Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[PaulB]

To PaulB

We will of course agree to disagree, as ever.

I don't accept that I am slanting anything.

I am simply interpreting limited and incomplete sources in an attempt to create a unifying theory without loose ends.

I am joining dots together whilst always conceding that the dots can be joined other ways -- as you did with your previous post about Macnaghten.

Such conclusions can only ever be provisional.

By the way, when I wrote about the potential unreliability of the Swanson Marginalia, I did not mean its authenticity. I was clumsily referring to Swanson's credibility as a primary source writing in a private document -- and making errors about his own alleged chief suspect.

Jonathan, you have indeed joined the dots, and having joined them you present your scenario as if it is accepted fact. In your scenario Macnaghten sits at the centre of a web and manipulates people like Griffiths and Sims, and so you use pejorative wording like 'break cover' in a discussion like this one. The fact is that it is not accepted that your scenario is true, it is not accepted that Macnaghten was manipulating anyone, and it is therefore not accepted that Macnaghten in any sense broke cover.

And the trouble is that this is a debate over whether there are good and justifiable grounds for questioning the authenticity of the marginalia, or whether Trev is blowing hot air through his bottom, which rather makes Swanson's credaibility as a source of secondary importance. Let's first establish that the marginalia is authentic.

All sources have values and limitations, the disagreement is over the balance. Are they more reliable than unreliable?

I'll just tidy up a few other bits and pieces.

I have seen you write that before, about Mac's memoirs; about him pointing to a Thames suicide.

In 'Laying the Ghost ...' he never mentions the location and method of the likely Ripper's suicide.

Never even hints at it.

I agree, you'd think he would. What with his eye for the memorable anecdote and vivid detail even if exaggerated?

But he doesn't. Perversely neither 'drowned' nor 'doctor' make it into his public account.

Is that slanting it when I write 'perverse'?

I don't think so. It is perverse, that the Ur-source of the drowned doctor Super-suspect drops both those elements in his own account.

Why did he do that?

It was one of the first surprises when I read the whole chapter in 'Days of My Years' for myself rather than rely on the interpretation of secondary sources -- those which include the memoirs of course.

Well, [the un-named] Druitt wasn't a doctor and in the one account of his for the public under his own name Mac was careful not to commit himself to this error -- or should I write: lie? Nothing about what the 'Simon Pure' did for a living ...?

The river omission is even odder, as it was true. He thus denied his readers the most colourful and vivid bit about that suspect; his penitential plunge into a river (eg. see Sims what does with it in 1907)?

Griffiths and Sims had made it consistently clear to the public that the suicidal doctor drowned himself in the Thames, the latter even making it crystal clear that it was within hours of the Kelly murder.

The MP had made it clear in a source you recently found that he stuck by his opinion, despite the arrest of Sadler and apparent police scepticism -- that the Ripper had killed himself 'the same evening' as the final murder.

My theory is that Macnaghten could not include the river detail if he wanted to concede that this suspect did not kill himself 'the same evening', because it exposed a compression of events for the sake of a melodramatic climax.

It made the story impossible, so it had to go.

for if you elongate the gap between Kelly's murder and the fiend's own murder, then how can he be hanging about for longer than it takes to stagger to the Thames? It's already quite a stretch to even believe that nobody saw him on his way to the river, but any longer than a straight line from Miller's Ct. the Thames ('raving and shrieking' in Sims) and it is rendered ludicrous.

In 1914, Macnaghten stretches the gap to a loose twenty-four hours and shrugs that it might have been longer.

In reality it was was longer. Again the cosy old paradigm of the police chief who did not know much about the basic details of his preferred suspect is arguably shown to be very fragile.

Okay, but that's got a lot to do with Macnaghten, questions you are asking and questions you are answering, but it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the marginalia.

Now, either the cronies were 'credulous' or they were in on it, that the suspect was being fictionalised.

Is that slanting it? I don't think so. It is interpreting contradictory data.

(1) ‘Credulous’ means over-ready to believe or ready to believe on weak or insufficient grounds. What evidence do you have that, say, Sims was over-ready to believe? Why didn’t he simply accept something persuasively told by a trustworthy source in a position to know? As far as I know, you have no evidence that Sims was over-ready to believe; on the contrary, Sims was arguably seeking confirmation from Littlechild. So, yes, ‘credulous is pejorative, is slanting.

