Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A possibility for the Seaside Home?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    That was a different type of identification altogether, the purpose of that was to try to identify two soldiers who had been in the company of Tabram and Pearly Poll. whoever they were they were not regarded as a suspects but were required for interview and elimination purposes.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Potential suspect ID.

    No difference whatsoever.

    Monty
    Monty

    https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

    Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      He doesnt have to suggest it,its there for all to read, and make their own judgments, not just on that one article, but looking at the overall picture regarding all that we have been speaking about over the past 24 hours with regards to this ID issue.

      Now I see its started all over again with explanations from researchers saying that Aaron Kosminski was David Cohen, when will it ever end ?

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      What? Because Adam says Swanson said 'Kosminski' died soon after committal, which Aaron Kosminski didn't do? That doesn't mean the marginalia is flawed, it means that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the 'Kosminski', and that maybe Adam is advocating an alternative. That should please you, since you've been banging on about Aaron not being the 'Kosminski' for some time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

        What? Because Adam says Swanson said 'Kosminski' died soon after committal, which Aaron Kosminski didn't do? That doesn't mean the marginalia is flawed, it means that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the 'Kosminski', and that maybe Adam is advocating an alternative. That should please you, since you've been banging on about Aaron not being the 'Kosminski' for some time.
        I only seek the truth !!!!!! I have no hidden agendas

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

          Phil, with all due respect I suggest that you may indeed misunderstood the article.
          Adam appears to say that different things in different places.
          It would be best not to jump to conclusions before seeing what the book actually says.


          People could end up with egg all over their face, or not?
          I really am disturbed by this trend( I am not saying you, but a general trend in the world) of passing judgement on work that has not been read.

          Surely it is best to see what the work actually says?

          Steve
          Hi Steve,
          There's a growing incidence of people whose aim is simply to stir up trouble criticising pre-publication blurbs and interviews. It's also downright laziness, it being easier to prattle on social media than it is to actually go to the author and ask. And in this case, it's not as if Adam is difficult to find. A request for clarification could have been sent direct to him or via his colleagues without any trouble and we'd know the truth. But one can be forgiven for thinking that the truth isn't the important thing here, it's trying to scupper Adam's book before it has even been published or to use Adam's interview to cast aspersions on Swanson and the marginalia. Frankly, I consider this a disgrace.
          Last edited by PaulB; 08-27-2019, 08:13 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

            Hi Steve,
            There's a growing incidence of people whose aim is simply to stir up trouble criticising pre-publication blurbs and interviews. It's also downright laziness, it being easier to prattle on social media than it is to actually go to the author and ask. And in this case, it's not as if Adam is difficult to find. A request for clarification could have been sent direct to him or via his colleagues without any trouble and we'd know the truth. But one can be forgiven for thinking that the truth isn't the important thing here, it's trying to scupper Adam's book before it has even been published or to use Adam's interview to cast aspersions on Swanson and the marginalia. Frankly, I consider this a disgrace.
            Well you would, because you have more than a vested interest in propping up Swanson as a source, Aaron Kosminsk as a suspect, and the authenticity of the marginalia as well, all of which have been challenged before this article came out.

            Have you been to the author and asked ?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

              Phil, with all due respect I suggest that you may indeed misunderstood the article.
              Adam appears to say that different things in different places.
              It would be best not to jump to conclusions before seeing what the book actually says.


              People could end up with egg all over their face, or not?
              I really am disturbed by this trend( I am not saying you, but a general trend in the world) of passing judgement on work that has not been read.

              Surely it is best to see what the work actually says?

              Steve
              Steve,

              As a "Kosminski favouritist" that you are.. Even you must admit that bringing in Martin Fido's "theory" about Nathan Kaminski being David Cohen, after asylum staff found his name impossible to understand for some unknown reason, (he was only briefly called Aaron Davis Cohen) who was then mistakenly called Kosminski by Swanson (it's all here on Casebook, in Martins own words) is really stretching the bounds of possibility. Oh, and Kaminski's family knew him under another name, I believe? I think they would know his real name, don't you? Funny nobody told Swanson......

              When ANY writer uses the wording.. "Its just possible".. Then we really are in for trouble. This isn't a dig at Mr. Wood in particular, I stress, but ANY writer..... It's "just possible" the name was Kowalcykski. It's "just possible" the name was really Cohen too. It's "just possible" a square peg is being fitted into a round hole for convenience purposes too.

              Martin Fido's theory has been poured over time and time again. On here, on Casebook, he answered lots of questions put to him. There was no proof whatsoever, that David Cohen was Nathan Kaminski, no proof whatsoever that Swanson confused the name Kaminski with Kosminski, and no proof at all that Kaminski, Kosminski, or Cohen, killed anyone.

