A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[packers stem]

Help. I'm lost. I can't see where Adam suggests that David Cohen was Swanson's suspect? There's the bit where Adam says Swanson said that the suspect died soon after being committed, and acknowledges that Aaron Kosminski lived until 1919. Adam then pays homage to Martin, saying that there was a suspect who did die soon after being committed, and he says he wasn't recorded under the name of Kosminski but as David Cohen. Then there's what appears to me to be messy bit which sound to me like an attempt to simply explain Martin's confusion hypothesis, '“There were many Kosminskis living in Whitechapel at the time and it’s just possible that Cohen’s name was recorded incorrectly when he was admitted, because by all accounts he had to be restrained when he came in.”" But Adam then discounts this, saying that Swanson "knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification." The crucial bit being the words I have italicised. Isn't that Adam specifically denying that Swanson would have made a mistake with a name or identification?

I've tried to give the David Cohen theory 'air time' more times than I care to remember and unsurprisingly journalists never get it right, so much so that it's a standing joke with Keith and myself. If I'd been Adam I don't think I'd have even tried. It always turns into a mess.

Anyway, is this the bit that's causing the fuss, or is there a statement elsewhere in the article that I've missed?

Hi Paul

from the article

.........
But Adam maintains one suspect does almost perfectly fit Donald’s description of the Ripper.

He says: “There was an inmate who was taken into the asylum and died shortly afterwards just as Donald said.

“But he wasn’t recorded under the name of Kosminski but as David Cohen. Cohen fits exactly what Swanson said and was also extremely violent. He fits the image of what you’d imagine Jack The Ripper would be like
........

It clearly suggests that these are Adam's claims,no mention of this being a thirty year old theory .

This is then followed by a supposed name mix up which in turn leads to Swanson couldn't get the name wrong. This implies that the asylum got the name wrong and not Swanson .
Adam could, of course ,have been misquoted.
we shall have to wait

Regards
Nick

[Phil Carter]

Adam then pays homage to Martin, saying that there was a suspect who did die soon after being committed, and he says he wasn't recorded under the name of Kosminski but as David Cohen. Then there's what appears to me to be messy bit which sound to me like an attempt to simply explain Martin's confusion hypothesis, '“There were many Kosminskis living in Whitechapel at the time and it’s just possible that Cohen’s name was recorded incorrectly when he was admitted, because by all accounts he had to be restrained when he came in.”" But Adam then discounts this, saying that Swanson "knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification." The crucial bit being the words I have italicised. Isn't that Adam specifically denying that Swanson would have made a mistake with a name or identification?

I've tried to give the David Cohen theory 'air time' more times than I care to remember and unsurprisingly journalists never get it right...

Paul

First of all

"it's just possible that Cohen's name was recorded incorrectly when he was admitted, because he had to be restrained when he came in" because there were many Kosminski's living in Whitechapel at the time"?

So, If I now understand this.. Kosminski, a popular, and known name at the time, could not be understood and therefore "its just possible" Cohens name was recorded incorrectly? Meaning Cohens name was really Kosminski?

So, what I'm being told is that David Cohen's real name was Kosminski?

It can't be the other way around then, of course, that Kosminskis real name was David Cohen, right?

Glad that's all sorted out.

Because.. "its just possible" that Cohens "real name" wasn't Kosminski at all. Under the same premise, that he had to be restrained when he came in to the asylum. Unless there's a heck of a lot of proof.. "its just possible" sounds like a desperate attempt to marry up a theory with a name.

Unless, that is, someone is trying to explain the marginalia by fitting up the likeliest person that wasn't really named Cohen. Sounds like "it's just possible".....

And I do wonder something. I do hope someone has informed Nevil Swanson that his repeated, on camera, claims, and in the media, that AARON Kosminski was "Jack the Ripper" is wrong. Because Aaron lived way into 1919. So "Cohen/Kosminski who died in the asylum in 1889, cannot have been Aaron, can he?
Wonder what first name this unknown Kosminski/Cohen had? It wasn't Aaron.

Oh, and I'm glad you've informed us with your last comments, that it was the journalist who "misinterpreted" Adam Wood. Not us. Thank you.
Funny. I thought the journalist didn't do that. But hey. There you go.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

What are you talking about?

Exactly what I have always maintained, the Marginalia is flawed, and Adam Woods statement confirms that. Swanson as a source is unreliable !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Another example of how the marginalia is flawed and unsafe ! I guess we are going to see a host of scenarios to negate this, and still try to prop up Kosminski as a suspect?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What are you talking about?

[Trevor Marriott]

Help. I'm lost. I can't see where Adam suggests that David Cohen was Swanson's suspect? There's the bit where Adam says Swanson said that the suspect died soon after being committed, and acknowledges that Aaron Kosminski lived until 1919. Adam then pays homage to Martin, saying that there was a suspect who did die soon after being committed, and he says he wasn't recorded under the name of Kosminski but as David Cohen. Then there's what appears to me to be messy bit which sound to me like an attempt to simply explain Martin's confusion hypothesis, '“There were many Kosminskis living in Whitechapel at the time and it’s just possible that Cohen’s name was recorded incorrectly when he was admitted, because by all accounts he had to be restrained when he came in.”" But Adam then discounts this, saying that Swanson "knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification." The crucial bit being the words I have italicised. Isn't that Adam specifically denying that Swanson would have made a mistake with a name or identification?

I've tried to give the David Cohen theory 'air time' more times than I care to remember and unsurprisingly journalists never get it right, so much so that it's a standing joke with Keith and myself. If I'd been Adam I don't think I'd have even tried. It always turns into a mess.