(2) They don't have to have been credulous or complicit, a dupe or a knowing accomplice. They could just have been told and questioned and accepted something by a trusted and informed source, just like we all do every day of our lives? Making them out to be dumb or in n it is slanting.

We know that 'Aberconway' is not a copy of a definitive document of state, nor does it reflect the real archived version about Druitt's worth as a suspect? That it was never sent to the Home Office.

Yet Sims, in 1903, breathtakingly swats away Abberline, no less than a genuine policeman who investigated the Whitechapel murders, because the playwright knows about the 'Home Office Report' -- which isn't one.

Now either Sims wrote that sincerely (and rudely) and therefore was misled by Macnaghten -- and was therefore credulous via his friendship with an high-ranking cop -- or he was in on it, and knew full well that the police of 1888 were of course not about to arrest the 'mad doctor'.

The Major probably knew that 'family' in the 'Home Office Report' had become 'friends'. That's deceiving his readers, a piece of deceit which Mac never corrected in Sims. The latter has more material on the likely Ripper, which also spins the story away from Druitt, eg. being in an asylum.

Now that is fact, Paul.

It is a fact that Sims' profile takes you away from the real Montague Druitt. The question is how and why did that happen?

The old paradigm said because Macnaghten began to sincerely forget bits and pieces.

I accepted that until I read your 2006 book, specifically your suggestive line that perhaps Mac should not be taken 'literally' in all that he writes?

For example, his memoirs deny that Druitt had ever been 'detained' in an asylum, or that he was about to be arrested, or that he killed himself within hours of the Kelly murder and thus strongly indicate, to say the least, that he was not forgetful but instead affably manipulative.

Fine. But again it isn't really relevant.

I respect the interpretation of Anderson as the most reliable police source and more sources found in the future may show it to be stronger again. In this interpretation Macnaghten becomes a sideshow: a man with merely a theory which may have hardened as a well-earned retirement beckoned (and he was seriously ill) whereas Anderson allegedly alone among these police sources, actually claimed that the Ripper had been definitely identified. Since Mac did not know much about Druitt, then we can judge him to be less reliable and certainly less emphatic than his former boss.

Then battle is joined over Anderson's values and limitations, and so on.

Ah ha! Now we're hitting the nitty-gritty, and yet again it is your perception that acceptance of Anderson diminishes Macnaghten. But who says Anderson is the 'most reliable' police source?

[Trevor Marriott]

Au contraire, Simon. One 'camp' calls upon the evidence of two handwriting examiners who have stated within the limits of their professionalism that the marginalia is authentic, and upon the impeccable provenance of the source, and upon the utter lack of any evidence that any of those in a position to forge or otherwise tamper with the marginalia would have done so. And on the other side you have somebody who on absolutely no evidence whatsoever claims that there exist serious doubts about the marginalia's authenticity, when the reality is that there are no doubts at all.

Well I will give you 10 out of 10 for tenacity but what Simon says is correct the only difference is that I am man enough to say I cannot conclusivley say that the marginalia is a forgery.

However you categorically say conlculsively that it is not a forgery in whole or part. I thjnk you need to take your blinkers and rose tinted spectacles off for a moment and look at the full picture of eveything surrounding the marginalia. You will then clearly see that taking everyhting in the right perspective there is not only a serious doubt about the marginalia but everything connected to it from MM right up to Andersons entry and then onto the Marginalia.

Absolutley nothing about these occurrences stands up to close scrutiny.

In 1894 MM formulates the MM based on what? We do not know, but in that he names amongst others a person named Kosminski as being a likely suspect in surname only. What we do know is that there is no official records or reports which can corroborate his initial suspicion that a man named Kosminski was ever regarded a likely suspect. (Lests not go ito all this business about records being lost stolen or destroyed this old chestnut has been done to death and is widely used as in this case to prop up theories)

MM then later formulates the AV in which he then exonerates the likely suspect named Kosminski, now you can play around with this word all you like but exonarates is a strong word for him to use and is clear and specific from the Oxford English dictionary "To free a person from blame"

Now yesterday you make a ridiculous statement that MM could have exonerated him from being the ripper but that would still leave him as a suspect. Well as i said yesterday if he was exonaterated by MM as being the ripper how can he still be regarded as a suspect ? In sequence it is a transition from suspect to perpretator to being eliminated from being the perpretrator or a suspect.

