Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[PaulB]

Well you would argue that what I have said carries no weight you are one who contiues to prop up Kosmisnki as a suspect and one who has no doubt benefited and continues to do so from him being referred to as a suspect. But what i dont understand is how you can champion someone who only exists in a surname and cannot be formally identified.

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.

As to my expert obvioulsy that expert cannot give an expert statement not having examined and compared the original but even experts can give an opinion by looking at copies. That is why I have made this an issue and given Nevil swanson the opportunity of having it re examined.

Nobody has said otherwise, have they?

Obvioulsy I have to abide by his decison however there now must be a serious doubt surrounding the authenticity until it is re examined forensically and that doubt either confirmed or removed.

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

The Swanson comparison sample is a three page official memo writen by Swanson in 1894 and is not relvevant to the Ripper investigation so there is nothing to be gained by publishing it on here

I’m not asking you to publish it on here or anywhere else. I’m simply saying that one needs to know the document against which the marginalia writing was compared. There are several reasons why this is important, one which has caused a problem or two in the past is that Swanson, Anderson, and others, had reports and correspondence copied out by a secretary which they then signed. Care therefore has to be taken to ensure that a document was actually written by the signatory. You are claiming that there are differences between the marginalia and an exemplar document which are obvious even to a non-expert eye. Since two experts have compared the marginalia to known examples of Swanson’s handwriting and have not noticed such obvious differences, one can only wonder what your exemplar document is, and, if it is this 1894 memo, if it has definitely been established that the handwriting is Swanson’s.

It appears they have noticed them and put the differences down to swansons age when he purportedly wrote the marginalia. Nevill swanson told me that the experts state in the reports that there is only an 80% chance that swanson wrote the marginlia. thats not conclusive ! and now we have control samples of his writing dated 6 years after the orginal control samples which were used.

Another question if he did write it why would he sign it, the book was in his possession at that time it wasnt going anywhere no one was presumabaly going to look at it ?

To answer your last question first: habit. I believe Swanson also initialled other marginal writing which you are, of course, aware of, unless you are claiming that was forged too.

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’.

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 keep referring to the MM but how do you account for ther fact that MM exonerates his suspect in the AV ? You cant have it both ways

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.

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

“I would say the differences are more than slight and why would he write it at different time doesnt make sense you are flanneling !”

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.’

Whether it makes sense or not, it’s what was said. But the point I was making is that the differences in handwriting were noted between the handwriting in the marginalia, not between the marginalia handwriting and that of the exemplar document. It’s hardly me flannelling. It’s you being wrong.

Its is material firstly an expert could compare the 1888 handwriting to the 1894 handwriting. Then a comparison could be made with the original marginalia and the 1894 sample

You are also forgetting the forensic tests in relation to the pencil annotations which could be carried out in determing the age of the graphite.

My handwriting hasnt changed over the past 30 years has yours.?[/B]

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?

In concluding everything else connected to this does not stand up to close scrutiny it seems you want to cherry pick the parts which seem to suit your argument.

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.

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.

[Monty]

You keep coming, to the victor the spoils !

My act wont change in fact its getting better by the day you aint seen nothing yet .

I haven't seen anything yet?

Yes, indeed I haven't.

Monty

[Carotid Capers]

Thanks Bridewell, a pleasure to be amongst such esteemed company, even if they do go straight for the jugular (Carotid, i mean)?!
A forgery? Why? By whom? For what purpose?! i don't think so. All very odd i agree, especially the hazy vaguery of this Seaside Home I.D., but then as they say, truth is often stranger than fiction..., perhaps some mind expanding elixir to assist lateral thinking, eh? pass the laudanum, Sherlock!!! But seriously, thanks for all these interesting responses.

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

Of course you can 'eliminate' a police suspect in a theory. In an historical theory based on limited and contradictory sources.

I agree that Macnaghten directly in his 1894 (or perhaps 1898, eg. 'Aberconway'), and indirectly in his 1913 comments and 1914 memoirs, and in what Sims wrote as his proxy in 1907, did exonerate the Polish Jew as a Ripper suspect.

