Why Wasn't Hutchinson used to try to ID Kosminski?

[PaulB]

I have posted the evidence many times on here so I do not intend to post it over and over again as there is far too much detail to post in full here.

It is also to be found in lengthy chapters on Kosminski, and The Marginlia in my book Jack the Ripper-The real truth

Now I have put up I suggest you shut up and drop that supercillious arrogant attitude you have.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unfortunately, you haven’t put up, Trevor. All you have done is tell us where you have written down the same old stuff you've been repeating year in and year out, unheeding the explanations and answers given to you. An example of you not listening is the report you think I commissioned from Dr Totty. I didn't commission a report from Dr Totty, Dr Totty didn't provide me with a report, I didn't receive a report from Dr Totty, and I don't have a report from Dr Totty, and the full extent of my dealings with Dr Totty have been explained numerous times. You were told this and what did you do? You called me a liar. A liar! So maybe my attitude towards you is understandable. But the important thing here is the marginalia, an interesting and potentially important source document. In fact, in the eyes of many it is an important source document. Its autheticity is therefore of prime importance to anyone who cares about honesty, history, and this subject. It is not to be dismissed for no good reason. A few posts back (post 74) you wrote, ‘And the marginalia has not proved to have been conclusively penned by Swanson’.

Well, what would you consider to be conclusive proof? Indeed, do you consider that it is even possible to have conclusive proof?

Dr Davies concluded that there is 'very strong support' for the writing being Swanson's throughout. Let’s spell that out a little bit - Dr Davies’ professional assessment of the evidence very strongly supports the writing of the marginalia throughout to be that of Swanson.

What’s wrong with that, Trevor? Why doesn’t it satisfy you that the marginalia throughout was written by Swanson? Nowhere in your book or, as far as I know, on the message boards, do you lay out the things about the marginalia that Dr Davies hasn't considered or addressed that suggest to you that Swanson didn't write part or all of it. So, what is it that you think Dr Davies could have done or could do to enable him to upgrade (or otherwise) ‘very strong’ to ‘absolute’ certainty?

Why do you think Dr Davies assessment being 'very strong support' for the marginalia having been written by Swanson is less than satisfactory?

One of the things about conspiracists is that they are never satisfied with the evidence. We could have a photograph of Swanson writing the marginalia and a conspiracist would say the photograph was faked. We could have the photograph examined by an expert from Kodak and he could conclude that the evidence of his analysis was very strong support for the photo being genuine, and the conspiracist would argue that the lack of certainty called the authenticity of the photo in question. Even if every test conveived of God or man showed the photogaph to be geuine, the conspiracist would argue that that only goes to show how clever the faker has been. That's the problem we have here, Trevor; you write, 'the marginalia has not proved to have been conclusively penned by Swanson', but what would be conclusive proof for you? Is it something achievable, or will you, like the conspiracist, never be satisfied with the evidence?

In your book you point to a test that wasn’t done, namely a test on the graphite in the pencil lead to show whether it was Victorian or not. You do not tell us what test that is and as far as I know there isn't one, nor do I know whether it is even possible to date graphite to a specific century. Do you? You say the test could have been done, but wasn't. The implication is at best that those seeking to authenticate the marginalia were deficient in the tests they performed and at worst were holding back on a test.

So, no, you are not putting up, Trevor.

[PaulB]

There was also Aberline,who claimed there was no suspect,no evidence against anyone.He surely would have known.It is not the amount of information for an identification that is telling,but the lack of support for the little information that's put forward.All thats been claimed is a meeting took place.Officialy there are no details,no names given that can be verified.Seaside home means what? A home by the sea,or premises bearing the name Seaside.When did this identification take place? No one seems to know.Strange,for an event that is supposed to mean so much.Kosminski was the suspect.Was Swanson present at the meeting?How did he conjure up this name.The most important person at the meeting was the witness,yet of him we know nothing.Absolutely nothing.Why should that be.Can the believers enlighten us?

We don't know the ins and outs of many historical events, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen, and the reasons for many actions can seem unfathomable when we don't have the full facts. Knowing something happened doesn't always mean we know why, knowing doesn't always bring enlightenment. The 'believers' can't enlighten you, Harry, but that doesn't mean that theyare wrong to believe.

