Aaron or not

[ChrisGeorge]

Moreover I think he could have bamboozled Swanson over all this because the Swanson marginalia and end notes are unclear---it reads as though Swanson is baffled by Anderson"s claims----just like Abberline was and Major Henry Smith.

Hi Nats

There's nothing unclear about Swanson's notation "Kosminski was the suspect." The question is how do we interpret that note? That Kosminski was the major suspect or even the only viable suspect to have been the Ripper as Anderson seems to say? Or is he only saying "Yes, this happened as Sir Robert says," but that Kosminski was no more important than any other suspect? That is, there were reasons to suspect him but no real proof that he actually could have been the Ripper.

Chris

[Natalie Severn]

PS are you claiming that we Parnell's had no fanian or IRA connections? and Anderson was making the enter thing up? Top of the mornin' to ya

yes-thats what I am saying-I dont trust a word Anderson said.Moreover I think he could have bamboozled Swanson over all this because the Swanson marginalia and end notes are unclear---it reads as though Swanson is baffled by Anderson"s claims----just like Abberline was and Major Henry Smith.I think Major Henry Smith had Anderson weighed up really.He seems to have Anderson down as someone who saw "Jewish witnesses" and "Jewish suspects" at every turn.....well that was when Sir Robert wasnt on his hot line to Jehovah I reckon-or maybe it was when he got cracking on his hotline that he believed himself to have had this particular "revelation".

[Jeff Leahy]

PS are you claiming that we Parnell's had no fanian or IRA connections? and Anderson was making the enter thing up? Top of the mornin' to ya

[Natalie Severn]

Yes. That was Stewarts reply at conference and as i understand his position. I simply asked him to clarify that position.

The end notes are in a different pencil.



PROVENANCE is a measure by which Historians ascertain the validity of a document not scientists. The history and PROVENANCE of the marginalia is excellent.

If you have any specific accusations to make against Jim Swanson, then please clearly state and make that claim.

There is no evidance, as far as I am aware, that the Swanson Marginalia is anything other than completely genuine. I would welcome any tests that confirm this fact...

But trying to mirky the water with 'insinuation' doesn't change the basic facts of the source material.

Rubbish.Any "historian" worthy of the name and interested in discovering the truth or otherwise of a claim about "the identity of Jack the Ripper" would pursue its "provenance" most rigorously.This claim regarding the "marginalia" and "end notes" emanated from a "partial" source,Swanson"s grandson.Moreover it was made at the time of the centenary of the crimes -100 years later.One is entitled to ask

a] why they waited for 100 years to make such a claim

b] why it was not subjected to the most rigorous ,scientific analysis at the time-1987.

To state that its "provenance" is beyond question on the basis of having met a very nice gentleman is just plain ridiculous
Ofcourse it COULD be a fake.It may NOT be, but until it is put to the test we wont know will we?

[Jeff Leahy]

In April 1910 Anderson was making a complete fool of himself in front of a crowd of journalists who were standing outside his door in Notting Hill, eagerly awaiting further "revelations".Anderson had gone public and confessed he had lied about the Irish Home Rule MP Charles Stewart Parnell, in a series of articles he had authored for The Times Newspaper in 1887.These had been published alongside the letters Pigott had forged letters incriminating Parnel.
Anderson was a "spy master" throughout his life and his whole career was about "disinformation".
And there are plenty such instances.......do get real!

I know, i sat on Nanny Parnells knee and heard it directly from his neice.

[Natalie Severn]

http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-ander.html

Sir Robert Anderson was born in 1841, he retired in 1901..age 60.

He had already written and published his book by the time he was 70 years old.I think dodery old codger, a slight exaggeration.



Yes precicely..

Because Andersons claim had beenin the public domain since 1910 and largely dismissed or ignored for most of the time since then, or at best treated as one of the many inexplicable curiosities of the case, nobody really connected Andersons Polish jew with Macnaughtens 'Kosminski' until the discovery of the Swanson marginalia in 1987 put the matter beyond question bt clearly identifying them as one and the same.

In April 1910 Anderson was making a complete fool of himself in front of a crowd of journalists who were standing outside his door in Notting Hill, eagerly awaiting further "revelations".Anderson had gone public and confessed he had lied about the Irish Home Rule MP Charles Stewart Parnell, in a series of articles he had authored for The Times Newspaper in 1887.These had been published alongside the letters Pigott had forged letters incriminating Parnel.
Anderson was a "spy master" throughout his life and his whole career was about "disinformation".
And there are plenty such instances.......do get real!

[Jeff Leahy]

Stewart has clearly stated that he is not saying the marginalia is a fake.He reserves judgement about the "end-notes" as I understand from his posts,because he states there are some inconsistencies in those notes.