That in itself should have been the end of any further suspicion of any involvement in The murders by anyone named Kosminski.

But no in the 1980`s Martin Fido carries out his extensive reserach into trying to find a mad polish jew who could have been the Kosminski named by MM.I can only assume as a historical excercise, cue briefly Aaron Kosminski, then exit Aaron Kosminki enter Nathan Kaminski /David Cohen (square pegs in round holes)

Now the point I would argue is by this time MM had exonarated the man named Kosminski so why were reserachers hell bent on keeping alive a Kosminski as a likely or prime suspect. it seems they were.

1980 Jim Swanson discovers the marginalia and offers it to the News of the World who pay a substantial amount for the rights ,but never print it. Now this I find strange. You yourself stated yesterday in a post that this marginalia is of important evidential value and if that be the case why didnt the NOW publish it because way back then it would have been regarded as an important find. The part of the marginlia which makes it important is the part which names Kosminski.

I have to ask the question at that time did the marginalia include the name Kosminski? if it didnt then there is a plausible explanation as to why they didnt publish it.

Sometime between 1980-1987 Jim Swanson obtains the rights back from the NOW.

Swanson then offers it to the Telegraph who do publish it in 1987 and publish it with the name Kosminski included. Cue a feeding frenzy of authors you included which has contiuned to this day all championing Kosminski as a prime suspect.

The marginalia is examined by two different document examiners at different times who cannot conlusivley say that Donald Swanson wrote all of the annotations. It is ascertained that the annotations were written at two different times. Now why would Donald Swanson do that after all looking at the annotations it would take only a few moments to write it all in one go why two diferent times? Of course its is also noticeable that right at the very end appears those golden words "Kosminski was the suspect"

No mention of the christian name of the Kosminski no mention of the name of the witness. Swanson also mentions this seaside home ID which has purportedly taken place against all known police protocol and not a scrap of official documentaion or any later witness testimony from anyone else involved in this from a police perspective or from anyone from the seaside home. Total silence that speaks volumes in itself. Furthermore the marginalia does not include the name of the witness nor the christian name of the Kosminski.

I have to ask did any high ranking officer serving with the police at that time know the christian of the most fearsome serial killer in the annals of britsh criminal history.it seems not.

The another contentious part of his marginalia whereby they bring the suspect back home as if they had been out on a jolly to the seaside and drop him off knowing that they were freeing a killer. The only two people who refer to this are Anderson and Swanson. Yet we know that many other high ranking officers in later years conformed that the police did not have any clue as to the identity of the killer.

You suggest the marginalia corroborates Andersons entry well we know he cannot be totally relied upon in many of his writings, furthermore we know that right up until the publication of his book he was telling the press that they had no clue as to the identity of the killer. Why did he simply not tell the press what Swanson told the press in 1895 that they knew the killer and that he was dead.

The only corroboration Anderson gives gto the marginalia is to not name the suspect or to not name the witness.

No I am sorry much of this is fairy tale stuff and if it is ever proved that the marginalia wasnt written by Swanson in its entirety then I guess you and others are going to be very unhappy bunnies.

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

We will of course agree to disagree, as ever.

I don't accept that I am slanting anything.

I am simply interpreting limited and incomplete sources in an attempt to create a unifying theory without loose ends.

I am joining dots together whilst always conceding that the dots can be joined other ways -- as you did with your previous post about Macnaghten.

Such conclusions can only ever be provisional.

By the way, when I wrote about the potential unreliability of the Swanson Marginalia, I did not mean its authenticity. I was clumsily referring to Swanson's credibility as a primary source writing in a private document -- and making errors about his own alleged chief suspect.

All sources have values and limitations, the disagreement is over the balance. Are they more reliable than unreliable?

I'll just tidy up a few other bits and pieces.

I have seen you write that before, about Mac's memoirs; about him pointing to a Thames suicide.

In 'Laying the Ghost ...' he never mentions the location and method of the likely Ripper's suicide.

Never even hints at it.

I agree, you'd think he would. What with his eye for the memorable anecdote and vivid detail even if exaggerated?

But he doesn't. Perversely neither 'drowned' nor 'doctor' make it into his public account.

Is that slanting it when I write 'perverse'?