[PaulB]

But some provably were Baron. And ALL of them used deceit and secrecy as part of their normal day jobs. They (Monro) even kept secrets from some VIP's who had been specifically threatened by terrorist factions, unbeknownst to them. The only way I can reconcile so many different opinions from the senior men here is that some intentionally mislead the public though the press.

The trouble is, Michael, it's all speculation. I'm sure Anderson lied a lot, it was inherent in the sort of undercover work he did, but that doesn't mean he lied about the suspect. The same goes for Macnaghten and Swanson and anyone else one cares to mention. What we need and what we don't have is evidence that any of these people did anything other than express what they believed to be true. They may have been wrong, some have to have been, but liars?

[The Baron]

"not unlikely"....revenge on all women......what a crock.

Cox:

"The Jews in the street soon became aware of our presence. It was impossible to hide ourselves. They became suddenly alarmed, panic stricken, and I can tell you that at nights we ran a considerable risk. We carried our lives in our hands so to speak"


I am sure you wouldn't have done better.

But its easy now to say anything you want while sitting behind your PC and enjoying your coffee.


The Baron

[Sunny Delight]

The trouble is, Michael, it's all speculation. I'm sure Anderson lied a lot, it was inherent in the sort of undercover work he did, but that doesn't mean he lied about the suspect. The same goes for Macnaghten and Swanson and anyone else one cares to mention. What we need and what we don't have is evidence that any of these people did anything other than express what they believed to be true. They may have been wrong, some have to have been, but liars?

I am fairly convinced that the ID took place and that the Marginalia wa written by Swanson. The real question for me is whether or not Kosminski deserves to be seen as the perp so convincingly. A definitely ascertained fact. That to me was wishful thinking and an ego boost. Any ID was most likely also for personal gratification. As I say he is an interesting suspect or even person of interest. But then maybe we don't have the full facts.

[PaulB]

I am fairly convinced that the ID took place and that the Marginalia wa written by Swanson. The real question for me is whether or not Kosminski deserves to be seen as the perp so convincingly. A definitely ascertained fact. That to me was wishful thinking and an ego boost. Any ID was most likely also for personal gratification. As I say he is an interesting suspect or even person of interest. But then maybe we don't have the full facts.

Quite some time ago on Casebook there was a discussion on Casebook that 'definitely ascertained fact' pertained to the suspect being a Polish Jew, not to the suspect being the murderer. Anderson's sentence was, 'In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact'. Interestingly, this line was added to the book edition. When the earlier serialisation was published, Anderson was criticised for saying the murderer was a Jew, so it is possible that Anderson added the line to stress that in so describing the murderer he was stating an established fact. I thought the argument was quite persuasive. I wrote an alaysis of Anderson in Ripperologist some years ago. Goodness knows which issue. Whether or not I'd still agree with all of what I wrote though is open to question. I haven't read it since it was published.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am fairly convinced that the ID took place and that the Marginalia wa written by Swanson. The real question for me is whether or not Kosminski deserves to be seen as the perp so convincingly. A definitely ascertained fact. That to me was wishful thinking and an ego boost. Any ID was most likely also for personal gratification. As I say he is an interesting suspect or even person of interest. But then maybe we don't have the full facts.

Let me play Devils advocate here in this one example

Looking at the old accepted facts which many seek to rely on, the police have a prime suspect for the series of murders or perhaps just one murder. They have what they believe to be a prime witness so in order to try to identify the killer and subsequently secure a conviction they decide to conduct an ID parade.