But that is, in itself, an interpretation of a very enigmatic and ambiguous primary source, who seems to talk out of differents sides of his mouth depending on his audience.

Therefore it could be wrong.

Perhaps Macnaghten thought 'Kosminski' was a very strong suspect indeed, but so hated Anderson he could not let him have the credit? Or, Mac was such an anti-anti-Semite that he let a kind of Edwardian political correctness drive his diminution of the Polish Jew suspect in favour of another who was more the kind of chap he could have had round for tea -- and about whom he wrongly thought had killed himself the same night as the final murder (so much for the 'awful glut' clincher).

That's a legitimate interpretation too, as to why Mac was so certain -- and yet wrong; that he can be debunked as unreliable and Anderson judged much more reliable (and more consistent, at least from 1895 to 1912).

If we had more sources to measure them against then we might be more certain, or an argument might be strengthened or we might have a new theory.

Therefore a provisional opinion is the best we can do, if you believe the sources are more compelling towards one of the police suspects rather than the others.

I do, for example, but nobody agrees.

On the other hand, to be absolutely definite that Aaron Kosminksi and Frances Tumblety and Montague Druitt (and for some Goerge Chapman, and for nobody Michael Ostrog) can be permanently eliminated as the Whitechapel fiend when they each had -- to controversial degrees -- police 'patrons', is a step way too far in my opinion.

To use a tiresome truism they were there and we were not. They could not have all been right and may have all been wrong.

It is reasonable to argue that while Swanson made mistakes in an unofficial source, he could have been writing -- for his eyes only -- about the best bet to be 'Jack the Ripper', who was a Polish Jew, was mad, and did have a brother, and who fell apart when confronted by an eyewitness whom he recognised -- and who recognised him.

I counter-argue that a putative hoaxer is not likely to have added the complication of the 'Seaside Home' or that the suspect was deceased unless they knew they were true details (the former is very unlikely and the latter is demonstrably false).

An hoaxer, in say 1987, would have simply repeated the terrific titbit in 'Aberconway': eg. a beat cop witness who affirmed, but the suspect -- still alive in 1910 -- was already sectioned and thus beyond the reach of the law.

There are a number of factors which overwhelmingly argue in favour of the authenticity of the Marginalia, only one of which are Swanson's errors about 'Kosminski'. For these [potentially] undermine its reliability as a police, primary source. Now, to what degree is the subject of modern historical debate, but the alternate opinions which emerge from that debate can only be contingent.

[Trevor Marriott]

Completely agree with you Trevor, thats not the issue.



Likes of me? What are the likes of me? People who question the questioners?

Of course their credentials will be questioned. You labelled them as experts, we've only your word for it. When youve based your conclusions on their opinion then its only natural to ask from what qualification they speak from. This question will be asked at some stage Trevor. As you have done in the past, so quit the hypocrasy.



So they havent seen the original? So if they havent seen the original what did they see? A hi res copy? If so, bearing in mind that there is a reluctance for the holding parties to deal with you due to your biased views on the document, what the heck did they see?



Thats a matter for them to decide, not you.



The lack of co-operation is with you. There is a reluctance to deal with you due to your intimidation and accusatory nature (as seen with your libalous comments about Keith Skinner which have been removed).

The bottom line is they note your true intentions and prejudiced agenda. They dont trust you to be fair and objective.



Oh please, quit the Martyr act. You are hardly the shrinking wall flower.

I cant handle the truth? Youve been watching too many Tom Cruise films again Trevor. Now you think you know me. You dont. I have no theory regarding this mystery, nor suspect. A concept you seem to fail to understand. Its alien to you. So I will try to make it clear.

I hold to the facts. Now these facts are open to challenge. However you do not challenge. You state off hand they are wrong and provide NO independant evidence for that. You accuse and state arrogantly that what has gone on before is false.

This is damaging to true research and its that which I find annoying.

So Mr, if you want me off your back, pull your act together.

Monty

You keep coming, to the victor the spoils !

My act wont change in fact its getting better by the day you aint seen nothing yet .

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you most certainly do have the right to question the authenticity of the marginalia. Just like everybody has the right to question it. Just as we have all questioned it and done our best to answer it.