Anyway, is this the bit that's causing the fuss, or is there a statement elsewhere in the article that I've missed?

Another example of how the marginalia is flawed and unsafe ! I guess we are going to see a host of scenarios to negate this, and still try to prop up Kosminski as a suspect?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Darryl,

The issue lays with Trevor imposing modern procedure with Victorian procedure. The context Trevor presents doesn’t ring true and is therefore flawed.

Victorian era ID parades happened anywhere, I cite Wellington Barracks and Pearly Poll for example.

Its all explained in my book. Buy it, it’ll save the back and forth circular exchanges.

Monty

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Help. I'm lost. I can't see where Adam suggests that David Cohen was Swanson's suspect? There's the bit where Adam says Swanson said that the suspect died soon after being committed, and acknowledges that Aaron Kosminski lived until 1919. Adam then pays homage to Martin, saying that there was a suspect who did die soon after being committed, and he says he wasn't recorded under the name of Kosminski but as David Cohen. Then there's what appears to me to be messy bit which sound to me like an attempt to simply explain Martin's confusion hypothesis, '“There were many Kosminskis living in Whitechapel at the time and it’s just possible that Cohen’s name was recorded incorrectly when he was admitted, because by all accounts he had to be restrained when he came in.”" But Adam then discounts this, saying that Swanson "knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification." The crucial bit being the words I have italicised. Isn't that Adam specifically denying that Swanson would have made a mistake with a name or identification?

I've tried to give the David Cohen theory 'air time' more times than I care to remember and unsurprisingly journalists never get it right, so much so that it's a standing joke with Keith and myself. If I'd been Adam I don't think I'd have even tried. It always turns into a mess.

Anyway, is this the bit that's causing the fuss, or is there a statement elsewhere in the article that I've missed?

[Monty]

“”Prejudiced interpretation of an article brings all the boys to the yard

And they're like, my views are better than yours
Damn right they’’re better than yours

I can teach you, but I have to charge.””

Same stagnated opinion, different year. They never learn do they George?

Monty

[Monty]

Thank you for the reply Trevor I just want to make a point about the suspect being identified in his cell. I am assuming this was possibly done a lot in Victorian times if an ID parade couldn't be arranged. The point I want to make is suppose the Victorian police couldn't hold the suspect in the cell because they just had some circumstantial evidence but not enough without some ID evidence, [remember forensics was very limited back then and ID evidence was given a lot more credence than now]. Wouldn't the police try their very best to obtain the crucial [back then], ID evidence? And use some form of confrontation ID. I know you question the legality of this Trevor but couldn't the police say the suspect was known but not available IE he refused or was incapable of such parade? As the CPS site says can happen.
Regards Darryl

Darryl,

The issue lays with Trevor imposing modern procedure with Victorian procedure. The context Trevor presents doesn’t ring true and is therefore flawed.

Victorian era ID parades happened anywhere, I cite Wellington Barracks and Pearly Poll for example.

Its all explained in my book. Buy it, it’ll save the back and forth circular exchanges.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Steve,

Just one or two alarming things here.

For 31 years Family Swanson and friends have rammed down our throats "Kosminski was the suspect". Family Swanson have even gone into the media on various occasions calling the quoted suspect "Aaron Kosminski". (without one iota of proof). Now, apparently, David Cohen "fits" the description in the marginalia. But Swanson, this all encompassing policeman, not only cannot remember Jack the Rippers first name (as in Aaron), he now seemingly can't remember a far far easier name, David Cohen, to write into the marginalia.
I remind you. "Kosminski was the suspect" RAMMED down the throats of all for 31 years. So the marginalia is to be believed because it fits Cohen's antecedents, yet we must now ignore "Kosminski was the the suspect".. Because of a mistake in writing the wrong name down?
A mistake writing down Jack the Rippers name.. At least 23 years after this bloke Cohen died. THE most famous Murderer in the world.
No. Pigs can't fly. Sorry.

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

There WAS an identification. Yes.

The suspect WAS identified. Yes.

The only one who had a good view of the murderer identifed him Not necessarily.

The witness WAS a felow jew. Or pretended to be.

Kosminski WAS the suspect. Yes.

I think it was likely that the primary reason for the proceeding was to get the suspect off the streets.

[packers stem]

I am not so sure of that Nick, as I said on FB, I would rather wait for the actual book rather than a newspaper article.

Adam's commented on FB, and seems to be saying people have misinterpreted.
I will wait and see.
My view has not changed on who Kosminski was at this point.

Steve

Hard to see how we could misinterpret what's written Steve .
If Adam's words have been misinterpreted by the reporter then that's different

[Phil Carter]

I am not so sure of that Nick, as I said on FB, I would rather wait for the actual book rather than a newspaper article.

Adam's commented on FB, and seems to be saying people have misinterpreted.
I will wait and see.
My view has not changed on who Kosminski was at this point.

Steve

Misinterpreted? Misquoted? Taken out of context?
Excuse me. We've e heard it before from just about every quoted person in the media, ever.
How often were those quotes actually misquotes, misinterpretations or really out of context?

After all. I would expect a throughly clear actual quote in all medias to explain such a massive misinterpretation, wouldn't you?
Haven't seen it yet. Have you?


Phil

[The Baron]

There WAS an identification.

The suspect WAS identified.

The only one who had a good view of the murderer identifed him

The witness WAS a felow jew.

Kosminski WAS the suspect.



I don't think anyone can come closer to solve this case than that.


The Baron

[Scott Nelson]

And then he refused to swear to him because he was a fellow jew ?! That doesn't make sense.

That's part of the story that was told. It needn't have happened that way.