Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[PaulB]

Is that your best shot try to discredit me thats all you can do well if it is its a cheap shot but hey ho do I care I am holding all the aces !

Hmmmmmmmmmm lunatic fantasist have you not looked in the mirror lately ?

Not a cheap shot at all. It's those kind of accusations that distinguish you, that make you what you are. And I am not trying to discredit you, Trevor. That was my point. You can spout as much drivel as you like and I wouldn't raise a note of protest, but you throw out vile accusations that hurt people, that damage them, and I object to that. You don't have a jot of evidence that the marginalia isn't wholly authentic, and if you do have some then you should lay it out in full before you start casting aspersions on the integrity of Jim Swanson, who you never met, who you don't know, and about whom you know nothing. But you don't lay our your evidence, you insinuate. Nasty.

And I didn't say you were a 'lunatic fantasist', I said I would discount you as a 'lunatic fringe fantasist', which means I think you are akin to those good folk who think the world is flat, that men didn't land on the moon, and that the crew of Mary Celeste were abducted by little green men. That sort of thing.

Some here might feel there are grounds for questioning your sanity. Not me. No, not me. I think you are sane.

[m_w_r]

The killer only killed five women
The killer wrote the graffiti
the killer removed the organs from the victims at the crime scene
the killer cut/tore a piece of Eddowes apron to carry organs away/wipe hads/knife
the killer deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street
Kosminski,Tumblety and others were prime suspects.
the killer was a mad polish jew
the killer was a mad butcher

What's really disturbing, though, what really demonstrates just how profound your ignorance of this subject really is, is that you list those things as if they were new, as if nobody had ever queried them before. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

I think the extraordinary thing about Trevor's list is that he presents these 'old outdate theories' as if they are cherished and held to be true by Ripperologists everywhere. A quick glance at any number of threads on Casebook will show that there's a spectrum of opinion as regards 'The killer only killed five women', for example.

The problem with the suggestion that there is consensus about all or any of the topics Trevor mentions is that it's usually a rhetorical technique used by writers who have parachuted into Ripperology with irresponsible theories which are then subjected to reasonable and responsible scrutiny by interested third parties. While, to you and me, a bit of scrutiny isn't normally a bad thing, people who find that the faults of their theories are fairly swiftly detected can, as we know, react with Ripperologists can't handle the truth - it's a closed shop and they won't open their minds to new information - they seek to destroy people who arrive on the scene and to protect their monopoly, and that sort of thing. Again, even a cursory glance at the message boards, or of the published literature, disproves the idea that the field is a cosy and conservative one. But we are lucky enough to have plenty of Ripperologists who know what they're doing, and who ensure that some reasonable disciplinary principles are upheld, despite the free-for-all on the fringes.

If Trevor is adopting the tactics of the crank outsider already, one wonders whether his proposed dismantling of various warhorses of Ripperology will stand up to scrutiny later.

Regards,

Mark

[Bridewell]

The Concept Of Outdated Theory

What are some of these old outdate theories:
The killer only killed five women

Why is this theory 'outdated'?

The killer wrote the graffiti

That's not a theory, Trevor. It's an either/or. He did or he didn't. There's no evidence either way.

the killer removed the organs from the victims at the crime scene

A theory doesn't become 'outdated' just because you disagree with it.

the killer cut/tore a piece of Eddowes apron to carry organs away/wipe hads/knife

How can this possibly be described as an 'outdated theory'? It's the most likely explanation! Far more likely than your tampon theory that a 46-year-old drab was using a piece of her filthy apron as a sanitary towel.

the killer deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street

By a country mile the most likely explanation of its presence there. Not the only possible explanation, just the most likely.

There is case to show that each and every one of the aforemtnioned is not written in stone

No theory is "written in stone". If it were, it wouldn't be a theory. A theory cannot be outdated. It's either credible or it's not. I accept that, when new evidence comes to light, that judgement may need to be re-assessed, but because of the new evidence, not because of its date. Novelty is not a proper yardstick by which to measure the quality of a theory.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

I think the extraordinary thing about Trevor's list is that he presents these 'old outdate theories' as if they are cherished and held to be true by Ripperologists everywhere. A quick glance at any number of threads on Casebook will show that there's a spectrum of opinion as regards 'The killer only killed five women', for example.