You do not have any right to declare it is a forgery, which is the point Bridewell has been making and you have been dodging.

I have not declared it a forgery I merely agreed with what another poster wrote which is a big difference

All that is known about the marginalia in fact suggests it is genuine - two handwriting experts have confirmed the handwriting is almost certainly Swanson's, the provenance is impeccable, and there is no evidence to suggests that the handful of people who could have forged it or any part of it did so. As for your expert's opinion, it carries absolutely no weight as you have not revealed the evidence on which it is based, have not identified the exemplar document(s) against which comparisons have been made, and have not identified your expert so that his/her experience and qualifications can be assessed. Until this happens, your expert's opinion might as well not exist.

Well you would argue that what I have said carries no weight you are one who contiues to prop up Kosmisnki as a suspect and one who has no doubt benefited and continues to do so from him being referred to as a suspect. But what i dont understand is how you can champion someone who only exists in a surname and cannot be formally identified.

As to my expert obvioulsy that expert cannot give an expert statement not having examined and compared the original but even experts can give an opinion by looking at copies. That is why I have made this an issue and given Nevil swanson the opportunity of having it re examined.

Obvioulsy I have to abide by his decison however there now must be a serious doubt surrounding the authenticity until it is re examined forensically and that doubt either confirmed or removed.

The Swanson comparison sample is a three page official memo writen by Swanson in 1894 and is not relvevant to the Ripper investigation so there is nothing to be gained by publishing it on here

I believe access has been declined because there are grave concerns about the condition of the book and writing therein. I may be wrong, but I always understand that you haven't indicated who would be undertaking the tests or what the test would involve or what the results of the tests might show.

You are correct this is the excuse given however it wasnt an issue when you and Leahy were using it etc when making the documentary and when you and others were looking at it in the past.

If it doesn't take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swanson's 1888 writing, why haven't two experts noticed them?

It appears they have noticed them and put the differences down to swansons age when he purportedly wrote the marginalia. Nevill swanson told me that the experts state in the reports that there is only an 80% chance that swanson wrote the marginlia. thats not conclusive ! and now we have control samples of his writing dated 6 years after the orginal control samples which were used.

Another question if he did write it why would he sign it, the book was in his possession at that time it wasnt going anywhere no one was presumabaly going to look at it ?


You are mistaken. If the marginalia didn’t exist, ‘Kosminski’ would not be 'gone for ever'. ‘Kosminski’ remains as a suspect in the Macnaghten memoranda, and he would remain as the most likely person to be identified with Anderson’s unnamed Polish Jew. Apart from adding some details, the most important thing the marginalia does is confirm that identification. If the marginalia didn’t exist, you would be left with 'Kosminski' as a suspect and be faced with the possibility that Anderson’s Polish Jew was somebody else.

You keep referring to the MM but how do you account for ther fact that MM exonerates his suspect in the AV ? You cant have it both ways


Just to return to one of your earlier posts to this thread:

It might improve your credibility, the willingness of people to make material available to you, and to give credence to your faith in your expert's opinion, if you showed that you understood what has actually been said and written about the marginalia. What was actually written was that very slight differences in the handwriting of the marginalia itself could suggest the onset of a neurological disorder, which, if so, could indicate that the marginalia was written at different times. It had nothing to do with the date of the documents against which the marginalia handwriting was compared.

I would say the differences are more than slight and why would he write it at different time doesnt make sense you are flanneling !

The date of your samples of Swanson's handwriting is therefore largely immaterial, except that if it is significantly later than 1894 it might reveal the neurological disorder and thereby confirm Swanson's authorship. If it doesn't show it, that won't mean anything either because the neurological disorder is but one possible explanation.

Its is material firstly an expert could compare the 1888 handwriting to the 1894 handwriting. Then a comparison could be made with the original marginalia and the 1894 sample

You are also forgetting the forensic tests in relation to the pencil annotations which could be carried out in determing the age of the graphite.

My handwriting hasnt changed over the past 30 years has yours.?[/B]

In concluding everything else connected to this does not stand up to close scrutiny it seems you want to cherry pick the parts which seem to suit your argument.

