have been suffering from a neurological disorder in later years which could have effected his handwriting.

My post was not written to include Anderson however he was obvioulsy suffering from "being liberal with the truth" syndrome for most of his police service and into his retirement as is well known.

As I have said before negate Andersons rambling in the book and bingo biq question mark over the marginalia and its contents.

The thing is you and i look at this mystery in two totally different ways you look at it from a historical perspective. I from an investigative perspective.

From an historical perspective, the historical facts surrounding this case should not always be taken as gospel and written in stone. What is written is there to be proved or disproved. As is the case with new stuff.

Take the bible which is supposed to be a historial document can the contents of the be proved or disproved the answer is no

Now take the documents and comments written and spoken by all protagonaists in the ripper case can we prove or disprove these beyond a reasonable doubt as being totally reliable and accurate. The answer is yes we can disprove some of these in some cases in others no so in the cases where we can disprove these historical facts the orginals relative to those should be devalued or should now be totally disregarded but they are not some people will just not let go no matter what is put before them they still cling to the old views and i have to ask why?

With regards to new theories and evidence can we prove or disprove some or all of the new stuff that has been introduced and suggest as being fact beyond a reasonable doubt the answer is yes we can. So the new stuff then becomes a modern day edition to historical facts of the case and should be acceptd by the old guard but they wil not accept them or even consider them..

Lets take the graffiti is there any evidence to show the killer wrote it- NO

Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO

Is there any evidence to show it relates to the murder _NO

can it proved that it had not been written day before it was found -NO

Does anyone know the meaning of the graffiti-NO

Now to me that should negate it totally from this mystery. Yet there are some researches who still suggest it has some connection. Yet offer nothing in support of their weak views.

Lets look at Aaron Kosminski as another example with what we know

Was Aaron ever arrested for an offence of violence- NO

Was he ever known to mix with prostitutes-NO

Was he ever arrested as a suspect for the murders NO

was he ever seen with any of the victims- NO

was he ever seen at or near to the crime scenes at the times of the murders _No

Did any of the witnesses decsribe anyone as young as 25 -NO

Going back the The MM why was Cutbush named ? because of the incident with the knife which led to his arrest- totally unconnected MO to the Ripper. Yet someone decided to categorise him as a likley suspect because of this

Why was Kosminski named ? could it have been with regards to the incident involving his sister and a knife, again that MO totally different MO to the ripper.
Again if this was the reason Aaron Kosminsko wrong catergorised as a ripper suspect, and MM soon realsied that fact and exonerated him. BUt know some want to keep him alive as a viable and prime suspect.

With what is known of him he does not fit into the catergory of likely or prime suspect. and as has been suggested should be taken off the list,

In my opinion there is a serious doubt about the contents of the marginalia and a serious doubt about Andersons motive behind the entry in his book. Until such time it can be conclusivley proved that Anderson was truthful and the marginalia is totally authentic, I will continue to challenge those that stand by Anderson and the marginalia.

Trevor,
You seriously misrepresented something I said and therefore you should make the time to search through the posts to find out why.

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

Lets take the graffiti is there any evidence to show the killer wrote it- NO
Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO
Is there any evidence to show it relates to the murder _NO
can it proved that it had not been written day before it was found -NO
Does anyone know the meaning of the graffiti-NO

Now to me that should negate it totally from this mystery. Yet there are some researches who still suggest it has some connection. Yet offer nothing in support of their weak views.

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

Lets look at Aaron Kosminski as another example with what we know

Was Aaron ever arrested for an offence of violence- NO
Was he ever known to mix with prostitutes-NO
Was he ever arrested as a suspect for the murders NO
was he ever seen with any of the victims- NO
was he ever seen at or near to the crime scenes at the times of the murders _No
Did any of the witnesses decsribe anyone as young as 25 -NO

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

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

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

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

[S.Brett]

Hello Jonathan!

It seems to me the MET found (some days after the Kelly Murder) a man in an asylum. A man called "Kosminski". Maybe he was not the first time there. There and everywhere they called him only with his (former) surname. I could imagine, no one, neither family nor friends, would call such "Nobody", "Aaron". Rather people called him, "The crazy Jew" or "Kosminski" or "The mad Pole".

I suppose we cannot expect that people called (affectionately) "Dear Aaron" or "Mr. Kosminski"! To someone who was as "Jack the Ripper"? People laughed at Aaron Kosminski. As well as in December, 1889. They did not expect his "verbal skills". He had none. Aaron Kosminski had none, "Kosminski" had none and Jack the Ripper had none. No one of them had social skills.