              I quote Nevil Swanson.. Again. He said, on camera, in an Australian documentary interview.. "my Great grandfather wrote the name down in the marginalia. Aaron Kosminski" (sic.. No, he didnt do that at all)

              It's quite simple to these eyes.. Not making a mountain out of a molehill, if Mr. Adam Wood is, on the basis of the words.. "its just possible" trying to edge in the Cohen/Kaminski/Kosminski name mix up, then it's a perfect way to protect the Swanson "Legend" that DS Swanson knew the name of Jack the Ripper.. Because, as, we all know, Aaron Kosminski was NOT named by Swanson. (Even if Nevil wants to falsely tell the world he was)
              It protects the Swanson family name and reputation in their eyes, and he will "still" be the policeman who "knew" who Jack the Ripper was.

              As I said earlier in this thread. Fixing and tricksing a name that fits the marginalia better is one thing, but having to explain "Kosminski is the suspect", rammed down our throats for 31 years at the same time, isn't possible unless one side steps into the "it's just possible" theorising.

              So no. I'm not going down the line of "waiting for the book to come out"... I'm only using a QUOTE from Mr Wood himself in that interview. "its just possible".
              Hard to misquote, or misinterpret those three words. Sorry.

              "It's just possible"... That is as tepid as warm tap water left on the shelf for a month.

              Any writer in this field would, or should, get the same response. "its just possible" doesn't cut the mustard.
              And you know it, Steve.


              Phil
              Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


              Justice for the 96 = achieved
              Accountability? ....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

                Steve,

                As a "Kosminski favouritist" that you are.. Even you must admit that bringing in Martin Fido's "theory" about Nathan Kaminski being David Cohen, after asylum staff found his name impossible to understand for some unknown reason, (he was only briefly called Aaron Davis Cohen) who was then mistakenly called Kosminski by Swanson (it's all here on Casebook, in Martins own words) is really stretching the bounds of possibility. Oh, and Kaminski's family knew him under another name, I believe? I think they would know his real name, don't you? Funny nobody told Swanson......

                When ANY writer uses the wording.. "Its just possible".. Then we really are in for trouble. This isn't a dig at Mr. Wood in particular, I stress, but ANY writer..... It's "just possible" the name was Kowalcykski. It's "just possible" the name was really Cohen too. It's "just possible" a square peg is being fitted into a round hole for convenience purposes too.

                Martin Fido's theory has been poured over time and time again. On here, on Casebook, he answered lots of questions put to him. There was no proof whatsoever, that David Cohen was Nathan Kaminski, no proof whatsoever that Swanson confused the name Kaminski with Kosminski, and no proof at all that Kaminski, Kosminski, or Cohen, killed anyone.

                I quote Nevil Swanson.. Again. He said, on camera, in an Australian documentary interview.. "my Great grandfather wrote the name down in the marginalia. Aaron Kosminski" (sic.. No, he didnt do that at all)

                It's quite simple to these eyes.. Not making a mountain out of a molehill, if Mr. Adam Wood is, on the basis of the words.. "its just possible" trying to edge in the Cohen/Kaminski/Kosminski name mix up, then it's a perfect way to protect the Swanson "Legend" that DS Swanson knew the name of Jack the Ripper.. Because, as, we all know, Aaron Kosminski was NOT named by Swanson. (Even if Nevil wants to falsely tell the world he was)
                It protects the Swanson family name and reputation in their eyes, and he will "still" be the policeman who "knew" who Jack the Ripper was.

                As I said earlier in this thread. Fixing and tricksing a name that fits the marginalia better is one thing, but having to explain "Kosminski is the suspect", rammed down our throats for 31 years at the same time, isn't possible unless one side steps into the "it's just possible" theorising.

                So no. I'm not going down the line of "waiting for the book to come out"... I'm only using a QUOTE from Mr Wood himself in that interview. "its just possible".
                Hard to misquote, or misinterpret those three words. Sorry.

                "It's just possible"... That is as tepid as warm tap water left on the shelf for a month.

                Any writer in this field would, or should, get the same response. "its just possible" doesn't cut the mustard.
                And you know it, Steve.


                Phil
                Sorry Phil,

                We obviously read the article in entirely different ways.
                My take is that he mentions Cohen, Adam has explained why on FB, but you may not be in those groups I understand.
                Having mentioned Cohen to me he goes on to say very clearly that Swanson got the name correct, it was therefore not Cohen.
                We will disagree on this, and it's not because it's Kosminski either.

                My main issue here is people attempting to review without reading the actual work, I have had that myself, and I am afraid such can never be full and fair, I see it as wrong, but that's just me.

                If it were based on the abridged version Adam's released I would be fine with it, but it's not

                Anyway all the best, we still have sun here in Glasgow(just) so going outside to soak it up.


                Steve

                Comment



                • We do not really have to wait for the book to make comments.I have followed the link,and there is more than enough written there to pause and take thought.
                  His family(Swanson's) are sure he (Swanson) knew who the killer was,but Swanson was not the kind of person,mild mannered as he is projected to have been,to seek recognition in disclosing his knowledge.The family knows though,and they do not appear to be so reticent.What is it they know?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Well you would, because you have more than a vested interest in propping up Swanson as a source, Aaron Kosminsk as a suspect, and the authenticity of the marginalia as well, all of which have been challenged before this article came out.

                    Have you been to the author and asked ?