[PaulB]

In the light of all that is known about this margialia and coupled with the expert opinion I belive I have every right to question its authenticity and I should add that there are many many more who also question it, So it is not just my own beliefs.

Trevor, you most certainly do have the right to question the authenticity of the marginalia. Just like everybody has the right to question it. Just as we have all questioned it and done our best to answer it.

You do not have any right to declare it is a forgery, which is the point Bridewell has been making and you have been dodging.

All that is known about the marginalia in fact suggests it is genuine - two handwriting experts have confirmed the handwriting is almost certainly Swanson's, the provenance is impeccable, and there is no evidence to suggests that the handful of people who could have forged it or any part of it did so. As for your expert's opinion, it carries absolutely no weight as you have not revealed the evidence on which it is based, have not identified the exemplar document(s) against which comparisons have been made, and have not identified your expert so that his/her experience and qualifications can be assessed. Until this happens, your expert's opinion might as well not exist.

What would be the point of disclosing the name of my expert it would only give the likes of you and others the oportunity of questioning the credibilty of that expert.

Precisely. Which is one of the things that has to be done before either his conclusion or yours can be considered, let alone treated seriously.

In answer to your question my expert has not seen the original because access to the original has been declined. But it doesnt even take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swansons 1888 writing that surely must ring the warning bells.

I believe access has been declined because there are grave concerns about the condition of the book and writing therein. I may be wrong, but I always understand that you haven't indicated who would be undertaking the tests or what the test would involve or what the results of the tests might show.

If it doesn't take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swanson's 1888 writing, why haven't two experts noticed them?

I would have thought that Nevil Swanson and all the others who have been pulling his strings would want this matter cleared up once and for all, hurtful as it may be to perhaps find out the real truth.

The lack of co-operation and silence speaks volumes. Just think of the reprecussions if the marginalia were to be proved not to be genuine. Kosminski gone for ever, to be fair he has almost gone in any event.

You are mistaken. If the marginalia didn’t exist, ‘Kosminski’ would not be 'gone for ever'. ‘Kosminski’ remains as a suspect in the Macnaghten memoranda, and he would remain as the most likely person to be identified with Anderson’s unnamed Polish Jew. Apart from adding some details, the most important thing the marginalia does is confirm that identification. If the marginalia didn’t exist, you would be left with 'Kosminski' as a suspect and be faced with the possibility that Anderson’s Polish Jew was somebody else.

Just to return to one of your earlier posts to this thread:

The marginlia has been in the past few years examined by document examiners who according to those in direct contact with the marginalia state that it is somewhere around 80% certain that swanson wrote it.

However these persons will not make public any of these reports.

Furthermore I have sent a copy of the marginalia to my own expert who is of the opinion that the writing is not that of Swansons. Bearing in mind the explanation given by the original examiners was that the samples of Swanons handwriting used for comparison purposes were dated 1888. and that due to the passage of time his handwritng may have detoriated.

My sample of swansons handwriting were much later 1894.

It might improve your credibility, the willingness of people to make material available to you, and to give credence to your faith in your expert's opinion, if you showed that you understood what has actually been said and written about the marginalia. What was actually written was that very slight differences in the handwriting of the marginalia itself could suggest the onset of a neurological disorder, which, if so, could indicate that the marginalia was written at different times. It had nothing to do with the date of the documents against which the marginalia handwriting was compared.

The date of your samples of Swanson's handwriting is therefore largely immaterial, except that if it is significantly later than 1894 it might reveal the neurological disorder and thereby confirm Swanson's authorship. If it doesn't show it, that won't mean anything either because the neurological disorder is but one possible explanation.

[Monty]

In the light of all that is known about this margialia and coupled with the expert opinion I belive I have every right to question its authenticity and I should add that there are many many more who also question it, So it is not just my own beliefs.

Completely agree with you Trevor, thats not the issue.

What would be the point of disclosing the name of my expert it would only give the likes of you and others the oportunity of questioning the credibilty of that expert.

Likes of me? What are the likes of me? People who question the questioners?

