Aaron or not

[Septic Blue]

I don't know what the truth may have been behind the "Seaside Home" story, but let's not put words into the author's mouth in an attempt to make it look less plausible. The marginalia say nothing about the witness being hauled anywhere. One obvious possibility would be that the witness was in the home and the suspect was taken to the witness.

"... but let's not put words into the author's mouth in an attempt to make it look less plausible. The marginalia say nothing about the witness being hauled anywhere."

Touché !!! I was speaking figuratively, in an attempt to emphasize my point: That the witness was probably required to travel a great distance.

I don't find your argument that the marginalia are a fake very coherent.

Coherence is in the eye of the beholder. I do not find your argument, in this case, to be very coherent.

These apparent errors, inconsistencies and implausibilities have been known about, and argued over, for decades. But they don't point to a fake in themselves.

I disagree !!!

They point to a fake only if there is reason to believe that a faker would be more likely to produce them than Swanson.

And it is my perception that Swanson would not have produced the sort of incoherent nonsense contained therein. Even in old age !!!

Why should a faker, with Martin Fido's book in front of him, introduce these errors?

Now you are putting words into my mouth !!!

I do not presume to know when, or by whom these notes were written. Swanson died in 1924; some 63-to-64 years before the Marginalia surfaced. We do not know the identities of every person that may have had access to Swanson's personal copy of Anderson's book, during this time-frame.

And if the omission of Kozminski's forename is considered significant, it seems to me that this fits better with Swanson as the author rather than a faker. Swanson may not have known, or may have forgotten, Kozminski's forename, but a faker with Fido's book in front of him would know it perfectly well.

"... but a faker with Fido's book in front of him would know it perfectly well."

Just as a faker with the Macnaghten Memorandum in front of him "would know it [surname reference] perfectly well".

And how coincidental; how incredibly coincidental: The fact that the Marginalia reference "Kosminski" is identical (surname only) to the only previously recorded reference to this supposed suspect.

And even if you believe that "Kosminski" in the Macnaghten memoranda is likely to be an error for another name, why shouldn't the same be true of "Kosminski" in the marginalia? Why shouldn't a common source, and a common mistake, lie behind both these statements?

"... if you believe that "Kosminski" in the Macnaghten memoranda is likely to be an error ..."

I believe that Macnaghten's "Kosminski" reference is quite possibly a corruption of some other similar name.

"... why shouldn't the same be true of "Kosminski" in the marginalia?"

It is !!!

I believe that the Marginalia reference "Kosminski" is a direct reflection - a mirror's image, in fact - of that seen in the Macnaghten Memorandum. Corruption, or not !!!


Colin

[Scott Nelson]

I don't quite follow that. The relevant item in his "Sources" section says:
Greater London Archives: Pauper Lunatic Registers and Quarterly Returns, Workhouse Infirmary Creed Books, and Admissions and Discharge Books for Bethnal Green, Mile End, Poplar, Stepney, Whitechapel, as variously available 1888-1900.

Martin Fido addressed this several years ago on this site. In citing the sources he researched, he wrote:

STEPNEY REGISTER OF WHITECHAPEL LUNATICS IN ASYLUMS, 1879-1899. [My added note highlights as "MOST IMPORTANT LIST". The official listing of Whitechapel and Mile End Old Town as subdivisions of Stepney casts possible light on Swanson's reference to Kosminski going to Stepney Workhouse. Kosminski passed through Mile End Old Town; Cohen through Whitechapel. I'd have to see the register again to understand why this list is in alphabetical and not in chronological order]"

Martin's lists of Jewish inmates/patients in workhouses only shows Whitechapel Infirmary and Mile End Old Town registers. The other workhouses (Bethnal Green and Poplar) are referenced for individuals listed in the Colney Hatch registers.

What surprises, if any, may be found in the Sick Asylum records of Bromley/St. Andrew's Hospital, assuming they still exist? I thought these records had been searched because JtR literature cites John Stride, the first husband of Elizabeth Stride, who died at this Asylum in 1884. Unfortunately, this was determined from the death certificate and from inquest testimony, not from a search of the Bromley Sick Asylum records: Ergo: To my knowledge, the Bromley Sick Asylum or St. Andrew's Hospital records have NOT been searched for the relevant period to date, except for great research by Rob House.