The problem with the suggestion that there is consensus about all or any of the topics Trevor mentions is that it's usually a rhetorical technique used by writers who have parachuted into Ripperology with irresponsible theories which are then subjected to reasonable and responsible scrutiny by interested third parties. While, to you and me, a bit of scrutiny isn't normally a bad thing, people who find that the faults of their theories are fairly swiftly detected can, as we know, react with Ripperologists can't handle the truth - it's a closed shop and they won't open their minds to new information - they seek to destroy people who arrive on the scene and to protect their monopoly, and that sort of thing. Again, even a cursory glance at the message boards, or of the published literature, disproves the idea that the field is a cosy and conservative one. But we are lucky enough to have plenty of Ripperologists who know what they're doing, and who ensure that some reasonable disciplinary principles are upheld, despite the free-for-all on the fringes.

If Trevor is adopting the tactics of the crank outsider already, one wonders whether his proposed dismantling of various warhorses of Ripperology will stand up to scrutiny later.

Regards,

Mark

Excellent post Mark,

Spot on.

Prepare for the bold text rant.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

You can spout as much drivel as you like and I wouldn't raise a note of protest, but you throw out vile accusations that hurt people, that damage them,

Correction: Anyone who has a modicum of experience on these boards is probably far beyond being hurt by these accusations. Irritated? Maybe. Bored? Certainly.

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

The problem for me with Tumblety being arrested on suspicion of murder is that there is no court record of it happening, the only court records are for the known charges relating to gross indecency involving gentlemen...is this not correct?

You are referring to the 'Offense as charged' column on the Marlborough Street Court record, which was written down AFTER the case. Note the comment 'Recognizances of Defandant Estreated'. This was after the re-arrest. If the reporter in the court saw the relatively famous American doctor merely being charged with gross indecency, then that would have been reported, but where on earth did the reporter get the info about him being connected to the murders AND THEN get the info about being re-arrested with the 'Babylon' charge? Clearly, he was informed by someone in the know.

The only semi official evidence is a private letter from an ex-policeman to a journalist. Neither is there any police document known to contain evidence of such an arrest on suspicion?

Actually, at this very same moment (around 18 November), we see Sir Robert Anderson soliciting information about Tumblety as a Ripper suspect from Brooklyn's Chief of Police (Roger Palmer made a convincing case for San Francisco's Chief of Police AT THE SAME TIME). So, we have primary evidence of Tumblety being a significant suspect in November 1888 by two top Scotland Yard officials, so why is this not enough? When the ripper murders continued past November 1888 -in the mind of Swanson and Anderson- then Tumblety was clearly innocent.

So we are reliant here on newspapers telling us Tumblety was arrested for suspicion. Those newspapers, as you know are almost all in the USA. Please correct me if I am wrong?

As corrected by the above statement.

Since this is not a Tumblety thread, I'll stop, but the UK reporting practices are an important issue that Jonathan addressed quite well. Also, just as Donald Rumbelow had stated, Scotland Yard was not in the practice of communicating with the press about their cases (as evidenced by Tumblety's November 7 arrest not being known until the charges at Marlborough Street Court on November 16), so it shouldn't be a huge concern about what Scotland Yard was thinking in November 1888.

Thanks for the reply Phil,

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

So, the answer to my question from you, Roy, is that because Sagar and Cox might be talking about Aaron Kosminski -- and it just as easily can be argued that they are not -- then the argument is made that Sir Robert is more reliable than other contemporaneous sources?

Is that really it?

No that's not it. You're putting words in my mouth.

After S Brett brought them up, I mentioned Henry Cox and Robert Sagar again for your benefit, Jonathan. So that you can (and I see you did, in a later post) include them in your list of primary sources that, in your opinion, Melville Macnaghten trumps. That's all.

What I said was :

I don't think you can just toss those two out of the equation.

Further you wrote –

Also you are, in my opinion, Roy, underestimating how devastating it is for Anderson's reliability (and maybe Swanson's?) that he believed that 'Kosminski' was dead, and that he was a prominent suspect of the early phase of the investigation -- when he was neither, suggesting that he did not know much about him, or did recall much accurate data about him.