Of course their credentials will be questioned. You labelled them as experts, we've only your word for it. When youve based your conclusions on their opinion then its only natural to ask from what qualification they speak from. This question will be asked at some stage Trevor. As you have done in the past, so quit the hypocrasy.

In answer to your question my expert has not seen the original because access to the original has been declined. But it doesnt even take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swansons 1888 writing that surely must ring the warning bells.

So they havent seen the original? So if they havent seen the original what did they see? A hi res copy? If so, bearing in mind that there is a reluctance for the holding parties to deal with you due to your biased views on the document, what the heck did they see?

I would have thought that Nevil Swanson and all the others who have been pulling his strings would want this matter cleared up once and for all, hurtful as it may be to perhaps find out the real truth.

Thats a matter for them to decide, not you.

The lack of co-operation and silence speaks volumes. Just think of the reprecussions if the marginalia were to be proved not to be genuine. Kosminski gone for ever, to be fair he has almost gone in any event.

The lack of co-operation is with you. There is a reluctance to deal with you due to your intimidation and accusatory nature (as seen with your libalous comments about Keith Skinner which have been removed).

The bottom line is they note your true intentions and prejudiced agenda. They dont trust you to be fair and objective.

You ask, why are you asking questions ?

The answer is simply because thats all you can do, you have no answers and you cant handle the truth your supercilious and arrogant attitude never changes on here. You are one of only a handful now on here who have been and are still living and beleiving in the original accepted theories surrounding this mystery well Mr, times have changed things have moved on, the old accepted theories are rapidly being disproved, time for you to change perhaps. I doubt that will happen try as you may though you will not belittle or intimidate me.

Oh please, quit the Martyr act. You are hardly the shrinking wall flower.

I cant handle the truth? Youve been watching too many Tom Cruise films again Trevor. Now you think you know me. You dont. I have no theory regarding this mystery, nor suspect. A concept you seem to fail to understand. Its alien to you. So I will try to make it clear.

I hold to the facts. Now these facts are open to challenge. However you do not challenge. You state off hand they are wrong and provide NO independant evidence for that. You accuse and state arrogantly that what has gone on before is false.

This is damaging to true research and its that which I find annoying.

So Mr, if you want me off your back, pull your act together.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that Trevor has a right to believe that the Marginalia is some kind of hoax or prank, and one which may have fooled the Swanson family and to which they are not party.

Do I believe that?

No. I think that's extremely unlikely, but not impossible.

I think that the balance of the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Swanson Marginalia as authentic, but als that it is not a reliable account of literal events.

I think, Trevor that you are right -- broadly speaking -- about Anderson and/or Swanson not being sure until 1895, eg. the agitation over Grant.

But from that year Anderson did begin telling people that he was confident the Ripper was a locked-up lunatic, and not as late as 1910. Though the tale of the Super-witness arguably is a late addition -- at least in the painfully meagre extant record.

In the unofficial version of his 'Report', but disseminated to the public from 1898, this is what Macnaghten wrote about the Polish Jew suspect:

"No 2. Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in the very heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies. He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

According to his son's biography, Anderson shared Swanson's mistaken belief that 'Kosminski' had passed away in an asylum -- Swanson even claiming it to be 'soon after' the incarceration. Yet Macnaghten knew, in 1894, that he was still alive, and if the 'draft' was actually written in 1898 then he knew then too.

For it was important for Mac's 'awful glut' thesis that 'Kosminski' and Mcihael Ostrog both still be alive after the charnal house of Miller's Ct. -- and they were -- and to have Druitt pass this litmus test by killing himself maybe the same night, which the real Druitt does not pass in terms of suicidingimmediately.

So how is that Macnathen knows that Aaron Kosminski is still alive and does not share it with his superior or his subordinate?

The reason Swanson writes 'Kosminski' is because I believe Mac is his source for the entire story, reshaped for Anderson-Swanson. He left off the first names and so Swasnon had no choice but to do the same.

We can see this reshaping between the primary sources on Aaron Kosminski, the official version of his 'Report', the unofficial version and the Marginalia, each step a vivid escalation:

'Kosminski' goes from an unlikely 'suspect' -- though better than Cutbush -- to a possibility because he may have been spotted by a policeman, to definitely the fiend who was positively identified at a police location, and who very satisfyingly 'died soon after'.

