Private sale

[Stewart P Evans]

'Potentially suspicious'

...
We are all interested in the genuineness of source material and the quality of the source material used in various theories. I'm afraid that in your case there seems to be only your own (and apparently a very few others) interpretation of what you regard as suspicious, such as an alternative name being used (I do hope that doesn't start another lengthy debate on this theory as this is not the place for it).
Potentially suspicious, would be my choice of words. And I don´t ascribe much to how many out here it is that agree with me, since I have a sneaking suspicion that many people will safeguard what marries best with their own thinking.
...
Fisherman[/B]

I guess that anyone might be 'potentially suspicious', are you sure that you mean that? I thought you actually regarded him as suspicious and, therefore, potentially the Ripper.

You don't worry too much to how many people agree with you as you have a 'sneaking suspicion' that others will stick with the theories that suit their own ideas best? Well, you are right on that one, but that is true with regard to many, apart for those wonderful objective individuals who have no suspect preference, God bless them.

[Ally]

Wrong, I´d say. I said wrong, I´d say. That means that I think it is wrong. As a matter of fact, very much of what you say and write seems very wrong to me.

All the best,
Fisherman

And very much of what you say actually is wrong and can be verified by facts. So let's see the difference. You "think" I am wrong, but can provide no actual evidence. I know you are wrong and provide evidence in the form of definitions, evidence, etc.

Whose opinion is actually more valid? The man who just pulls crap out of nowhere and decides it's fact or the person who provides evidence to back up their opinion.

I know who I am going with, the rest of you can vote as you like.

[Stewart P Evans]

Such is life

...
I should, perhaps, add here a little about my own position. I have been interested in the case for the past fifty two years, which is longer than some on these boards have been in the world. In 1965 my favoured suspect was Druitt (thanks to Cullen), and by the late 1980s it was 'Kosminski', (thanks to Messrs Begg and Fido). In 1993 I acquired the Littlechild letter which made it necessary for me to write my own book (published in 1995). I was reluctant to write a suspect based book but I really had no choice. I was also reluctant to include a chapter in that book dismissing other suspects, but I lost the argument on that one. After the paperback and TV documentary on Tumblety came out in 1996 I ceased any active research on Tumblety and left it to others interested in him. And I was realistic enough to know that he couldn't be proved to be the Ripper, nor was there any hard evidence.

Post 1996 I moved back into objective work on the case, as witness my subsequent publications. I am silly enough to sometimes be drawn into 'debates' about Tumblety, not arguing that he was Jack the Ripper (which could never be proven with regard to any suspect), but in answer to some ridiculous suggestions that he wasn't even a suspect. Some of the objective and relevant research and writing I have done since has involved a deep study of Sir Robert Anderson, upon whom some of the strongest suspect theorizing is based. I could not agree with writers who suggested that Anderson was some sort of paragon of virtue who simply would not lie or prevaricate in his published books (I proved that he did).

What I find typical for the ripper world here is the Tumblety business - I have no trouble seeing what your stance on the man is, but that won´t help - you are going to be painted out as a firm believer in his guilt anyway. But this you know already. It is, however, a shame that things work like this - I am constantly being goaded for having changed my mind on Stride - all other comparisons aside.
...
Fisherman[/B]

I am on record with regard to Tumblety, he was a genuine 1888 suspect who was unknown in Ripperworld before 1995 when my book was published. If you understand my position in this regard then I truly appreciate it.

I will simply add that I am not 'a firm believer in his guilt' and I'd be a fool if I was. And, despite all the objective work I have done since 1996, including transcribing all the official records, I am still presumed to believe that he was the Ripper. Such is life. In this mad, mad, Ripperworld we should not be upset by narrow minded goads (if they are unjustified) and we have to learn to have opinions (subject to modification) rather that set beliefs.

[Fisherman]

Stewart P Evans:

Okay, so you didn't know that it was in your interest (or in the interest of anyone with a different 'suspect') to question the status of other (opposing) theories. In attacking the 'marginalia' you inevitably attack ...

Question! I question it.

... possibly the main basis upon which the Kosminski theory is built.

Hmm. Of course, the marginalia is important to the Kosminski theory. But not to the Polish jew theory. And the latter does not go away with the name. So whatever threat it is supposed to be to the Lechmere theory remains the exact same, but for the name.