Again, you’re making up my lines for me, Jonathan. If we weren’t in such vastly different times zones this might be easier to do.

Roy

[Garry Wroe]

To my way of thinking, it is perfectly clear that both Anderson and Swanson knew of the Seaside Home incident and believed that Kosminski had been identified as Jack the Ripper. Whilst such an event may appear unlikely or abstruse to some latter-day researchers, it would be poor scholarship to simply dismiss it out of hand as though it never happened. The sensible approach, I would suggest, would be to try and make sense of it given the available evidence. It may well be the case that the solution has been staring us in the face all along.

Anderson, for example, stated that the Seaside Home witness was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’, and that he ‘unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him’. In reflecting on this assertion, Swanson declared that the identification would ‘convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.’

According to Swanson, therefore, the identification would in itself have been sufficient to have secured a conviction. Since Lawende’s sighting could never have resulted in such an outcome, the witness must have been Schwartz. Thus the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders must have been construed as the initial stage of the attack that left Stride lying dead just a few feet away. If Dr Blackwell’s estimated time of death may be taken as reliable, moreover, the murder may have occurred within a minute of Schwartz departing the scene.

So Schwartz was Anderson’s mystery witness, and Kosminski was the man identified as Liz Stride’s attacker and thus Jack the Ripper.

All well and good. But there is a problem. Beyond a labyrinth of assumption and supposition there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the contention that Stride fell victim to the Whitechapel Murderer. In point of fact, everything about the Berner Street crime suggests that it was unrelated to the Ripper series. If so, the solution to the Kosminski conundrum has indeed been staring us in the face all along.

The sequence of events appears to have been that Kosminski came to the attention of investigators and was viewed by Schwartz, who identified him as the man he had seen assaulting Stride. Since this assault was considered integral to the murder itself, we have an explanation as to why Swanson believed the eyewitness evidence alone was sufficient to have secured a conviction, and why Anderson believed that the Whitechapel Murderer had been identified.

So whereas Anderson certainly exaggerated the situation when he claimed that the killer’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’, he wasn’t lying in the strictest sense of the word. If anything, he was guilty of wishful thinking, if possibly wilful wishful thinking. The real flaw in Anderson’s conclusions relates to the Stride murder and its automatic inclusion in the Ripper series. Had this crime been evaluated purely on the evidence it would have been treated as incidental, and Kosminski could not have been assumed to have been Jack the Ripper, even in the event that he did kill Stride – which to my mind is extremely doubtful.

This is a lesson from which many could benefit today.

[PaulB]

Correction: Anyone who has a modicum of experience on these boards is probably far beyond being hurt by these accusations. Irritated? Maybe. Bored? Certainly.

Mike

You would think so, but it isn't the case that people aren't hurt by the things said here. Look at the people who have gone from these message boards because of stupid, thoughtless, or insensitive things that have been said to and about them. I also had in mind researchers who work closely with the police and sometimes have sensitive and valuable material in their possession who are irresponsibly accused of theft by a former policeman. And people like Nevill Swanson, who I don't know is hurt or even upset by the innuendo cast by others about his father's integrity and honesty, but is sufficiently pi**ed by it not to look favourably on requests from certain quarters to release the marginalia for testing. Thankfully he is in contact with a number of sane and responsible people, but otherwise a clodhoppering approach to research can damage serious and responsible research if the owners of material just pull down the shutters, as some people [I]have[I] done in the past.

Otherwise, irritated and bored. Definitely.

[PaulB]

Yes, an excellent post, Mark.

Good points, Colin.

Excellent opening para, Gary. (A good post, but an excellent and beautifully expressed first para).

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the extraordinary thing about Trevor's list is that he presents these 'old outdate theories' as if they are cherished and held to be true by Ripperologists everywhere. A quick glance at any number of threads on Casebook will show that there's a spectrum of opinion as regards 'The killer only killed five women', for example.