I guess the MET had a Jewish witness. And I guess the City Police had a Jewish witness (Lawende) and a constable. In the first identification (that asylum) the MET witness said Yes, then No, however. A Yes, a No. No other proofs. "Kosminski" remained as a `Suspect`(Swanson). The City Police knew nothing about the first identification. The second identification took place at the Seaside Home. The Jewish (City Police) Witness said No! The constable said: I am not sure. He resembles the man I have seen. And for this reason the City Police watched "Kosminski". Later, the City Police ascertained facts.

Sagar:

"...a man, who, without a doubt, was the murderer"

Cox:

"Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes."

Years later:

Anderson found out ascertained facts (City Police) and added them to the identifications ("his" Jewish "Yes/No" witness and the Mitre Square PC).

Swanson wanted to find again, Kosminski. He found David Cohen. And Martin Fido found Swanson´s man.

But I think,this man was not "Kosminski".

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's hope you will, Trevor. You have a great deal resting on it.

Meantime, how about explaining why you misrepresented me by saying I had suggested that Anderson and Swanson were suffering neurological disorders that affected their memory, when nothing at all was said about memory? Or, for that matter, about Anderson having any neurological disorder.

I have not the time to go back searching the many posts which have been going back and forth on this thread. So I will summarise what I have been led to beleive.

It is accepted by all that there are differences in some of swansons handwriting in the marginalia to the control samples which were supplied for comparison purposes.

These differences have been explained away by the examiners and others including yourself suggesting that age and the fact that swanson could have been suffering from a neurological disorder in later years which could have effected his handwriting.

My post was not written to include Anderson however he was obvioulsy suffering from "being liberal with the truth" syndrome for most of his police service and into his retirement as is well known.

As I have said before negate Andersons rambling in the book and bingo biq question mark over the marginalia and its contents.

The thing is you and i look at this mystery in two totally different ways you look at it from a historical perspective. I from an investigative perspective.

From an historical perspective, the historical facts surrounding this case should not always be taken as gospel and written in stone. What is written is there to be proved or disproved. As is the case with new stuff.

Take the bible which is supposed to be a historial document can the contents of the be proved or disproved the answer is no

Now take the documents and comments written and spoken by all protagonaists in the ripper case can we prove or disprove these beyond a reasonable doubt as being totally reliable and accurate. The answer is yes we can disprove some of these in some cases in others no so in the cases where we can disprove these historical facts the orginals relative to those should be devalued or should now be totally disregarded but they are not some people will just not let go no matter what is put before them they still cling to the old views and i have to ask why?

With regards to new theories and evidence can we prove or disprove some or all of the new stuff that has been introduced and suggest as being fact beyond a reasonable doubt the answer is yes we can. So the new stuff then becomes a modern day edition to historical facts of the case and should be acceptd by the old guard but they wil not accept them or even consider them..

Lets take the graffiti is there any evidence to show the killer wrote it- NO

Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO

Is there any evidence to show it relates to the murder _NO

can it proved that it had not been written day before it was found -NO

Does anyone know the meaning of the graffiti-NO

Now to me that should negate it totally from this mystery. Yet there are some researches who still suggest it has some connection. Yet offer nothing in support of their weak views.

Lets look at Aaron Kosminski as another example with what we know

Was Aaron ever arrested for an offence of violence- NO

Was he ever known to mix with prostitutes-NO

Was he ever arrested as a suspect for the murders NO

was he ever seen with any of the victims- NO

was he ever seen at or near to the crime scenes at the times of the murders _No

Did any of the witnesses decsribe anyone as young as 25 -NO

Going back the The MM why was Cutbush named ? because of the incident with the knife which led to his arrest- totally unconnected MO to the Ripper. Yet someone decided to categorise him as a likley suspect because of this

Why was Kosminski named ? could it have been with regards to the incident involving his sister and a knife, again that MO totally different MO to the ripper.
Again if this was the reason Aaron Kosminsko wrong catergorised as a ripper suspect, and MM soon realsied that fact and exonerated him. BUt know some want to keep him alive as a viable and prime suspect.