You undoubtedly are 'more interested in promoting Lechmere and the things [you see as] pointing to him, than in trying to dispel what points to other suspects'. But, the fact is that, despite this, it is still in your interest to weaken the status of the Polish Jew suspect. Surely that is obvious.

In my interest? I guess it could be put forward that this is so. But when you have a suspect, then by implication this suspect is more credible to be correct than all the others. And it therefore applies that you think yourself is correct while the others are wrong.

Does that mean that one actively has to seek to weaken other people´s suspects? No, not if you can make a fair enough case for your own man. Then the other cases will crumble accordingly with no other input than the one speaking for your suspect.

As a suspectologist, though, you are forced into the role of somebody who has an agenda with everything you say and do and think. And understandably so. As long as one keeps in mind that a reverse agenda comes into play when people criticize you, that´s fine.

My arguments against Anderson are well known and are factually backed up. If I intend to cast doubt on the work of others I have said so, and I am on record as disagreeing with the likes of Paul and Martin when I do not think they have valid arguments. This is how theorists and authors go about things. And these are often arguments about interpretation and opinion. Where facts exist they cannot be logically dismissed. And when Martin, supported by Paul, suggested that Anderson would not lie in a published book I set about finding evidence to the contrary, which I did.

I´m sure that you strive for factuality. But let´s - for theories sake - say that you were not Stewart Evans, the well-known author and Ripper expert, but instead 22 year-old Stu Evans, new to the boards and promoting Tumblety as your suspect.
If you were to move on to criticizing Anderson from such a vantage point, you´d be sure to hear from others that your "attack" was agendadriven.
Take it from me - I know a lot about that ...

The doubt that you seek to cast on the work of others goes a step further. For it involves dismissing the opinions of others, like me, who are in a position to give an informed opinion, to insinuate that some fakery has taken place (for which there is no evidence) and thus cast aspersions on the Swanson family, and, best of all, to cast doubt on the work of a professional document examiner with credentials in the field.

Only if you perceive what I want as an "attack" on these people. If you instead accept when I say that I´m sure that everybody in the crowd has done their best, but that the outcome has left us with a number of oddities and anomalies that ask for an explanation, you will be left with something entirely different.

Too much safeguarding of people´s positions in the hacking order come into play at times. At least, that is what I find. If we were to list ripperologists by the years they have been in the trade and the number of books they have written, then we would always and inevitably end up with yourself having the final say in every errand.

Who is there to compete with you in these respects? None!

At the end of the day, it is of course an absurd, theoretical construction; we cannot go about things in this way, because that would put an end to any other thinking and ideas than yours.

This is not to say that you would not deserve the position, if it had been there. On the contrary, if anybody DOES deserve it, it is you.

But you are sometimes wrong where others are right. We all are. You sometimes draw the wrong conclusions where others draw the right ones. We all do.

Therefore, much as I see sense in listening to authorities, I sometimes choose not to do so. And therefore, much as I acknowledge that the people involved in the marginalia research business are all very competent people (I don´t know about Davies, since I am not qualified to have much of an opinion on his area of expertise, but I assume that he is qualified enough), I reserve the right to have an opinion of my own. And that opinion is that it cannot be wrong or harmful to try and delve deeper into the areas under discussion.

And that really should be anything but controversial.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. I´m logging off for some time now, since I´ve got lots of other things to do, but I´ll check in later and try to find the time to answer whatever questions are asked.

[Robert]

"Fisherman" and "Fishman" are, of course, similar but not identical.

[Ally]

I would argue that they meet the definition of "exactly similar" as proposed by Fishman. Therefore, it is clearly acceptable to continue to refer to Fishman as Fishman.