Yes. That was Stewarts reply at conference and as i understand his position. I simply asked him to clarify that position.

The end notes are in a different pencil.

However,I myself believe that you are not being in the slightest bit scientific ,when you say something is of "impeccable provenance"and most especially since it emanated from a very "partial" source----ie Swanson"s grandson.Being expected to simply accept the word of someone,simply because he seems to be a "jolly nice fellow", is completely counterposed to the spirit of scientific enquiry.
Just because Paul Begg and Martin Fido,"say so"----who both have a very partial interest in a Polish Jew suspect,does not mean it is so.

Where is the "evidence" that the "marginalia " or "end paper " notes have been subjected even to "fair testing" let alone rigorous scientific analysis?

Without " scientific/forensic evidence" that this"marginalia" and the "end notes" have not been tampered with in any way,they are of "uncertain" and in my opinion somewhat dubious" provenance--------------

PROVENANCE is a measure by which Historians ascertain the validity of a document not scientists. The history and PROVENANCE of the marginalia is excellent.

If you have any specific accusations to make against Jim Swanson, then please clearly state and make that claim.

There is no evidance, as far as I am aware, that the Swanson Marginalia is anything other than completely genuine. I would welcome any tests that confirm this fact...

But trying to mirky the water with 'insinuation' doesn't change the basic facts of the source material.

[Natalie Severn]

Your seeing conspiracy where it does not exist by 'US' quite obviously I refer to the people reading this thread..who are after all those interested in the JtR mystery.

These are quite serious claims you are making against Swanson, Do you beleive that the marginalia is Fake?

I know I asked you at conference but i am seeking clarification?

Stewart has clearly stated that he is not saying the marginalia is a fake.He reserves judgement about the "end-notes" as I understand from his posts,because he states there are some inconsistencies in those notes.

However,I myself believe that you are not being in the slightest bit scientific ,when you say something is of "impeccable provenance"and most especially since it emanated from a very "partial" source----ie Swanson"s grandson.Being expected to simply accept the word of someone,simply because he seems to be a "jolly nice fellow", is completely counterposed to the spirit of scientific enquiry.
Just because Paul Begg and Martin Fido,"say so"----who both have a very partial interest in a Polish Jew suspect,does not mean it is so.

Where is the "evidence" that the "marginalia " or "end paper " notes have been subjected even to "fair testing" let alone rigorous scientific analysis?

Without " scientific/forensic evidence" that this"marginalia" and the "end notes" have not been tampered with in any way,they are of "uncertain" and in my opinion somewhat dubious" provenance--------------

[Jeff Leahy]

Stewart, forgive me, but I can believe Anderson in his dotage getting this mixed up in his failing memory. But we are talking TWO doddery old codgers here BOTH misremembering and confusing suspect (1) Kosminski with suspect (2) Sadler in EXACTLY the same respects: 'wasn't that Sadler fellow Jewish? Seem to recall something about a Jew... got chucked in the loony bin as I recall...'. Swanson was writing privately and never expected his musings to become public property. It can in no way be dismissed therefore as a public relations 'we DID solve this case after all' exercise.

http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-ander.html

Sir Robert Anderson was born in 1841, he retired in 1901..age 60.

He had already written and published his book by the time he was 70 years old.I think dodery old codger, a slight exaggeration.

Furthermore, how IF Anderson AND Swanson were under delusions worthy of Aaron himself... how do you account for McNaghten? McNaghten might not have had Kosminski at the top of his list but he obviously knew him as a very major suspect. And you yourself have said that you do not believe McNaghten merely got his (flawed) information from Anderson. They were in an egalitarian position at SY and would have privy to the same suspect information.

Yes precicely..

Because Andersons claim had beenin the public domain since 1910 and largely dismissed or ignored for most of the time since then, or at best treated as one of the many inexplicable curiosities of the case, nobody really connected Andersons Polish jew with Macnaughtens 'Kosminski' until the discovery of the Swanson marginalia in 1987 put the matter beyond question bt clearly identifying them as one and the same.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm sorry, but you really do not know what you are talking about - and you are still not reading and understanding what has gone before. I no longer wish to argue with the monkey (figuratively speaking).

Thats of course is your prerogative Stewart.

However you have quite clearly come up with a controversial theory that Swanson and Anderson colluded to prevent the course of justice..well fit up Aaron Kosminski, which requires some very serious reworking of the known facts.

Are you suggesting that I do not have the right to query those accusations on a public message board?

Where you expecting everyone to sit back and say 'yeah OK' we've all got it totally wrong for the last ten years, there was NO seaside home identification? "darn that explains everything?'