I think the Marginalia, supplying us with Anderson's full tale, is the culmination of this evolution.

Yet running counter to this steady march to the 'definitely ascertainedf fact' is Sims, a Mac source-by-proxy, who in 1907 claims that the Polish Jew is a minor, sideshow suspect compared to the leading 'two theories' sanctioned by the state: the bearded, middle-aged, English doctor who drowned himself and a young, American medical student.

Whereas the Polish Jew is just an addendum to the English medico suspect, and is dismissed because he was out and about for some considerable time after the Kelly murder and did not harm anybody. The witness, the beat cop, apparently claimed that the resemblance was not definitive, only approximate, when he somehow saw him later. Sims also writes that the Polish Jew (and the Russian doctor) were alive long after the Kelly murder (does that mean that to be alive shortly after would be ok for the litmus test?), yet if Anderson and/or Swanson read this, and I think he did, it made no impression on him/them.

In Mac's memoirs the Polish Jew 'suspect' is reduced to nothing at all.

The 1907 Sims' magazine article source arguably provides the bridge between a Polish Jew suspect with no witness, and then having a witness who had a look at him later and could not confirm, or rather would not affirm.

Jonathan

Kosmisnki whoever Kosminski was should not now be regarded as a suspect. Macnagthen exonerates who ever he was referring to in the Aberconaway version. That was written before the marginalia so why would Swanson want to write what he is purported to have written in the marginalia it simply doesnt add up.

Anderson has a documented history of being less than liberal with the truth in matters.

And as for this mythical ID parade well that did not happen in the way described by Swanson, again reserachers have been wasting so much time in trying to find this mad polish jew living in Whitechapel who was incarcerated in a lunatic asylum for what purpose ? Even if he were found and identified what purpose would it serve, Macnagthen has already exonerated him.

If the part of the marginalia regarding the seaside home is an invention then it was well thought out because in later years it would have been widely known that there were no official records or documents to corroborate this so an almost perfect scenario to invent to prop up Kosminski, and having invented it and questions obvioulsy being asked the old chestnut surfaces yet again "this corroboration could have been contained in records that have now been lost stolen or destroyed"

Look at all the quotes from police officers in later years saying they didnt have a clue and one in particular DI Reid publicly challenges what Anderson wrote in his book. That part of Andersons book has formed the basis for the mythical ID parade decsribed in the marginalia.

[Trevor Marriott]

Stephen and Trevor have the right to believe what they wish,

However to state outright its a forgery, other than these alledged 'experts' of Trevors (who seem to crop up to bolster his claims yet are never revealed) is competely wrong in my opinion, which I've paid my money for.

Its a hefty accusation, one not to be made without complete and damning evidence, supporting evidence.

So my question is, rather than seeing a copy, has Trevors expert seen the genuine article?

Why am I asking questions to which I already know the answers?


Monty

In the light of all that is known about this margialia and coupled with the expert opinion I belive I have every right to question its authenticity and I should add that there are many many more who also question it, So it is not just my own beliefs.

What would be the point of disclosing the name of my expert it would only give the likes of you and others the oportunity of questioning the credibilty of that expert.

In answer to your question my expert has not seen the original because access to the original has been declined. But it doesnt even take an expert to see that there are significant differences between the marginalia letters and Swansons 1888 writing that surely must ring the warning bells.

I would have thought that Nevil Swanson and all the others who have been pulling his strings would want this matter cleared up once and for all, hurtful as it may be to perhaps find out the real truth.

The lack of co-operation and silence speaks volumes. Just think of the reprecussions if the marginalia were to be proved not to be genuine. Kosminski gone for ever, to be fair he has almost gone in any event.

You ask, why are you asking questions ?

The answer is simply because thats all you can do, you have no answers and you cant handle the truth your supercilious and arrogant attitude never changes on here. You are one of only a handful now on here who have been and are still living and beleiving in the original accepted theories surrounding this mystery well Mr, times have changed things have moved on, the old accepted theories are rapidly being disproved, time for you to change perhaps. I doubt that will happen try as you may though you will not belittle or intimidate me.