I have looked at the documented Workhouse Infirmary searches for the relevant period listed by different authors, most prominently Sugden and Fido. Fido searched a select number of Workhouses, which included Bethnal Green, Mile End, Poplar, "Stepney" and Whitechapel, as "variously available" from 1880-1900. Sugden only reviewed of the Mile End Old Town Workhouse records (1887-92), and the Whitechapel and Holborn Workhouse records from 1887-89 and during 1900, respectively. He also searched the Orders for Reception of Imbeciles into Asylums 1886-1903, also from the Mile End files. As far as I'm aware, that has been the extent of record searches for Stepney Board of Guardians (St.BG) Workhouses in the East End. I suspect the "variously available" reference made by Fido concerning the Workhouse records is an indication of at least two consolidations of the St.BG Boroughs, one around 1907 and the other in 1925. These acquisitions, involving administrative merging of parish groupings may have displaced many pauper records, as Workhouses from the Whitechapel, St. George's-in-the-East and the Poplar Boroughs were merged or transferred to other locations. This potential disorder I believe, made modern searches a rather cursory undertaking, with easiest successes (and "discoveries") relegated to what's most readily available and recognizable. I have not found any clear-cut evidence of "Stepney" Workhouse records for the crucial period of 1888-1891 as ever having been reviewed.

[Chris]

[I wrote:] These apparent errors, inconsistencies and implausibilities have been known about, and argued over, for decades. But they don't point to a fake in themselves.

I disagree !!!

Well, I'm sorry, but logically the errors do not, in themselves, point to a fake, any more than the errors in the Macnaghten memoranda point to a fake.

As I said, they point to a fake only if there is reason to believe that a faker would be more likely to produce them than Swanson.

[I wrote:] Why should a faker, with Martin Fido's book in front of him, introduce these errors?

Now you are putting words into my mouth !!!

Are you really suggesting the marginalia could have been faked without knowledge of Fido's discoveries about Aaron Kozminski? Remember that the fact that Kozminski lived with his brother, the visit to a workhouse and Colney Hatch are not mentioned by Anderson or Macnaghten.

[I wrote:] Swanson may not have known, or may have forgotten, Kozminski's forename, but a faker with Fido's book in front of him would know it perfectly well.

[/I][COLOR=Black]Just as a faker with the Macnaghten Memorandum in front of him "would know it perfectly well".

No, he wouldn't. It is not mentioned in either version of the Macnaghten memoranda.

[I wrote:] And even if you believe that "Kosminski" in the Macnaghten memoranda is likely to be an error for another name, why shouldn't the same be true of "Kosminski" in the marginalia?

I believe that Macnaghten's "Kosminski" reference is quite possibly a corruption of some other similar name.

Well, what you actually wrote before was that "Macnaghten's reference to "Kosminski" stands every chance in the world, of being a corruption of the supposed suspect's actual name" [my emphasis].

And of course, what I meant was that if "Kosminski" had been a corruption of another name, Swanson and Macnaghten could both have got it from a common source.

[Chris]

Martin Fido addressed this several years ago on this site. In citing the sources he researched, he wrote:

STEPNEY REGISTER OF WHITECHAPEL LUNATICS IN ASYLUMS, 1879-1899. [My added note highlights as "MOST IMPORTANT LIST". The official listing of Whitechapel and Mile End Old Town as subdivisions of Stepney casts possible light on Swanson's reference to Kosminski going to Stepney Workhouse. Kosminski passed through Mile End Old Town; Cohen through Whitechapel. I'd have to see the register again to understand why this list is in alphabetical and not in chronological order]"

Thanks for this. I was going by what Martin Fido said in his book. But, from what you say, maybe it's not accurate.

But Rob Clack said recently that he had checked the Stepney Union Workhouse records, didn't he?

[Septic Blue]

Well, I'm sorry, but logically the errors do not, in themselves, point to a fake, any more than the errors in the Macnaghten memoranda point to a fake.

As I said, they point to a fake only if there is reason to believe that a faker would be more likely to produce them than Swanson.

And as I said:

... it is my perception that Swanson would not have produced the sort of incoherent nonsense contained therein. Even in old age !!!

Why should a faker, with Martin Fido's book in front of him, introduce these errors?

Now you are putting words into my mouth !!!

Are you really suggesting the marginalia could have been faked without knowledge of Fido's discoveries about Aaron Kozminski? Remember that the fact that Kozminski lived with his brother, the visit to a workhouse and Colney Hatch are not mentioned by Anderson or Macnaghten.

I will readily admit that these consistencies between the purported assertions of Donald Swanson and the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski make my position somewhat tenuous. Trust me: I have already taken them into account. But give me a little time; and I'm sure that I'll be able to push some square pegs into some round holes, and come up with some ridiculous rationalizations and explanations. But nothing as absurd as:

- "there was no such place as 'Stepney Workhouse', though the term was sometimes used colloquially for St. George's-in-the-East in the 1880s." (Fido)

- or -

- “It should be observed, however, that the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so, when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse.” (Begg)

... I can assure you.

Swanson may not have known, or may have forgotten, Kozminski's forename, but a faker with Fido's book in front of him would know it perfectly well.

Just as a faker with the Macnaghten Memorandum in front of him "would know it perfectly well".

No, he wouldn't. It is not mentioned in either version of the Macnaghten memoranda.