I don't think so. It is perverse, that the Ur-source of the drowned doctor Super-suspect drops both those elements in his own account.

Why did he do that?

It was one of the first surprises when I read the whole chapter in 'Days of My Years' for myself rather than rely on the interpretation of secondary sources -- those which include the memoirs of course.

Well, [the un-named] Druitt wasn't a doctor and in the one account of his for the public under his own name Mac was careful not to commit himself to this error -- or should I write: lie? Nothing about what the 'Simon Pure' did for a living ...?

The river omission is even odder, as it was true. He thus denied his readers the most colourful and vivid bit about that suspect; his penitential plunge into a river (eg. see Sims what does with it in 1907)?

Griffiths and Sims had made it consistently clear to the public that the suicidal doctor drowned himself in the Thames, the latter even making it crystal clear that it was within hours of the Kelly murder.

The MP had made it clear in a source you recently found that he stuck by his opinion, despite the arrest of Sadler and apparent police scepticism -- that the Ripper had killed himself 'the same evening' as the final murder.

My theory is that Macnaghten could not include the river detail if he wanted to concede that this suspect did not kill himself 'the same evening', because it exposed a compression of events for the sake of a melodramatic climax.

It made the story impossible, so it had to go.

for if you elongate the gap between Kelly's murder and the fiend's own murder, then how can he be hanging about for longer than it takes to stagger to the Thames? It's already quite a stretch to even believe that nobody saw him on his way to the river, but any longer than a straight line from Miller's Ct. the Thames ('raving and shrieking' in Sims) and it is rendered ludicrous.

In 1914, Macnaghten stretches the gap to a loose twenty-four hours and shrugs that it might have been longer.

In reality it was was longer. Again the cosy old paradigm of the police chief who did not know much about the basic details of his preferred suspect is arguably shown to be very fragile.

Now, either the cronies were 'credulous' or they were in on it, that the suspect was being fictionalised.

Is that slanting it? I don't think so. It is interpreting contradictory data.

We know that 'Aberconway' is not a copy of a definitive document of state, nor does it reflect the real archived version about Druitt's worth as a suspect? That it was never sent to the Home Office.

Yet Sims, in 1903, breathtakingly swats away Abberline, no less than a genuine policeman who investigated the Whitechapel murders, because the playwright knows about the 'Home Office Report' -- which isn't one.

Now either Sims wrote that sincerely (and rudely) and therefore was misled by Macnaghten -- and was therefore credulous via his friendship with an high-ranking cop -- or he was in on it, and knew full well that the police of 1888 were of course not about to arrest the 'mad doctor'.

The Major probably knew that 'family' in the 'Home Office Report' had become 'friends'. That's deceiving his readers, a piece of deceit which Mac never corrected in Sims. The latter has more material on the likely Ripper, which also spins the story away from Druitt, eg. being in an asylum.

Now that is fact, Paul.

It is a fact that Sims' profile takes you away from the real Montague Druitt. The question is how and why did that happen?

The old paradigm said because Macnaghten began to sincerely forget bits and pieces.

I accepted that until I read your 2006 book, specifically your suggestive line that perhaps Mac should not be taken 'literally' in all that he writes?

For example, his memoirs deny that Druitt had ever been 'detained' in an asylum, or that he was about to be arrested, or that he killed himself within hours of the Kelly murder and thus strongly indicate, to say the least, that he was not forgetful but instead affably manipulative.

I respect the interpretation of Anderson as the most reliable police source and more sources found in the future may show it to be stronger again. In this interpretation Macnaghten becomes a sideshow: a man with merely a theory which may have hardened as a well-earned retirement beckoned (and he was seriously ill) whereas Anderson allegedly alone among these police sources, actually claimed that the Ripper had been definitely identified. Since Mac did not know much about Druitt, then we can judge him to be less reliable and certainly less emphatic than his former boss.

Then battle is joined over Anderson's values and limitations, and so on.

Yet I believe this interpretation to be quite unconvincing because Mac's 1913 comments, and his 1914 memoirs, and propagating his opinion via reliable surrogates, and Druitt-as-the-Ripper originating in Dorset, show that he too was just as convinced and just as certain about his chief suspect.

Sure, they both might have been wrong, but one of them might have been right.