[Stewart P Evans]

The 'Marginalia'

...
Hmm. Of course, the marginalia is important to the Kosminski theory. But not to the Polish jew theory. And the latter does not go away with the name. So whatever threat it is supposed to be to the Lechmere theory remains the exact same, but for the name.
...
In my interest? I guess it could be put forward that this is so. But when you have a suspect, then by implication this suspect is more credible to be correct than all the others. And it therefore applies that you think yourself is correct while the others are wrong.
Does that mean that one actively has to seek to weaken other people´s suspects? No, not if you can make a fair enough case for your own man. Then the other cases will crumble accordingly with no other input than the one speaking for your suspect.
As a suspectologist, though, you are forced into the role of somebody who has an agenda with everything you say and do and think. And understandably so. As long as one keeps in mind that a reverse agenda comes into play when people criticize you, that´s fine.
...
I´m sure that you strive for factuality. But let´s - for theories sake - say that you were not Stewart Evans, the well-known author and Ripper expert, but instead 22 year-old Stu Evans, new to the boards and promoting Tumblety as your suspect.
If you were to move on to criticizing Anderson from such a vantage point, you´d be sure to hear from others that your "attack" was agendadriven.
Take it from me - I know a lot about that ...
The doubt that you seek to cast on the work of others goes a step further. For it involves dismissing the opinions of others, like me, who are in a position to give an informed opinion, to insinuate that some fakery has taken place (for which there is no evidence) and thus cast aspersions on the Swanson family, and, best of all, to cast doubt on the work of a professional document examiner with credentials in the field.
Only if you perceive what I want as an "attack" on these people. If you instead accept when I say that I´m sure that everybody in the crowd has done their best, but that the outcome has left us with a number of oddities and anomalies that ask for an explanation, you will be left with something entirely different.
Too much safeguarding of people´s positions in the hacking order come into play at times. At least, that is what I find. If we were to list ripperologists by the years they have been in the trade and the number of books they have written, then we would always and inevitably end up with yourself having the final say in every errand.
Who is there to compete with you in these respects? None!
At the end of the day, it is of course an absurd, theoretical construction; we cannot go about things in this way, because that would put an end to any other thinking and ideas than yours.
This is not to say that you would not deserve the position, if it had been there. On the contrary, if anybody DOES deserve it, it is you.
But you are sometimes wrong where others are right. We all are. You sometimes draw the wrong conclusions where others draw the right ones. We all do.
Therefore, much as I see sense in listening to authorities, I sometimes choose not to do so. And therefore, much as I acknowledge that the people involved in the marginalia research business are all very competent people (I don´t know about Davies, since I am not qualified to have much of an opinion on his area of expertise, but I assume that he is qualified enough), I reserve the right to have an opinion of my own. And that opinion is that it cannot be wrong or harmful to try and delve deeper into the areas under discussion.
And that really should be anything but controversial.
All the best,
Fisherman
...

But the 'marginalia' is important to the Polish Jew theory. For it, in the main, supports what Anderson wrote in his book, and is written by the officer who was in overall charge of the case.

Martin's suspect isn't Kosminski, but he still champions Anderson realizing how important the support of Swanson is. As regards 'Kosminski' I would argue that Macnaghten's memorandum, actually naming Kosminski as a 'strong' police suspect, is just as important, or, perhaps, even more important. No alternative theory or suspect is going to make any other theory or suspect go away. The simple fact being that no matter what the theory, no matter who the suspect is, none has any hard evidence to back it up and can therefore be dismissed by someone proposing another 'suspect', such as yourself.

I seriously doubt that every author proposing a suspect in a book actually believes that 'his' suspect is necessarily the most credible (but that's another debate, and too involved to go into here). However 'fair enough' the case that you make for your own suspect is, there is no way it is going to make 'the other cases crumble'.

'Suspectologist' is an odd word to use. I would take that to mean, literally, someone who studies suspects, not someone who has a particular suspect. Perhaps you are a 'Lechmereologist'. Of course anyone writing a book about a suspect has to be selective and rather less than objective. It really cannot be avoided. And I think that most sensible readers realize that.

Oh to be a 22 year-old 'Stu' Evans again. Sod Ripperology, give me that! And with the knowledge I have now please. By the way, don't call me 'expert' it's a title that is really hard to live up to and no one knows everything there is to know about any particular subject. Anyway, I have often been told (and still am) that my 'attacks' are agenda driven.

Opinions are there to be contested, and my opinions are no different. You've only got to look at past posts to see that. It is why I usually try to stick with historical facts which cannot be argued with (although they may be disputed as to meaning and interpretation). But this questioning of the Swanson material goes beyond that and is demonstrably misplaced.

