Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Alfie 10 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Sherlock Houses 26 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by RockySullivan 31 minutes ago.
Research Related: Henry Kelly - by Paddy 1 hour and 16 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Busy Beaver 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (32 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (23 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (15 posts)
Research Related: Henry Kelly - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: Walter Dew's account...... - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > Macnaghten, Sir Melville

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #301  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:25 AM
Jeff Leahy Jeff Leahy is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East end-kent
Posts: 3,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Hello Paul,

Without engaging in endless verbal jousting over the Seaside Home comment, for which neither of us will move from our interpretations it seems, and for some would only lead to a never ending tiresome debate, I would like to politely comment on the following...and leave it at that. I hope that is acceptable.

My position is not to prove nor disprove anything, but to try to show doubt and reasonable doubt of the matter. This I believe I have done in many ways, you have the right to believe otherwise, as have you in answering. I am not expecting, nor I am trying, to solve anything. It is for others to weigh up what they see, read and think, and for them to decide.

In stating my posiition, you will note that at no time have I used personal comment directed at your style of reasoning, have not offered my opinion of your manner of debate, and have not questioned at any time what I term your degree of common sense is nor logic, nor have I questioned your experience, in any way. For some, in debate, that "just ain't done" either. That is my view. Other individuals decide for themselves on the matter, and not for me to tell them what is "done" and isn't.

Neither have I engaged on the Swanson personality, family beliefs nor actions. I have not entered into questioning any failing memory or suchlike.

If I deem the term "worthless" to be appropriate, so be it. If you do not like it, or are offended by it, the offence is noted and the dislike noted, and of course, the reply is that any unintentional offence is not personal. If you deem the term inappropriate, then so be it. On that basis I accept your thoughts on the matter as of a contrary opinion to my own. If you have a problem with my terminology, I cannot force you to approve of it, and would not even suggest it either.

However, telling me that I cannot use the term "worthless" is not, I view, your call. You can offer your opinion about the terminology, but I will continue to use whatever words I deem appropriate. What I judge to be of little or no value, is MY concern. Fernando Torres cost Chelsea 50million. Many many football lovers would say he is "useless". You hear that in everyday speech often. Clearly, the man is not "useless", in the general sense, as he is, in fact, a highly gifted football player having reached the pinnacle of his art through winning the greatest prize for any footballer o this planet. He is a World Cup winner. But he is still deemd "useless" in context of what people think of him. That is their right. As is mine. You have the right to disagree with the terminology, but cannot tell me I cannot use it, based on your interpretation of how a person uses the English Language. We live with what people deem to be worthless, useless and any other term they wish to use about something every day, and as long as it doesn't affect me personally, so what? The world isn't going to fall apart. Let them say it if they wish to. I might not agree, but...it doesn't matter whether I do or I don't. I have no need to force my opinion, but reserve the right to give it. There is a difference.

I deem the marginalia worthless on the basis that after careful thought, and weighing up all the pro's and cons, the problems it leads to are too many to accept it as correct in relation to other comments of supposedly equal footing. If Swanson wrote this out of his own beliefs, (and that bas also been questioned, for it CAN be that he is expanding upon Anderson's own writings and detailing Anderson's thoughts on the matter) we do not know- then he has been plainly contradictory to earlier comment. He is contradicting many others and their comments. Including himself. I have no need to list them again.

I do not "dimiss" this marginalia because it is "awkward". Those are your words and a wrong interpretation of my thoughts on the matter. I "dismiss", (your terminology), because I find it to be far too contradictory and with far too much weight put on to Swanson's annotations. The comments from other policemen, equally involved in the case, do, in my, and clearly other people's opinions, outweigh Swanson's. Perhaps for differing reasons, like Jonathan's for example.

I will not list and go through all of these counter comments from all the other policemen. We all know them. Or they can be looked up elsewhere. I cannot see the point in debating just to win the debate, and have had no intention of "winning" any debate either. I take part and offer things up for perusal. Nothing more. That includes my personal final opinion on the matter, whether you or others deem the terminology appropriate or not. That is all I am doing.

This thread is about the Seaside Home. I asked if you can provide any additional indication that this place was used for any further identifications from this era. For me, and perhaps others, this legitimate question is important. For if there be indications that this place was used on other occasions for such purposes, then the weight of belief in the position Swanson presents would be infinitely stronger. However you could not, and only countered that I need to prove that it wasn't used for such police work.
You have the right to ask, yet the fact that neither can prove or disprove adds no weight to Swanson's pencilled annotation being correct.
It was the Swanson family that originally presented this book to the world claiming it to be as the answer to the "Who was Jack the Ripper problem". The family claimed that Cheif Inspector Donald Swanson knew the name, and wrote it down in Anderson's book. Lady Aberconway made a similar type of presentation albeit through Dan Farson and Tom Cullen, that her father knew the name as well. And how strange, he came to other conclusions. He dismissed "Kosminski" outright.

Now, as Macnaghten did this seemingly in an official capacity, do we take HIS words to be of greater value than Swanson's pencilled notes made in a margin and on the end paper of another person's life biography? That is for others to judge.