The problem with the suggestion that there is consensus about all or any of the topics Trevor mentions is that it's usually a rhetorical technique used by writers who have parachuted into Ripperology with irresponsible theories which are then subjected to reasonable and responsible scrutiny by interested third parties. While, to you and me, a bit of scrutiny isn't normally a bad thing, people who find that the faults of their theories are fairly swiftly detected can, as we know, react with Ripperologists can't handle the truth - it's a closed shop and they won't open their minds to new information - they seek to destroy people who arrive on the scene and to protect their monopoly, and that sort of thing. Again, even a cursory glance at the message boards, or of the published literature, disproves the idea that the field is a cosy and conservative one. But we are lucky enough to have plenty of Ripperologists who know what they're doing, and who ensure that some reasonable disciplinary principles are upheld, despite the free-for-all on the fringes.

If Trevor is adopting the tactics of the crank outsider already, one wonders whether his proposed dismantling of various warhorses of Ripperology will stand up to scrutiny later.

Regards,

Mark

Mark
I have no doubt whatsover but of course whatever and whenever all of this is later disclosed It wil come under close scrutiny which I whole heartedly subscribe to. because I would do exactly the same.

But what I do object to is the likes of Paul Begg and certain others who firstly cannot conlcusively prove the facts they seek to rely on to prop up their outdated theories and further more when anything new is introduced to negate those outdated theories, rather than consider accepting the new material which in the case of many aspects this mystery are as plausible as the original theories and go along way to suggest the original theories and what has been historically written is not totally correct. Consistently attempt to destroy them.

It all that starts with the facts from 1888. Take a look at what evidence there is from 1888 to start with almost none in the true sense.

All you keep hearing from Mr Begg and others is "Where is you evidence" it all gets back to people having the abilty to assess and evaluate and fully understand exactly what the term evidence means. Evidence it is split into different catergories, Primary, secondary,hearsay and circumstantial. When it comes down to it much of what people have sought to rely on is nothing more than hearsay and has no real evidential value and would need strong corroboation for it to have any value.

In an earllier post I wrote a long list of the old theories which have formed the back bone to this case virtually of them can be challenged with the introduction of new evidence, but it seems Mr Begg and others dont know the defintion of evidence as previously stated. Whilst he and a handful of others continue to block and disregard the new material there is always going to be these heated discussions.

Personally I have beendirectly involved in these discussions over and over again and its now becoming tiresome, as it must be for the posters who have to sit and endure this sabre rattling which then finishes up with a tirrade of personal abuse being hurled back and forth.

Why should I worry in fact I dont there is a hardcore of perhap 20 regular vistiors to casebook and maybe the same amount to JTR Forums.many sit on the fence and dont become embroiled in the argument so its difficult to understand their views on the challenges to the old theories. Others clearly and whole heartedly support the new evidence and theories. The remainder that wont are so set in their ways and so blinkered in the way they look at this they will never change they are addicted to the point of obsession.

But it would not be good for everyone to agree that never happens in anyhting in life so it wont ever happen in this mystery. So i am going to continue to do as I have done from the outsest to introduce other new facts other new evidence and I certainly wont lose any sleep over the fact that a handful of moronic posters wont agree or accept it or are not even prepared to consider it..

Its the general public that have been misled over the years with the publication of an assortment of suspect based books lacking in any real evidence and many documenraties all formulated on the original facts again lacking in any real evidence which many of the objectors have themselves been directly involved in.

But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain.

[Trevor Marriott]

In reply

Why is this theory 'outdated'?

That's not a theory, Trevor. It's an either/or. He did or he didn't. There's no evidence either way.

Thats very true and because 124 years later it is still as meaningless today as it was in 1888. How can anyone today suggest it relates to the murder? The question of did he or didn’t he is academic.

To get a definitive answer you have to go back to 1888. It was never suggested then that the killer wrote it. So therefore why are we 124 years later arguing did he or didn’t he. Its a myth created over the years as part of the apron piece/ organ removal theory. If you cast a doubt that the killer didn’t deposit the apron piece then the graffiti goes out the window.

A theory doesn't become 'outdated' just because you disagree with it.

But if you disprove the theory it does

How can this possibly be described as an 'outdated theory'? It's the most likely explanation! Far more likely than your tampon theory that a 46-year-old drab was using a piece of her filthy apron as a sanitary towel.

By a country mile the most likely explanation of its presence there. Not the only possible explanation, just the most likely.

