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.

[Michael W Richards]

Harry Cox:

"We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes.

To understand the reason we must first of all understand the motive of the Whitechapel crimes. The motive was, there can not be the slightest doubt, revenge. Not merely revenge on the few poor unfortunate victims of the knife, but revenge on womankind. It was not a lust for blood, as many people have imagined."


-He had great hatred of women, specially the prostitute class. Macnaghten


The Baron

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

[Michael W Richards]

I may doubt that Jack the Ripper killed Eddows, or that he killed Kelly.

But never doubt that Kosminski was a strong police suspect who got identified by a fellow jew witness.

Of course in such world where we find some people who believe the Mybrick Diary is authentic, it is normal to find some who say that the head officers of the Whitechapel murders investigations were just liars.


The Baron

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.

[harry]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

Kosminski does tick a few boxes to make him a very interesting person in regards the Ripper murders. He lived locally and would have known the layout well, his family were tailors so certainly well off(for AK man subscribers), in 1889 he was mentally capable enough to appear in court- his deterioration mentally occurs mid 1890, Swanson names him as someone identified by a witness, McNaghten named him as a person with strong homicidal tendancies and hatred towards women and Prostitutes, he took a knife and threatened his sisters life. Here we have a man of true interest but there is no smoking gun. However of all those who served on the case Walter Dew I feel was the most honest and authoritive. He never even mentioned him........

Nor do any of the other officers who were actively involved. So we have a man named Kosminski with no Christian name, who could be anybody, who is first mentioned by Macnaghten, then exonerated by him at a later date. A man who is a prime suspect yet no one else mentions him by his full name, or as a suspect, and Swanson is the only other person to mention him at all in connection with a dubious ID parade

Then we have Macnaghten who was Swansons immediate superior who mentions nothing about any ID parade involving the man he has exonerated. Is it any wonder all of this business with Kosminski and the marginalis is questionable

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

That might have been your remit, but you not proving or disproving anything. You're just repeating the same things. People can go and look. If you had preented any evidence in support of what you keep on asserting, I assume you'd have presented it by now. But you haven't, so I guess you don't have any. If anyone wants to see the facts, they're all there in the Ripperologist article by Adam and Keith that Al has so generously mentioned. The balls in your court, so put up or shut up. And please just give facts, not your usual rhetoric.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sunny Delight]

Kosminski does tick a few boxes to make him a very interesting person in regards the Ripper murders. He lived locally and would have known the layout well, his family were tailors so certainly well off(for AK man subscribers), in 1889 he was mentally capable enough to appear in court- his deterioration mentally occurs mid 1890, Swanson names him as someone identified by a witness, McNaghten named him as a person with strong homicidal tendancies and hatred towards women and Prostitutes, he took a knife and threatened his sisters life. Here we have a man of true interest but there is no smoking gun. However of all those who served on the case Walter Dew I feel was the most honest and authoritive. He never even mentioned him........

[The Baron]

Harry Cox:

"We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes.

To understand the reason we must first of all understand the motive of the Whitechapel crimes. The motive was, there can not be the slightest doubt, revenge. Not merely revenge on the few poor unfortunate victims of the knife, but revenge on womankind. It was not a lust for blood, as many people have imagined."


-He had great hatred of women, specially the prostitute class. Macnaghten


The Baron

[Simon Wood]

As a matter of fact I did, but it was fruitless. I also followed up on Martin Fido's research, and he was right. The only Kosminski to enter the asylum system did not do so until Aaron Kosminski, a Polish Jew, was committed to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum on 7th February 1891, two months before Big Mac took notice of a second person to be added to his list of Ripper suspects.

The Seaside Home ID is purely for the gullible.

Have fun.

Simon

[The Baron]

Except that you are referring to Aaron, whom you dont know where he did live during the house to house inquiries been made.

Do you have a definite proof that the Kosminski mentioned by Swanson and Macnaghten was Aaron?!

Let me guess, you didn't do any private Asylums research


Your move.

The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Except that Kosminski didn't live in the area where the house-to-house inquiries were made.

Your move.

[The Baron]

The police were issued notebooks for house to house inquiries, in which, of course, they would list all the investigations made. During the October house to house inquiries they investigated 'the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret.


And thats when they found Kosminski.


The Baron

[The Baron]

I may doubt that Jack the Ripper killed Eddows, or that he killed Kelly.

But never doubt that Kosminski was a strong police suspect who got identified by a fellow jew witness.

Of course in such world where we find some people who believe the Mybrick Diary is authentic, it is normal to find some who say that the head officers of the Whitechapel murders investigations were just liars.


The Baron

[PaulB]

It's not me personally wanting it to not be authentic its all the facts that surround the marginalia and incorporates Kosminski as a suspect, and all the facts surrounding the ID parade put all the minus point together and you have one hell of a problem in stating that the marginalia is authentic in part or in full, and the contents are a true and accurate record of events that happened as described. There are more holes in the story than there are in a cullender

My remit from day one all those years ago was to prove or disprove the old accepted facts.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That might have been your remit, but you not proving or disproving anything. You're just repeating the same things. People can go and look. If you had preented any evidence in support of what you keep on asserting, I assume you'd have presented it by now. But you haven't, so I guess you don't have any. If anyone wants to see the facts, they're all there in the Ripperologist article by Adam and Keith that Al has so generously mentioned. The balls in your court, so put up or shut up. And please just give facts, not your usual rhetoric.

[PaulB]

I meant to say it was Adams article in Ripperologist that shed an interesting light on things. The podcasts are good too, but I highly recommend the article first, in case anyone might have missed it.

Ripperologist - It's a free, PDF format magazine emailed directly every (insert rough publication schedule here), featuring quality articles by leading authors and researchers, all skillfully edited and tastefully presented. Get your copy now!

(Paul, when do I get that tenner?)

I'll ask Adam to get onto Accounts pdq.