You missed the insertion of a qualifier, which I made before your post:

Just as a faker with the Macnaghten Memorandum in front of him "would know it [surname reference] perfectly well".

Last edited by Septic Blue : Today at 12:40 PM.

And even if you believe that "Kosminski" in the Macnaghten memoranda is likely to be an error for another name, why shouldn't the same be true of "Kosminski" in the marginalia?

I believe that Macnaghten's "Kosminski" reference is quite possibly a corruption of some other similar name.

Well, what you actually wrote before was that "Macnaghten's reference to "Kosminski" stands every chance in the world, of being a corruption of the supposed suspect's actual name" [my emphasis].

"Macnaghten's reference to "Kosminski" stands every chance in the world, of being a corruption of the supposed suspect's actual name"

"I believe that Macnaghten's "Kosminski" reference is quite possibly a corruption of some other similar name."

Interpretation constitutes 99.99% of reality, in human discourse. My mistake !!! Both assertions were intended to have precisely the same meaning.

In my opinion, they still do. But that is neither here nor there. The reader's interpretation is what matters.


Colin

[Chris]

You missed the insertion of a qualifier, which I made before your post:

No, I didn't miss anything. You corrected your error after I had begun to write my reply (though admittedly before I clicked "Submit") - that's why your correction wasn't included in what I quoted from your message.

Isn't this kind of thing just a little bit silly?

[Rob Clack]

What surprises, if any, may be found in the Sick Asylum records of Bromley/St. Andrew's Hospital, assuming they still exist? I thought these records had been searched because JtR literature cites John Stride, the first husband of Elizabeth Stride, who died at this Asylum in 1884. Unfortunately, this was determined from the death certificate and from inquest testimony, not from a search of the Bromley Sick Asylum records: Ergo: To my knowledge, the Bromley Sick Asylum or St. Andrew's Hospital records have NOT been searched for the relevant period to date, except for great research by Rob House.

The records you refer to are 'The Poplar and Stepney Sick Asylum' records. They do still exist (at least 1888 does) and they are at The London Hospital Archives in Prescot Street.

But Rob Clack said recently that he had checked the Stepney Union Workhouse records, didn't he?

I did, but I would recommend somebody having another look as some of the writing is difficult to make out, also I could easily have missed anything important. They are at The London Metropolitan Archives and are on microfilm.
Sorry I can't remember the microfilm role number, I think it was X111/111. There are other registers worth looking at, and the book to look at for all the registers relating to Stepney Union Workhouse (Bromley House) is 'London Local Authority: Staines to Stepney' and the volume after that as well. This will tell you which books there are and what microfilm role to look at.

Rob

[Chris]

I did, but I would recommend somebody having another look as some of the writing is difficult to make out, also I could easily have missed anything important. They are at The London Metropolitan Archives and are on microfilm.
Sorry I can't remember the microfilm role number, I think it was X111/111. There are other registers worth looking at, and the book to look at for all the registers relating to Stepney Union Workhouse (Bromley House) is 'London Local Authority: Staines to Stepney' and the volume after that as well. This will tell you which books there are and what microfilm role to look at.

Thanks. The catalogue is also available at www.a2a.org.uk. I can't make a direct link, but it can be found by searching for "Stepney Board of Guardians" (without quotation marks), and clicking the first result and then "Catalogue in full".

[Observer]

I don't think that anyone has ever questioned the fact that it belonged to Swanson.

Merely emphasising that this isn't some article bought at a car boot sale.

Yes, but the main fading seems to have occurred between 1988 and 2000, if the photocopies of 1987 are anything to go by, in these the writing appears to be quite dark and clear. See the previous images posted.

How do you know that, and what do you mean by main fading? Not long ago you were berating the fact that the home office official had only made his analysis from looking at photo copies, now photo copies seem to be acceptable. When did you see the book? What was your initial impression of the faded annotation, that it had been written in the distant past, or that it was of a recent origin?

As we know the handwriting examiners give expert opinion, not fact, which is why they are often questioned. A proper full examination has never been made of the annotations in the Swanson book.

More's the pity.

The differences between the marginalia and endpaper notes should have been noted and come under proper scrutiny and testing in 1987 - they did not. Why didn't they?

I don't know, but it's plain to see from the above that you seem to think the reason they were not tested boils down to the fact that they were considered dodgy, when in fact it could well be that the opposite is the case, i.e. their provenance was considered impeccable.

Stating that 'when police officials mention criminals they invariably mention only their surname' is rather contradicted by Macnaghten's memoranda in which he mentions 'Thomas Cutbush, M. J. Druitt, Michael Ostrog and Thomas Sadler', which is why it is noteworthy that Kosminski's forename is omitted in both Macnaghten's memoranda and the Swanson notes.