Now in 1888 there were guidelines as to how ID parades were conducted these are set out below and are from the Police Codes

It is of the utmost importance that the identification of a person who may be charged with a criminal offence should be conducted in the fairest possible manner. (See
2. With this end in view the following procedure should be observed :

(a)	The officer in charge of the case against the prisoner, although present, should take no part in the particular proceedings connected with the identification, which should be carried out by the officer on duty in charge of the station or court.
(b)	The witnesses should not be allowed to see the accused before he is placed with others for the purpose of identification, nor should they be shown photographs of him or verbal or written descriptions.
(c)	The accused should be placed among a number of persons (not police)—eight or more, of similar age, height, general appearance, and class of life. He should be invited to stand where he pleases among them, and to change his position after each witness has been called in. He should be asked if he has any objection to any of the persons present, or the arrangements made, and, if he wishes, his solicitor or a friend actually in attendance may be allowed to be present.
(d)	The witnesses should be brought in one by one, and be directed to touch the person they identify. On leaving they should not be allowed to communicate with any other witness in waiting.
(e)	Every circumstance attending the identification should be carefully noted by the officer carrying it out, and whether the accused be identified or not, care being taken that when a witness fails to identify the fact should be as carefully recorded with name and address as in the contrary case—the object being that no subsequent allegation of unfairness can lie.
(f)	Any statement made by the person suspected must be recorded at once and read over to the officer in charge of the case in the presence of the prisoner, who should be invited to sign it. These codes of practice should have been strictly adhered to wherever the parade was to take place and I am sure the police would have known that because would they want to lose such an important case as a result of not confirming to the regulations No where do we see any evidence to corroborate what Swanson writes in the marginalia from any other police officer who would have been involved in that ID nor do we see any official records to corroborate Kosmsinki being put on an ID parade It has been suggested that the police adopted a direct confrontation well I cant find anything which allowed the police in 1888 to conduct such an ID procedure. if they did then it would have jeopordised their case and any chance of securing a conviction So all of this shows a big question mark hanging over this mythical ID parade. www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Unfortunately, you haven’t put up, Trevor. All you have done is tell us where you have written down the same old stuff you've been repeating year in and year out, unheeding the explanations and answers given to you. An example of you not listening is the report you think I commissioned from Dr Totty. I didn't commission a report from Dr Totty, Dr Totty didn't provide me with a report, I didn't receive a report from Dr Totty, and I don't have a report from Dr Totty, and the full extent of my dealings with Dr Totty have been explained numerous times. You were told this and what did you do? You called me a liar. A liar! So maybe my attitude towards you is understandable. But the important thing here is the marginalia, an interesting and potentially important source document. In fact, in the eyes of many it is an important source document. Its autheticity is therefore of prime importance to anyone who cares about honesty, history, and this subject. It is not to be dismissed for no good reason. A few posts back (post 74) you wrote, ‘And the marginalia has not proved to have been conclusively penned by Swanson’.

Well, what would you consider to be conclusive proof? Indeed, do you consider that it is even possible to have conclusive proof?

Dr Davies concluded that there is 'very strong support' for the writing being Swanson's throughout. Let’s spell that out a little bit - Dr Davies’ professional assessment of the evidence very strongly supports the writing of the marginalia throughout to be that of Swanson.

What’s wrong with that, Trevor? Why doesn’t it satisfy you that the marginalia throughout was written by Swanson? Nowhere in your book or, as far as I know, on the message boards, do you lay out the things about the marginalia that Dr Davies hasn't considered or addressed that suggest to you that Swanson didn't write part or all of it. So, what is it that you think Dr Davies could have done or could do to enable him to upgrade (or otherwise) ‘very strong’ to ‘absolute’ certainty?

Why do you think Dr Davies assessment being 'very strong support' for the marginalia having been written by Swanson is less than satisfactory?

One of the things about conspiracists is that they are never satisfied with the evidence. We could have a photograph of Swanson writing the marginalia and a conspiracist would say the photograph was faked. We could have the photograph examined by an expert from Kodak and he could conclude that the evidence of his analysis was very strong support for the photo being genuine, and the conspiracist would argue that the lack of certainty called the authenticity of the photo in question. Even if every test conveived of God or man showed the photogaph to be geuine, the conspiracist would argue that that only goes to show how clever the faker has been. That's the problem we have here, Trevor; you write, 'the marginalia has not proved to have been conclusively penned by Swanson', but what would be conclusive proof for you? Is it something achievable, or will you, like the conspiracist, never be satisfied with the evidence?

