Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[mickreed]

Absolutely. Those comments are very similar in tenor to what Alan McCormick said to me when I visited the Crime Museum a few years ago. He didn't think there was any doubt the Ripper was Aaron Kozminski, but there wasn't any suggestion that there were secret documents to prove it.

And that sounds much more likely, Chris. That's what I'd expect.

So it's more than likely that RE's recollections are not quite accurate.

[PaulB]

I think the evidence ge promised to show Russell Edwards was almost certainly the Swanson marginalia which was probably on loan to the museum at the time.

[Monty]

Absolutely. Those comments are very similar in tenor to what Alan McCormick said to me when I visited the Crime Museum a few years ago. He didn't think there was any doubt the Ripper was Aaron Kozminski, but there wasn't any suggestion that there were secret documents to prove it.

McCormicks opinions are common knowledge Chris, they were discussed on these very boards some years back.

This is not a new revelation.

Monty

[Monty]

I think the evidence ge promised to show Russell Edwards was almost certainly the Swanson marginalia which was probably on loan to the museum at the time.

Absolutely Paul.

Monty

[Monty]

And that sounds much more likely, Chris. That's what I'd expect.

So it's more than likely that RE's recollections are not quite accurate.

Edwards is clearly embellishing with the aim of seeking supposed Scotland Yard endorsement of his theory.

He is very unaware that we are aware of McCormicks opinion, and that it is just that, his opinion and NOT Scotland Yards.

Monty

[Chris]

McCormicks opinions are common knowledge Chris, they were discussed on these very boards some years back.

This is not a new revelation.

In that case I'm going to ask McCormick to give me the £10 back.

[PaulB]

Alan is the former curator of the museum, of course.

[Steve S]

The Impression given in the Edwards book is that there is secret information and that it's a recent thing.......As others have pointed out, what it actually involved was the curator at the time pushing the Marginalia.........

[PaulB]

The Impression given in the Edwards book is that there is secret information and that it's a recent thing.......As others have pointed out, what it actually involved was the curator at the time pushing the Marginalia.........

Not "pushing" it, just accepting that it is genuine and in turn acceptiing the "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper. Fair enough.

[GUT]

Not "pushing" it, just accepting that it is genuine and in turn acceptiing the "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper. Fair enough.

But if that's the case why accepting it over Macnaghten who appears to abandon Kosminski?

[Steve S]

Remember..This wasn't an unbiased(??) Ripperologist..It's a museum curator who would like to think his museum has the answer.....On face value, it IS the answer....But Mr. Edwards makes it sound (possibly accidentally) as if the museum holds MORE info than we're aware of........

[mickreed]

The Impression given in the Edwards book is that there is secret information and that it's a recent thing.......As others have pointed out, what it actually involved was the curator at the time pushing the Marginalia.........

That's right Steve. Edwards does give the impression that he's been told that there is something there by way of proof that he will see if he provides a signed copy of the book, and that this info is not generally available.

Now, I am quite sure Paul et al are right that there wasn't any secret info.

So:

1. Either RE really was told differently (very unlikely I'd suggest) or

2. He's recalling what was said incorrectly (very likely) or

3. He's making it up deliberately (probably unlikely).

Whichever of the last two it is, then his work is not to be relied upon. A few of the contributions to the discussion seem reluctant to say this openly. There may be other explanations, but I can't think of one.

[PaulB]

But if that's the case why accepting it over Macnaghten who appears to abandon Kosminski?

Macnaghten doesn't abandon "Kosminski". He simply prefers the information which he may have received personally and which he found sufficiently persuasive to convince him the Druitt was the murderer.

And Druitt may have been the murderer

But we don't know how much he knew about "Kosminski". Given his rank and known interests we assume that he knew everything there was to know, but on the other hand it is a odd that he should have been so dismissive of his boss's suspect, especially as his memorandum, had it ever been used, would have been circulated to Anderson, so maybe there were things he didn't know.

As far as the curator of the museum accepting Anderson over Macnaghten, Anderson was in a position to know the evidence against any suspect. If he preferred "Kosminski" rather than Druitt then he presumably had a good reason for doing so.

But the bottom line is that we don't know. We simply don't have sufficient information. at least the museum had the marginalia.

He evidently had what he considered to be persuasive information that Druitt was the murderer.
This information may have been given t him

[Steve S]

That's right Steve. Edwards does give the impression that he's been told that there is something there by way of proof that he will see if he provides a signed copy of the book, and that this info is not generally available.

Now, I am quite sure Paul et al are right that there wasn't any secret info.

So:

1. Either RE really was told differently (very unlikely I'd suggest) or

2. He's recalling what was said incorrectly (very likely) or

3. He's making it up deliberately (probably unlikely).

Whichever of the last two it is, then his work is not to be relied upon. A few of the contributions to the discussion seem reluctant to say this openly. There may be other explanations, but I can't think of one.

4. He misinterpreted what he was told..I do feel his work suffers from his conscious decision to go it alone and not run things past others on sites t
like this........

[Phil Carter]

Absolutely. Those comments are very similar in tenor to what Alan McCormick said to me when I visited the Crime Museum a few years ago. He didn't think there was any doubt the Ripper was Aaron Kozminski, but there wasn't any suggestion that there were secret documents to prove it.

Hello Chris, Monty,

Sadly I am afraid to inform the pair of you that any "conspiracy" as you both mention and refer to is NOT, I repeat NOT in my mind.

I am trying to disentangle fact from made up fiction. Something you Monty have noted as well. So just keep the attempts to label others out of this eh?... it isnt needed, not called for and I don't particularly appreciate it. So that we are still square... if you want an argument.. look elsewhere gentlemen. OK? Thank you both.

regards

Phil