From Macnaghtens memoranda

"have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:"

"The statement, too, that Cutbush 'spent a portion of the day in making rough drawings"

"it is said that a light overcoat was among the things found in Cutbush's house,"

Macnaghten only mentioned his full name at the begining of the memoranda, thereafter referring to him as Cutbush.

all the best

Observer

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks Rob and Chris.

A while back I was in contact with David Rich, an Archivist for the Bancroft Library. He said that the infirmary records to 1903 should be in these files:

St.B.G./Wh/123/xx, where xx is the book/file number which normally relates to a specific year. Also,
St.B.G./Wh/120/xx for 'Lunatics in Workhouses', and
St.B.G./Wh/118/xx for 'Lunatics and Idiots'

He emphasized that these files, above all else, should be searched.

For suspects who came under the Poplar Board of Guardians, the sick asylum was actually outside Poplar at Bromley (part of the Stepney Union Workhouse). It was apparently known as St. Andrew's Hospital. File PSSAD96holds the Admissions & Discharge records from 1886-1894.

[Jeff Leahy]

I
Yes, but the main fading seems to have occurred between 1988 and 2000, if the photocopies of 1987 are anything to go by, in these the writing appears to be quite dark and clear. See the previous images posted.

The differences between the marginalia and endpaper notes should have been noted and come under proper scrutiny and testing in 1987 - they did not. Why didn't they?

Fading only occurs during exposure to sunlight...as it had clearly nevre been opened by Swanson's Daughter..then regularly examined by 'YOU' guys the fading is only to be expected.

RE: Why did they not?

The benefit of hindsite is a marvelous thing.

[Stewart P Evans]

Proper Evaluation

How do you know that, and what do you mean by main fading? Not long ago you were berating the fact that the home office official had only made his analysis from looking at photo copies, now photo copies seem to be acceptable. When did you see the book? What was your initial impression of the faded annotation, that it had been written in the distant past, or that it was of a recent origin?
I don't know, but it's plain to see from the above that you seem to think the reason they were not tested boils down to the fact that they were considered dodgy, when in fact it could well be that the opposite is the case, i.e. their provenance was considered impeccable.
From Macnaghtens memoranda
"have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:"
"The statement, too, that Cutbush 'spent a portion of the day in making rough drawings"
"it is said that a light overcoat was among the things found in Cutbush's house,"
Macnaghten only mentioned his full name at the begining of the memoranda, thereafter referring to him as Cutbush.

I have made it patently clear that I did not see the annotations until a much later date. This has nothing to do with proper examination, it is to do with clarity and darkness and the difference is patently clear by comparison, they appear a lot darker in the 1987 photocopies than they do now, but obviously a photograph taken in 1987 would be better. When I looked at the writing it was very faded and it would be impossible to say when it was written. I do not pretend to be a document examiner.

I do not hazard a guess as to why they weren't properly examined in 1987, you would have to ask those involved. I certainly cannot give a reason and don't try to. Are you suggesting that what was done in 1987 was OK and there was no need for proper evaluation? The provenance of the book and the discovery of the annotations has to be assessed on the record that has been left. I have merely pointed out matters of concern, which any reasonable person, I would have thought, would agree with. The recent examination has proved the validity of the queries I raised. As I said, perhaps I should have kept quiet and said nothing but I assumed that any interested parties should have the full history and nature of the annotations. The provenance was deemed impeccable by the authors of the A-Z.

Regarding the forenames aspect, the first name of Kosminski is given nowhere.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry

Fading only occurs during exposure to sunlight...as it had clearly nevre been opened by Swanson's Daughter..then regularly examined by 'YOU' guys the fading is only to be expected.
RE: Why did they not?
The benefit of hindsite is a marvelous thing.

Sorry for raising valid concerns, next time I shall keep quiet about everything I see, perhaps you would like to do some first-hand research yourself - we'd get a proper job done then.

[Jeff Leahy]

shebang is a massive Red Herring.

Objection referee?...obusive langage

[Jeff Leahy]

Now you are putting words into my mouth !!!

I do not presume to know when, or by whom these notes were written. Swanson died in 1924; some 63-to-64 years before the Marginalia surfaced. We do not know the identities of every person that may have had access to Swanson's personal copy of Anderson's book, during this time-frame.
[/QUOTE]

Hi Colin

No you are wrong (my freind?)

If you are going to try and claim that the Marginalia is fake...

You are going to have to understand the time frames when anybody could have known about the Kosminski time frame..

And then forged that 'End note' into the book...

Obviously I have gone over this in detail again and agian..

And its provenance would appear true..

Perhaps we could ask Stewart to help?

In terms of the Marginalia time frames? After all it is only jim Swanson who could have forged the marginalia..

Money does not 'Realistically appear a motive..

How much time would Jim Swanson have had..to fake the marginalia?

Yours Jeff Playing Devils Advocate