With what is known of him he does not fit into the catergory of likely or prime suspect. and as has been suggested should be taken off the list,

In my opinion there is a serious doubt about the contents of the marginalia and a serious doubt about Andersons motive behind the entry in his book. Until such time it can be conclusivley proved that Anderson was truthful and the marginalia is totally authentic, I will continue to challenge those that stand by Anderson and the marginalia.

[PaulB]

I will deleiver the goods big time in fact they have been deleivered and the only thing that wil be flushed down the toilet for good is one prime suspect, with another to follow shortly afterwards.

Let's hope you will, Trevor. You have a great deal resting on it.

Meantime, how about explaining why you misrepresented me by saying I had suggested that Anderson and Swanson were suffering neurological disorders that affected their memory, when nothing at all was said about memory? Or, for that matter, about Anderson having any neurological disorder.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is not true.

If you read my posts, you'd have noticed that I have said several times that I'd welcome new information. And I would. With open arms. You see, I don't think Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, and whilst on the basis of the evidence available to me I believe the marginalia is genuine, if evidence came along to prove the opposite then I'd accept it. So, you, see, I have no entrenched position to defend.

What concerns me is that people behave in a responsible way, which you don't, apply correct and proper methodology, which you don't (and don't even understand), and are concerned to establish the facts and the truth, which you are self-evidently not.

But all your chips are on the table, Trevor. Your reputation in this field, such as it is, is resting on your new information. If you don't deliver the goods big time, and soon, it will be flushed down the toilet for good.

I will deleiver the goods big time in fact they have been deleivered and the only thing that wil be flushed down the toilet for good is one prime suspect, with another to follow shortly afterwards.

[PaulB]

Crap, that means I have to publish my book in July if I want to beat Adam to press with these photos. I'd better get to writing now, as I'm no Trenouth!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Actually, Tom, Le Grand is fascinating and you done some great research, so your book will be very worthwhile. I wish you'd get on and write it.

[PaulB]

I will Paul Begg

That is not true.

If you read my posts, you'd have noticed that I have said several times that I'd welcome new information. And I would. With open arms. You see, I don't think Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, and whilst on the basis of the evidence available to me I believe the marginalia is genuine, if evidence came along to prove the opposite then I'd accept it. So, you, see, I have no entrenched position to defend.

What concerns me is that people behave in a responsible way, which you don't, apply correct and proper methodology, which you don't (and don't even understand), and are concerned to establish the facts and the truth, which you are self-evidently not.

But all your chips are on the table, Trevor. Your reputation in this field, such as it is, is resting on your new information. If you don't deliver the goods big time, and soon, it will be flushed down the toilet for good.

[Jonathan H]

Mac behind the Major

February 4th 1912

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in The Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Trevor, see how Reid -- quite rightly -- has challenged the claim that the 'police' were investigating, in 1888, the drowned doctor and the Polish Jew and the Russian medico madman.

That there is no way, Reid is arguing, that these could be suspects contemporaneous to 1888, or early 1889 (eg. Druitt before he killed himself, Aaron Kosminski prior to incarceration, the hapless Michael Ostrog at all).

We know from other sources (the MP; Mac's memoirs) that, in reality, Druitt was a way-too-late suspect, and therefore Reid is not clashing with Macnaghten -- though he would probably never know it.

See how Macnaghten's opinion, prior to 1913 and 1914, is hidden from the others in the source above, anonymous behind a credible writer.

Jack Littlechild was also misled, in 1913, thinking that 'Dr D' must come from Anderson via Griffiths. He does not realise that Sims' source is Macnaghten, let alone that Sims has some kind of access to an allegedly definitive document of state -- by Macnagten!

That is why I think I am justified in calling 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' Macnaghten finally breaking cover, though it's hardly a full disclosure by any means.

[PaulB]

Yes he has obviously been reading beggs book of 1000 explanations as to why the marginalia in part or whole was written by Swanson

He's one up on you then.

[PaulB]

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Yet none of the officers with nothing to gain and no hidden agendas who say the police didnt not have a clue appear to have ben quite normal with all of this faculties in later years with no memory impairments.

Its simply another cop out excuse the same as is the one whereby the missing,lost or stolen files keeps being used, and I think more and more people are now starting to believe that be the case.

Really? How interesting. Who, precisely, has said that either man suffered from a neurological disorder which affected their memory?

That is what you were suggesting when we were discussing the handwriting,

I suggested nothing of the sort, Trevor. I didn't even come close to suggesting anything like that. Memory wasn't even mentioned. The neurological disorder was advanced by Dr Davies as a possible explanation for the slight shakiness in the handwriting of some of the marginalia.