[Jonathan H]

People have a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

[Monty]

Stephen and Trevor have the right to believe what they wish,

However to state outright its a forgery, other than these alledged 'experts' of Trevors (who seem to crop up to bolster his claims yet are never revealed) is competely wrong in my opinion, which I've paid my money for.

Its a hefty accusation, one not to be made without complete and damning evidence, supporting evidence.

So my question is, rather than seeing a copy, has Trevors expert seen the genuine article?

Why am I asking questions to which I already know the answers?

Monty

[Jonathan H]

I think that Trevor has a right to believe that the Marginalia is some kind of hoax or prank, and one which may have fooled the Swanson family and to which they are not party.

Do I believe that?

No. I think that's extremely unlikely, but not impossible.

I think that the balance of the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Swanson Marginalia as authentic, but als that it is not a reliable account of literal events.

I think, Trevor that you are right -- broadly speaking -- about Anderson and/or Swanson not being sure until 1895, eg. the agitation over Grant.

But from that year Anderson did begin telling people that he was confident the Ripper was a locked-up lunatic, and not as late as 1910. Though the tale of the Super-witness arguably is a late addition -- at least in the painfully meagre extant record.

In the unofficial version of his 'Report', but disseminated to the public from 1898, this is what Macnaghten wrote about the Polish Jew suspect:

"No 2. Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in the very heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies. He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

According to his son's biography, Anderson shared Swanson's mistaken belief that 'Kosminski' had passed away in an asylum -- Swanson even claiming it to be 'soon after' the incarceration. Yet Macnaghten knew, in 1894, that he was still alive, and if the 'draft' was actually written in 1898 then he knew then too.

For it was important for Mac's 'awful glut' thesis that 'Kosminski' and Mcihael Ostrog both still be alive after the charnal house of Miller's Ct. -- and they were -- and to have Druitt pass this litmus test by killing himself maybe the same night, which the real Druitt does not pass in terms of suicidingimmediately.

So how is that Macnathen knows that Aaron Kosminski is still alive and does not share it with his superior or his subordinate?

The reason Swanson writes 'Kosminski' is because I believe Mac is his source for the entire story, reshaped for Anderson-Swanson. He left off the first names and so Swasnon had no choice but to do the same.

We can see this reshaping between the primary sources on Aaron Kosminski, the official version of his 'Report', the unofficial version and the Marginalia, each step a vivid escalation:

'Kosminski' goes from an unlikely 'suspect' -- though better than Cutbush -- to a possibility because he may have been spotted by a policeman, to definitely the fiend who was positively identified at a police location, and who very satisfyingly 'died soon after'.

I think the Marginalia, supplying us with Anderson's full tale, is the culmination of this evolution.

Yet running counter to this steady march to the 'definitely ascertainedf fact' is Sims, a Mac source-by-proxy, who in 1907 claims that the Polish Jew is a minor, sideshow suspect compared to the leading 'two theories' sanctioned by the state: the bearded, middle-aged, English doctor who drowned himself and a young, American medical student.

Whereas the Polish Jew is just an addendum to the English medico suspect, and is dismissed because he was out and about for some considerable time after the Kelly murder and did not harm anybody. The witness, the beat cop, apparently claimed that the resemblance was not definitive, only approximate, when he somehow saw him later. Sims also writes that the Polish Jew (and the Russian doctor) were alive long after the Kelly murder (does that mean that to be alive shortly after would be ok for the litmus test?), yet if Anderson and/or Swanson read this, and I think he did, it made no impression on him/them.

In Mac's memoirs the Polish Jew 'suspect' is reduced to nothing at all.

The 1907 Sims' magazine article source arguably provides the bridge between a Polish Jew suspect with no witness, and then having a witness who had a look at him later and could not confirm, or rather would not affirm.

[Tom_Wescott]

And Stephen Thomas.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Tom,

the mere suggestion of the possibility of forgery - in the eyes of some - will devalue the marginalia as evidence.

And sell more books for Trev next time around?

Don.