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Trevor,
                    I do not have any interest in 'propping up' Swanson as a sourse. If you think I have, state your reasons and we'll clear it up. I'm fed up with your insinuations and claims that I am biased. So put up or shut up.

                    Yes, I have discussed this with the author. Have you?
                    Last edited by PaulB; 08-27-2019, 09:53 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      I only seek the truth !!!!!! I have no hidden agendas

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      St Trevor.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        If someone is arrested and taken to a police station, or detained in an asylum there has to be records !

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Are you saying Trevor that under certain circumstances the letter of the law isn't bypassed in favor of justice by the authorities? If this witness was institutionalized..which a Seaside home would imply,...rather than incarcerated, he would be movable without any dramatic legal fanfare. And without the permission of the family I would imagine, if they deemed it to be an obstacle. The Ripper cases were run by the most senior men in Counter Intelligence, Espionage, Anti-Terrorism, ..these men operated with impunity anyway. They withheld information, they dealt with double agents and terrorists, they didn't even tell Victoria about a plot to blow her up. These guys made their own rules, they didn't just follow the existing ones.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

                          Steve,

                          As a "Kosminski favouritist" that you are.. Even you must admit that bringing in Martin Fido's "theory" about Nathan Kaminski being David Cohen, after asylum staff found his name impossible to understand for some unknown reason, (he was only briefly called Aaron Davis Cohen) who was then mistakenly called Kosminski by Swanson (it's all here on Casebook, in Martins own words) is really stretching the bounds of possibility. Oh, and Kaminski's family knew him under another name, I believe? I think they would know his real name, don't you? Funny nobody told Swanson......

                          When ANY writer uses the wording.. "Its just possible".. Then we really are in for trouble. This isn't a dig at Mr. Wood in particular, I stress, but ANY writer..... It's "just possible" the name was Kowalcykski. It's "just possible" the name was really Cohen too. It's "just possible" a square peg is being fitted into a round hole for convenience purposes too.

                          Martin Fido's theory has been poured over time and time again. On here, on Casebook, he answered lots of questions put to him. There was no proof whatsoever, that David Cohen was Nathan Kaminski, no proof whatsoever that Swanson confused the name Kaminski with Kosminski, and no proof at all that Kaminski, Kosminski, or Cohen, killed anyone.

                          I quote Nevil Swanson.. Again. He said, on camera, in an Australian documentary interview.. "my Great grandfather wrote the name down in the marginalia. Aaron Kosminski" (sic.. No, he didnt do that at all)

                          It's quite simple to these eyes.. Not making a mountain out of a molehill, if Mr. Adam Wood is, on the basis of the words.. "its just possible" trying to edge in the Cohen/Kaminski/Kosminski name mix up, then it's a perfect way to protect the Swanson "Legend" that DS Swanson knew the name of Jack the Ripper.. Because, as, we all know, Aaron Kosminski was NOT named by Swanson. (Even if Nevil wants to falsely tell the world he was)
                          It protects the Swanson family name and reputation in their eyes, and he will "still" be the policeman who "knew" who Jack the Ripper was.

                          As I said earlier in this thread. Fixing and tricksing a name that fits the marginalia better is one thing, but having to explain "Kosminski is the suspect", rammed down our throats for 31 years at the same time, isn't possible unless one side steps into the "it's just possible" theorising.

                          So no. I'm not going down the line of "waiting for the book to come out"... I'm only using a QUOTE from Mr Wood himself in that interview. "its just possible".
                          Hard to misquote, or misinterpret those three words. Sorry.

                          "It's just possible"... That is as tepid as warm tap water left on the shelf for a month.

                          Any writer in this field would, or should, get the same response. "its just possible" doesn't cut the mustard.
                          And you know it, Steve.


                          Phil
                          Martin Fido had actually dropped the idea of David Cohen and Nathan Kaminski being confused for each other long ago, coming to view it as a bridge too far. He clearly states his revised position in his Rippercast episode 'The Police, Jews and Jack the Ripper' as found https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=57 here.
                          " Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin." - forum user C4

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            St Trevor.
                            You have to admit that Trevor doesn't have any hidden agendas. His agenda is clear, obvious, and open for anybody to see. And the truth he seeks is to prove that every document is fake, every contemporary commentator a fool, or a liar, or at best mistaken, and everyone who doesn't agree with him biased, in need of a reality check, or such like.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Aelric View Post

                              Martin Fido had actually dropped the idea of David Cohen and Nathan Kaminski being confused for each other long ago, coming to view it as a bridge too far. He clearly states his revised position in his Rippercast episode 'The Police, Jews and Jack the Ripper' as found https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=57 here.
                              Quite right.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                                You have to admit that Trevor doesn't have any hidden agendas. His agenda is clear, obvious, and open for anybody to see. And the truth he seeks is to prove that every document is fake, every contemporary commentator a fool, or a liar, or at best mistaken, and everyone who doesn't agree with him biased, in need of a reality check, or such like.
                                I don’t know why any of us maintain an interest in the subject Paul. Or even try to discover things or make suggestions. Has anyone connected to this case, especially if they’re in authority, ever told the truth? Trevor is becoming the David Icke Of ripperology.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X