It would be nice if you at least tried to get your facts right.

[Trevor Marriott]

To S. Brett

Oh, is that what you're getting at; a split in knowledge about this suspsect between the different police jurisdictions?

Well, fair enough.

To Roy

No offence taken.

In defence of my theory I am not arguing that Swanson was fooled or misled about anything.

I think he read Sir Robert's book, and honestly did not know who this suspect was who was supposedly positively identified by a Jewish witness (though he may well have heard about 'Kosminski', the fictional variant of Aaron Kosminski).

A puzzled Swanson asked his former boss and friend about his new Ripper account, and received an answer which was clearly a bit of a muddle. He arrived home, recorded Sir Robert's words for otherwise he would never remember such a confused mixture of bits and pieces, closed the book and shared it with nobody but himself because he knew that it wasn't accurate.

'Kosminski was the suspect'

That's the limitation of a private notation for your own eyes only. You don't have to write: hey this is Sir Robert's self-serving mishmash, not mine -- got that posterity!

I think Swanson also asked about the 'Dear Boss' letter and Sir Robert defended the claim that the hoaxer had also been identified by assuring him that all the heads knew, and he identified the policeman who had turned to jelly over a threatening bit of correspondence (Macnaghten??!! the 'action man'?! Who had actually identified the hoaxer.)

The reason I write fictional variant is because of the following:

'Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.'

Alfred Aylmer (Major Arthur Griffiths)
'The Detective in Real Life'
The Windsor Magazine, vol. 1, no. 5, May 1895

'... the inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safely caged in an asylum.'

Sir Robert Anderson
'Punishing Crime'
'The Nineteenth Century', Feb 1901

'Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum.'

Arthur Ponsonby Moore Anderson
'The Life of Sir Robert Anderson (Sir Robert and Lady Anderson)', 1947

The real Aaron Kosminski was not not only not deceased 'soon after' he was 'safely caged', as Swanson has it in the Marginalia, but he was not 'temporarily at large' or on the 'prowl' for mere 'weeks'.

Hence Martin Fido understandably rejecting Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's Polish Jewish Ripper suspect because the timing is so off (and because Aaron was seemingly harmless).

What Sir Robert has confidently asserted from 185 is just not true about Aaron Kosminski.

He was out and about for years before being sectioned and if Kelly is the last of his murders then he became quite harmless. But Anderson gives the clear impression that the Ripper's reign was 'cut short' by being sectioned at the time of the canonical murders.

Where does that notion come from?

Well, Macnaghten has 'Kosminski' sectioned in March 1889. He also knows that he's not dead.

Why is it so outlandish to propose that Macnaghten has misled Anderson when we can glimpse moments where the latter is wrong and the former is right, yet they worked closely together?

Here is Sir Robert, a staunch Tory, muddling up a Liberal Home Sec. and later Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Tory Henry Matthews (he mixed up a minister, who had never put him under pressure in 1888 because he wasn't the minister then, with the real one who had spoken to him face to face):

'I told Sir William Harcourt, who was the Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for the none-detection of the author of the Rippr crimes, for the reasons, among others, I have given you.'

Sir Robert Anderson -- interview
'The Daily Chronicle', Sept 1st, 1908

Two years later, Sir Robert I think sincerely muddled up Tom Sadler with 'Kosminski' who was sectioned a few days before the sailor was 'confronted' with Lawende a Jewish witness and said no -- a disappointing result which burned.

to answer a previous poster: I am not really a 'Druittist'. I'm a Jack the Ripperist.

It is quite clear that which ever way you look at all of this someone had to be lying !

Now who could it be one or more ?

you have pointed out various newspaper articles.

There are three main police protagonists Macnaghten,Anderson and Swanson were any of those lying. Many put great faith in Andersons book entry. But Anderson was a pen pusher never did any real practical policing. Any information he was privvy to had to have eminated at grass roots level from people directly involved in the investiagtion. Thats how the system still works today.

With that in mind see below two press quotes from DI Reid who was involved in the investigation at grass roots level

April 23rd 1910

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in The Lloyds Weekly

“ Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead”

February 4th 1912

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in The Lloyds Weekly

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Draw your own conclusions as to who was lying if you think it was Anderson then it very much weakens the suggestions put forward by some that the marginalia corroborates what Anderson wrote in his book.