That could have been Sir Melville Macnaghten because he, arguably, seems to have a better handle -- based on the frustrating fragments left to us -- on both the real Aaron Kosminski and the real Montague Druitt.

I offer the working theory that the 'North country Vicar' of 1899 is writing about Druitt and therefore we most certainly do have a provisional explanation as to why Macnaghten was so posthumously certain, along with the family and the politician.

The drawback is that 'epileptic mania' does not literally exist ...

[The Good Michael]

Au contraire, Simon. One 'camp' calls upon the evidence of two handwriting examiners who have stated within the limits of their professionalism that the marginalia is authentic, and upon the impeccable provenance of the source, and upon the utter lack of any evidence that any of those in a position to forge or otherwise tamper with the marginalia would have done so. And on the other side you have somebody who on absolutely no evidence whatsoever claims that there exist serious doubts about the marginalia's authenticity, when the reality is that there are no doubts at all.

Okay then, one camp and one... outpost?

Mike

[PaulB]

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

Au contraire, Simon. One 'camp' calls upon the evidence of two handwriting examiners who have stated within the limits of their professionalism that the marginalia is authentic, and upon the impeccable provenance of the source, and upon the utter lack of any evidence that any of those in a position to forge or otherwise tamper with the marginalia would have done so. And on the other side you have somebody who on absolutely no evidence whatsoever claims that there exist serious doubts about the marginalia's authenticity, when the reality is that there are no doubts at all.

[PaulB]

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

A straight answer, no I don't. Not the way you do. Fourteen words down, just fourteen words, you write that Macnaghten 'broke cover', like he was a hunted fox or a spy revealing his real allegiances, but what evidence do you have for implying that? None. For all you know he was a friendly and garrulous, ever willing to share his thoughts and opinions, to say nothing of the victim photos he kept in his desk drawer, with any trusted colleague, journalist, friend, neighbour, club member... who passed within his ken. His thoughts and opinions may have been general knowledge within his wide but immediate circle. That he never wrote about them for public consumption until he penned Days of My Years is very far from surprising. Many policemen never aired their thoughts on the subject until they penned their memoirs, and most never aired them at all. So, did Macnaghten 'break cover'. No. He wrote his memoirs, that's all.

But you use 'break cover' because you do picture Macnaghten like some Moriarty in the centre of his web spinning misinformation and pulling the strings of Griffiths and Sims. To 'break cover' is pejorative writing, it is intended to give a slant to your reader's interpretation. It's no a big thing in itself, but it is part of your theory about Macnaghten.

The simple fact is that in Days of My Years Macnaghten for the first time publicly and in print expressed his opinion that an unnamed Thames Suicide was Jack the Ripper. No 'breaking cover', just an opportunity to write of his career, experiences and thoughts.

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.

I come to that conclusion because Macnaghten expressing his opinion in print under his own name for the first time in 1913 is irrelevant to the fact that he expressed that opinion in 1894 and therefore held to it, despite the ebbs and flows of new information, for two decades. That Macnaghten held to his opinion for that length of time was a telling point, in my view, to TGM's observation that Macnaghten, being human, probably, like all humans, changed his mind quite frequently.

I was, in a round about way, saying that the evidence on which Macnaghten based his conclusions in 1894 must have been pretty convincing because he had not been persuaded from it by anything that came along in the next two decades.

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.

I don't know what any of this has to do with the authenticity of the marginalia and the attempts on no evidence whatsoever to claim that there are serious doubts about it. However, if by 'official opinion' you mean Anderson's opinion, who says it trumps anything Macnaghten 'told credulous cronies' (more pejorative wording; why 'credulous'?)?

The bottom line is that you don't really have any idea at all of the evidence on which Macnaghten based his beliefs about Druitt. Nor do you have any idea of the evidence against Kosminski. Neither do I. Neither does anybody else. So Anderson doesn't trump Macnaghten, Macnaghten doesn't trump Anderson, and nobody trumps either of them. Nobody trumped.

The only thing that happens is that you decided where your research hour and research dollar is going. You spend it on Macnaghten, Rob House spends it on Anderson. You then share it with other people. Thank goodness. But the point is that you are both looking for that Holy Grail that explains why Druitt and Kosminski were ever suspected in the first place.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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 !

[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]

Trevor,

Put up or shut up.

Monty

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm truth hurts doesnt it