In your book you point to a test that wasn’t done, namely a test on the graphite in the pencil lead to show whether it was Victorian or not. You do not tell us what test that is and as far as I know there isn't one, nor do I know whether it is even possible to date graphite to a specific century. Do you? You say the test could have been done, but wasn't. The implication is at best that those seeking to authenticate the marginalia were deficient in the tests they performed and at worst were holding back on a test.

So, no, you are not putting up, Trevor.

i admire your patience Paul, but if Shiva came down from heaven and told trevy and the tin hat conspiracists the marginalia was authentic they still wouldnt beleive it lol.

[Trevor Marriott]

Unfortunately, you haven’t put up, Trevor. All you have done is tell us where you have written down the same old stuff you've been repeating year in and year out, unheeding the explanations and answers given to you. An example of you not listening is the report you think I commissioned from Dr Totty. I didn't commission a report from Dr Totty, Dr Totty didn't provide me with a report, I didn't receive a report from Dr Totty, and I don't have a report from Dr Totty, and the full extent of my dealings with Dr Totty have been explained numerous times. You were told this and what did you do? You called me a liar. A liar! So maybe my attitude towards you is understandable. But the important thing here is the marginalia, an interesting and potentially important source document. In fact, in the eyes of many it is an important source document. Its autheticity is therefore of prime importance to anyone who cares about honesty, history, and this subject. It is not to be dismissed for no good reason. A few posts back (post 74) you wrote, ‘And the marginalia has not proved to have been conclusively penned by Swanson’.

Well, what would you consider to be conclusive proof? Indeed, do you consider that it is even possible to have conclusive proof?

Dr Davies concluded that there is 'very strong support' for the writing being Swanson's throughout. Let’s spell that out a little bit - Dr Davies’ professional assessment of the evidence very strongly supports the writing of the marginalia throughout to be that of Swanson.

What’s wrong with that, Trevor? Why doesn’t it satisfy you that the marginalia throughout was written by Swanson? Nowhere in your book or, as far as I know, on the message boards, do you lay out the things about the marginalia that Dr Davies hasn't considered or addressed that suggest to you that Swanson didn't write part or all of it. So, what is it that you think Dr Davies could have done or could do to enable him to upgrade (or otherwise) ‘very strong’ to ‘absolute’ certainty?

Why do you think Dr Davies assessment being 'very strong support' for the marginalia having been written by Swanson is less than satisfactory?

One of the things about conspiracists is that they are never satisfied with the evidence. We could have a photograph of Swanson writing the marginalia and a conspiracist would say the photograph was faked. We could have the photograph examined by an expert from Kodak and he could conclude that the evidence of his analysis was very strong support for the photo being genuine, and the conspiracist would argue that the lack of certainty called the authenticity of the photo in question. Even if every test conveived of God or man showed the photogaph to be geuine, the conspiracist would argue that that only goes to show how clever the faker has been. That's the problem we have here, Trevor; you write, 'the marginalia has not proved to have been conclusively penned by Swanson', but what would be conclusive proof for you? Is it something achievable, or will you, like the conspiracist, never be satisfied with the evidence?

In your book you point to a test that wasn’t done, namely a test on the graphite in the pencil lead to show whether it was Victorian or not. You do not tell us what test that is and as far as I know there isn't one, nor do I know whether it is even possible to date graphite to a specific century. Do you? You say the test could have been done, but wasn't. The implication is at best that those seeking to authenticate the marginalia were deficient in the tests they performed and at worst were holding back on a test.

So, no, you are not putting up, Trevor.

Dr Davies report is not conclusive and cannot relied upon to be so no matter how much you want it to be conclusive, so other facts and evidence has to be looked at to prove or disprove the accuracy and truthfulness of what is contained in the marginalia.

This whole issue is not just about Dr Davies report it is looking at all the connecting facts and evidence surrounding the suspect, and the alleged police actions which when collectively analysed raises a serious question mark over the marginalia and its content, and when it was written, because from a police, practical, and evidential perspective none of it stands up to close scrutiny, So that brings a big question mark over the marginalia.

The content of the marginalia can easily be dismissed as unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

i admire your patience Paul, but if Shiva came down from heaven and told trevy and the tin hat conspiracists the marginalia was authentic they still wouldnt beleive it lol.