Well I'm sorry Stewart I don't agree with your conclusions and I am no bodies man but my own..'thats why I fly the Jolly Roger'.

So stop trying to read conspiracy where it does not exist, I have every right to question your theory.

It is my right to listen to expert opinion and seek to question that opinion..thats GOOD journalism s far as i am concerned.

Jeff Leahy/Parnell

You once advised me to go take a cool shower..

Pretty good advice it was..

[Observer]

Hi Jeff

Hi Observer, Sorry If I was not clear...The piont I was trying to make is an important one because it might appear odd that Swanson enicial's his marginalia DSS. However if there are other examples of Swanson 'making and encialling marginalia in his libruary then perhaps it is not odd but what one would expect?

Swanson was a Policeman. Perhaps making enicials was common practice?

The main point here is that as far as I know the marginalia has an impeckable 'PROVENANCE' and is considered the genuine article.

Noone has come forward claiming other wise to my knowledge.

No problems Jeff. The marginalia does seem to be genuine, but why is it when any documents surface which could throw light on the identity of Jack the Ripper there is always some individual who cries forgery? Of course some of the documents that emerge are blatant forgeries, I don't think the Swanson marginalia fall into this catagory though.

all the Observer

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry

I'm saying that it is highly unlikely that Anderson could have made such a monumental error

And adding that the source material dosnt support your claim.

I'm sorry, but you really do not know what you are talking about - and you are still not reading and understanding what has gone before. I no longer wish to argue with the monkey (figuratively speaking).

[Stewart P Evans]

No Very Major Suspect

Stewart, forgive me, but I can believe Anderson in his dotage getting this mixed up in his failing memory. But we are talking TWO doddery old codgers here BOTH misremembering and confusing suspect (1) Kosminski with suspect (2) Sadler in EXACTLY the same respects: 'wasn't that Sadler fellow Jewish? Seem to recall something about a Jew... got chucked in the loony bin as I recall...'. Swanson was writing privately and never expected his musings to become public property. It can in no way be dismissed therefore as a public relations 'we DID solve this case after all' exercise.
Furthermore, how IF Anderson AND Swanson were under delusions worthy of Aaron himself... how do you account for McNaghten? McNaghten might not have had Kosminski at the top of his list but he obviously knew him as a very major suspect. And you yourself have said that you do not believe McNaghten merely got his (flawed) information from Anderson. They were in an egalitarian position at SY and would have privy to the same suspect information.

No, I am saying that they were perfectly capable of inventing part of the story to put the blame on Kosminski. However, we do know for certain that Anderson's memory was getting muddled when he was aged about 70.

Kosminski's name obviously was given to the police as a suspect, but certainly not 'a very major' one. As Macnaghten explained there was "no shadow of proof" to be 'thrown on any one.' There was no 'very major suspect' - ever - for the Whitechapel murders. That would have required some sort of hard evidence and there was none.

[Jeff Leahy]

So are you saying that Anderson's men were quite happy to 'fit up' Sadler for a murder he presumably didn't commit, but Anderson would not be happy to let an insane Jew, safely tucked away for the duration, take the blame for the Ripper murders?

I'm saying that it is highly unlikely that Anderson could have made such a monumental error

And adding that the source material dosnt support your claim.

[Jeff Leahy]

Are you really insisting that Anderson's claim must be assumed to be both 100% reliable and accurate despite his other clearly documented errors and all of the other police officials who contradicted his claims?

No you are claiming this. I said what I said. I've never said Anderson was 100% accurate..I don't believe I've ever suggested this about any one and I to my knowledge Begg has never stated such a thing either.

The ONLY way Begg's theory works is for Anderson to have perfect memory and to be incapable of engaging in wishful thinking and for other police officials who worked more closely on the case to all be liars or confused.

Rubbish what are you talking about? We know that Mcnaughten makes a series of mistakes, I dont know that anybody disputes this?

Begg plays a game (which Pirate Jack Jeff here tries to copy by talking about defending a good copper) in which he pretends to be defending the good name of an official who actually didn't have a good name

You havnt bothered to read what I put...I was quite clearly calling Swanson a good copper..to my knowledge he had a Good police record.

(as involved as he was in the Parnell forgeries)

Dont presume to quote Parnell at me Norder, we are quite aware of what was done to us.

Begg either has an unrealistic and very unhealthy case of hero worship when it comes to Anderson... or, more likely, he knows that the evidence to support his suspect is weak so he has to come up with feeble debating tactics to try to confuse people about the facts.

Unrealistic and unhealthy...'pot calling the kettle' I beleive..

Begg is a serious historian who at least understands the differance between Historical Fact and Fact..

Which quite clearly from your rantings you do not..