What you describe as 'oddities' and 'anomalies' exist with many accepted historical documents but the time comes when you should accept the main authoritative opinion. Tests and examinations could go on for years and still result in an impasse. And who pays for all these very expensive tests and examinations - you? Indeed, should it not fall to the tiny minority of doubters, like you, to address and sort the problem (that you perceive) yourselves? Here's an idea, why don't you all club together and try and purchase the book yourselves?

What I have done is to give my informed opinion and advice. Now my opinion and advice can be dismissed by anyone who wishes to consign it to the bin. But I give it here with a sense of fair play and a wish to stop the casting of aspersions. Can you not see that on the basis of past argument it would be in my interest to allege that the 'marginalia' was a fake, if I thought it was. Surely that must strengthen my conclusion that it is genuine.

There are plenty of people to compete with me, as we see whenever I join debates. That's fine, my opinions are not cast in stone. But they usually are informed. No one seeks to put an end to anyone else's thinking, and, surely, no one carries that much clout. Certainly I don't. I am the first to admit that I make mistakes, damn, it would be great if I didn't.

It would be nice to see and end to all the venom that has appeared on this thread and, perhaps, all that can be said, has been said, and it's time to draw stumps (sorry for the cricket analogy).

[Phil Carter]

But in all this glorious silliness, the one thing I find seriously frightening is that a man like you should ever have been entrusted with criminal investigation in a professional capacity.

Chris,

This is getting way out of order now.

I am disappointed that this ceaseless, excessive hounding of Trevor Marriott is coming from you, of all people.

Give it a rest, please Chris. It is showing you up more than the intended "victim"..Trevor.

"Oh dear" from Stewart just isn't enough in my lowly opinion. Sorry Chris.

Enough is enough.



Phil

[Chris]

This is getting way out of order now.

Did someone make you a moderator?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

No, someone made me an observer, with a right to opine, politely...which is why I used the word "please"... Especially on this particular day.


Phil

[Chris]

Phil

Thanks for being respectful.

[Ally]

Morality. So fascinating. From certain quarters there is no condemntion for someone who openly admits to lying to achieve their aims and also has been blatantly shown to be thief of other's property -- and not a word is spoken.

Dare to state that those qualifications makes one fearful for them being employed in the capacity of an officer of the law and suddenly that behavior is beyond the bounds!

I really don't get it. Someone explain it to me.

Stealing other people's property, lying and deceiving people to get what you want is a-okay. Condemning someone for doing those things is abhorrent.

Really, I need an actual definition that makes sense because I am beyond baffled.

[Jenni Shelden]

There are 612000 hits on Google on "exactly similar". There is an ongoing discussion what one may say and what one may not say. And language changes over time. Technically, though, you are probably right - similar does not mean "exactly alike".

Hey Fishman,

your point re Google makes no sense

consider that there are
95,500,000 hits for daft smart
21,100,00 for fishing rabbit
648,000 for hibernating folder
372, 000 aardvark roadworks
3, 000, 000arm wrestling pjyamas
213, 000, 000 wilderness forest
767, 000, 000 cold hot
areoplane mustard returns 5, 330, 000

Its just words people have said, maybe they were arguing with people who though something could be exactly similiar!

Jenni

[Ally]

Hello Chris,


Yup, the family can do what they like.

But whatever they like also means that they get whatever fallback that follows. INCLUDING family reputation.


Phil

I would like to go through and point to this above post by Phil Carter who is currently chastizing someone else for "hounding". So in this case, it's perfectly all right to criticize the SWANSON FAMILY because they have to accept that as part and parcel of the deal.

The Swanson family, who has yet to have been proven to do a single thing wrong must continue to accept (for years) whatever fallback the Ripper community decides to bestow.

But Trevor marriott, who has been PROVEN to be a liar and a plagiarist, to say anything about it, is low? He doesn't have to accept the fallback for that behavior??

Someone, explain the difference to me??

[The Good Michael]

Morality. So fascinating. From certain quarters there is no condemntion for someone who openly admits to lying to achieve their aims and also has been blatantly shown to be thief of other's property -- and not a word is spoken.

Those quarters ain't worth a nickel either. Let's face it. They are complete a*holes who just make shite up. When spades are called spades, they lie, pretend, feign innocence, and then comes the indignant outrage. Screw them. Thankfully, we have Chris and Monty and a few others who don't deal in BS.

Mike