I don’t propose to comment further on the above simply because I will be introducing new material on both the graffiti and the apron piece at York.

No theory is "written in stone". If it were, it wouldn't be a theory. A theory cannot be outdated. It's either credible or it's not. I accept that, when new evidence comes to light, that judgement may need to be re-assessed, but because of the new evidence, not because of its date. Novelty is not a proper yardstick by which to measure the quality of a theory.

Perhaps you best tell Paul Begg that

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

"But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain."

By public you mean those who have not studied the case in great depth and only rely on information you claim is correct?

Like those who attend your talks and are oblivious to the finer details which show your 'evidence' to be nothing more than interpretation based on personal opinion.

And Hearsay evidence can convict Trevor, it is evidence none the less.

Monty

[PaulB]

Mark
I have no doubt whatsover but of course whatever and whenever all of this is later disclosed It wil come under close scrutiny which I whole heartedly subscribe to. because I would do exactly the same.

But what I do object to is the likes of Paul Begg and certain others who firstly cannot conlcusively prove the facts they seek to rely on to prop up their outdated theories and further more when anything new is introduced to negate those outdated theories, rather than consider accepting the new material which in the case of many aspects this mystery are as plausible as the original theories and go along way to suggest the original theories and what has been historically written is not totally correct. Consistently attempt to destroy them.

It all that starts with the facts from 1888. Take a look at what evidence there is from 1888 to start with almost none in the true sense.

All you keep hearing from Mr Begg and others is "Where is you evidence" it all gets back to people having the abilty to assess and evaluate and fully understand exactly what the term evidence means. Evidence it is split into different catergories, Primary, secondary,hearsay and circumstantial. When it comes down to it much of what people have sought to rely on is nothing more than hearsay and has no real evidential value and would need strong corroboation for it to have any value.

In an earllier post I wrote a long list of the old theories which have formed the back bone to this case virtually of them can be challenged with the introduction of new evidence, but it seems Mr Begg and others dont know the defintion of evidence as previously stated. Whilst he and a handful of others continue to block and disregard the new material there is always going to be these heated discussions.

Personally I have beendirectly involved in these discussions over and over again and its now becoming tiresome, as it must be for the posters who have to sit and endure this sabre rattling which then finishes up with a tirrade of personal abuse being hurled back and forth.

Why should I worry in fact I dont there is a hardcore of perhap 20 regular vistiors to casebook and maybe the same amount to JTR Forums.many sit on the fence and dont become embroiled in the argument so its difficult to understand their views on the challenges to the old theories. Others clearly and whole heartedly support the new evidence and theories. The remainder that wont are so set in their ways and so blinkered in the way they look at this they will never change they are addicted to the point of obsession.

But it would not be good for everyone to agree that never happens in anyhting in life so it wont ever happen in this mystery. So i am going to continue to do as I have done from the outsest to introduce other new facts other new evidence and I certainly wont lose any sleep over the fact that a handful of moronic posters wont agree or accept it or are not even prepared to consider it..

Its the general public that have been misled over the years with the publication of an assortment of suspect based books lacking in any real evidence and many documenraties all formulated on the original facts again lacking in any real evidence which many of the objectors have themselves been directly involved in.

But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain.

Same old, same old, Trevor. The only answer you have to criticism of your ideas and thinking is that your critics are blocking you because they're too wedded to old and outmoded ideas, whereas 'the public' is waking up to your thinking. Yeah, right, and that oink oinking you can hear is the flock of pigs flying overhead.

If I don't understand what evidence is, you tell me what it is.

If you think there is evidence that the murderer did not write the graffiti and that the graffiti can be dismissed, then say what that evidence is. That's how things should be done, Trevor.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

If, as you contend, Anderson's Polish Jew suspect wasn't JtR, where does that leave us with Swanson's suspect—a Jew named Kosminski who appears to have undergone much the same inconclusive ID procedure as Anderson's Polish Jew and also happened to share the same family name as a Polish Jew named by Macnaghten whom he was "inclined to exonerate"?

How many Jews [Polish or otherwise] were being written about?

What we really need to make this conundrum work is another Kosminski. But I believe there was only one in the LVP asylum system.

Regards,

Simon