Is it patience or stupidity? I really don't care what Trevor thinks and I'm not bothered whether the marginalia is authentic or not, but until such time as it is shown to be a fake, it stands as an important historical source, in one way or another one of this subject's most important historical sources, and to say it should be 'dismissed as unsafe' is crass and stupid to the point of being moronic. It's scary that some people actually believe that, especially when Trevor can't come close to demonstrating why.

[Trevor Marriott]

Is it patience or stupidity? I really don't care what Trevor thinks and I'm not bothered whether the marginalia is authentic or not, but until such time as it is shown to be a fake, it stands as an important historical source, in one way or another one of this subject's most important historical sources, and to say it should be 'dismissed as unsafe' is crass and stupid to the point of being moronic. It's scary that some people actually believe that, especially when Trevor can't come close to demonstrating why.

Read my last reply to you and then read the full chapters on the marginalia, and in particular the chapter on Kosminski then you will hopefully see why the marginalia is unsafe, and why people and not just me question its authenticity and the accuracy of the content. But I doubt you will relent, but I admire you for trying to defend your position, a position which is clearly becoming untenable for you with each post.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

If the marginalia is fake, you have to wonder for what purpose it was created. Practical joke? Hopefully to be sold for a profit?

Anybody else want to way in on a possible motive?

c.d.

[PaulB]

Dr Davies report is not conclusive and cannot relied upon to be so no matter how much you want it to be conclusive, so other facts and evidence has to be looked at to prove or disprove the accuracy and truthfulness of what is contained in the marginalia.

This whole issue is not just about Dr Davies report it is looking at all the connecting facts and evidence surrounding the suspect, and the alleged police actions which when collectively analysed raises a serious question mark over the marginalia and its content, and when it was written, because from a police, practical, and evidential perspective none of it stands up to close scrutiny, So that brings a big question mark over the marginalia.

The content of the marginalia can easily be dismissed as unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I didn't say that Dr Davies' report was conclusive. Nobody said it was conclusive. Why are you saying it's not conclusive when nobody said it was?

what I said was that Dr Davies concluded there was 'very strong support' for it having been written in its entirety by Donald Swanson. I also understand that that is about as close to conclusive as any professional like Dr Davies is likely to get. I acknowledged that it wasn't 100%, but I asked what percentage of probability would be acceptable to you.

Typically, you didn't answer.

I am well aware that the 'whole issue is not just about Dr Davies report', but Dr Davies' report is a good place to start. So, to get back to the question, Dr Davies' concluded that his analysys is that there is 'very strong support' for the marginalia having been written in its entirety by Swanson. What is it abut that conclusion that you don't accept? I mean, he's effectively saying that Swanson did write those marginal notes, yet you conclude that the marginalia can 'be dismissed as unsafe'! Such a conclusion borders on bizarre. I mean, here we have a document almost unequestionably written by an experienced policeman, someone who was there, someone who probably participated in part or all of that he describes, and you think it can 'be dismissed as unsafe'.

So, Trevor, again, what is it about Dr Davies' report that you don't like? Let's say he's 99% certain the marginalia is authentic, or even 90%; isn't that good enough for you? If not, why not? Let's say Dr Davies is as certain as any careful and cautious professional would and should be. Why isn't that acceptable to you? You're not a handwriting expert, you say so in your book, so what makes you think Dr Davies got it wrong?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If the marginalia is fake, you have to wonder for what purpose it was created. Practical joke? Hopefully to be sold for a profit?

Anybody else want to way in on a possible motive?

c.d.

Go on then. I'll have...Swanson wanted to write a book revealing the killers true identity, but was embarrassed about only being able to write in purple crayon.

[PaulB]

Read my last reply to you and then read the full chapters on the marginalia, and in particular the chapter on Kosminski then you will hopefully see why the marginalia is unsafe, and why people and not just me question its authenticity and the accuracy of the content. But I doubt you will relent, but I admire you for trying to defend your position, a position which is clearly becoming untenable for you with each post.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have obvously lost your grip on reality.