Therefore when assessing Swanson's pencilled annotations , one has to see if they contain known fact. In the case of the Seaside Home, 60 odd miles from London, it has no known use for interrogation purposes, and is, as far as I am aware, only ever been used for rest, recuperation and holidaying for serving, sick, retired and ex-policemen. Until evidence is produced to the contrary, then this is what I quite reasonably take to be the sole use of the Seaside Home. As this is the only known use for the Seaside Home, it is now up to researchers/others to show that this is logical interpretation of the Seaside Home is incorrect, and that it was indeed used for interrogation purposes.
This has not been done to date as far as I am aware. I stand corrected if this has been done.

Swanson's one example, is not enough, as Macnaghten's example of who was more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, Druitt, is, for me, not enough either.
Swanson COULD have written the old pier at Brighton, he COULD have written The Olde Cream Tea shop in Tintagel. He COULD have written the police station in Kingston Upon Thames. Without us knowing that ANY place was used for interrogation purposes as well as the KNOWN purposes, the place named by Swanson, which is infact, not certain as to being the one presumed to be the Policeman's Home anyway, must be considered for what it is. A retirement, rest and holiday home for policemen of the Metroploitan Police Force. If indeed this place is the place he meant. We cannot assume it to be so, beecause it may or may not be more likely than any other Seaside Home else.

On another thread, Stewart Evans stated that upon visiting Mr.Swanson to see and photograph the marginalia, he was told upon arrival "my grandfather knew who it was".. or words to that effect. Lady Aberconway may well have said the same thing to Dan Farson about Melville Macnaghten (we are not told). If so, thenone of them must be wrong. Littlechild said Tumblety. Reid said no known person was known to have been the Ripper and denounced all Polish Jew theories, as did Abberline who added an idea of his own. Other policemen have made comments too in their books. Far too much contrary opinion against Swanson's "Kosminski", no certainty of which particular Seaside Home was meant when mentioned, no known use for identification of any said Seaside Home, and all the additional problems connected with the rest of the annotations with much else are enough for me to "dismiss" this particular offering.


I will now retire from the debate happy with my conclusions and views pertaining to this subject. Others can believe what they wish to..your good self included.


kind wishes

Phil
Thanks God for that..

This is the same old inuendo without substance that you have continued to post for months..your withdrawl from reasonable debate can only be seen as a blessing to those of us concerned with the facts of the case..

Yours Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:35 AM
Jeff Leahy Jeff Leahy is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East end-kent
Posts: 3,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auspirograph View Post
No, I am not suggesting a challenge to the validity of Kosminski as a suspect. Never have.

Are you suggesting the primacy of a Polish Jew line of police inquiry in the Whitechapel murders despite developments introduced with Clutterbuck's thesis?
There has been no new developments on the case against Kosminski.

None

Just the up shot in negatibe posting on case book by certain people coupled with their constant inuendo that they have something new..

which when challenged they fail to produce or add anything more than the same odd stale arguments which all amount to one argument..

Swansons belief that Kosminski was placed in an asylum in March 1889..

Yet not one of you has ever proved that he was NOT placed in an asylum in March 1889..

He quite easily could have been placed in a private asylum and the records have not been discovered,,,

What it biols down to is we simply dont know everything..because the records have largely been lost or destroyed...and while the reasonable amoungst the ripper community find that a reasonable arguement there are a few odd balls who have difficulty with it..

Yours Jeff

Last edited by Jeff Leahy : 03-26-2012 at 12:38 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:42 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
Give two examples of Martin Fido backpeddling?
Lets make it three or shall we say perm any one from three. Aaron Kosminski, jacob Cohen, Nathan Kaminski.

Perhaps four if you add to that the ridiculous suggestion that the police made a mistake or got confused over the names, if that be correct then what other mistakes or names mixed up did they make throughout this enquiry.

You want answers I can give you answers but can you handle the truth !

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 03-26-2012 at 01:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:45 AM
robhouse robhouse is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auspirograph View Post
No, I am not suggesting a challenge to the validity of Kosminski as a suspect. Never have.

Are you suggesting the primacy of a Polish Jew line of police inquiry in the Whitechapel murders despite developments introduced with Clutterbuck's thesis?
What developments do you mean? I have read Clutterbuck's thesis, and I don't know what you are referring to.

Also, what do you mean by asking if I am "suggesting the primacy of a Polish Jew line of police inquiry"? What I am suggesting is that Kozminski was a prime suspect in the case, and the police lacked evidence to secure a conviction. I do not believe that the police were looking at Polish Jews in a general sense, nor do I buy any of the Cohen/Kaminsky confusion nonsense.

RH
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:57 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
There has been no new developments on the case against Kosminski.

None

Just the up shot in negatibe posting on case book by certain people coupled with their constant inuendo that they have something new..

which when challenged they fail to produce or add anything more than the same odd stale arguments which all amount to one argument..

Swansons belief that Kosminski was placed in an asylum in March 1889..

Yet not one of you has ever proved that he was NOT placed in an asylum in March 1889..

And no one has proved he was

He quite easily could have been placed in a private asylum and the records have not been discovered,,,

He could also have been abducted by aliens

What it biols down to is we simply dont know everything..because the records have largely been lost or destroyed...and while the reasonable amoungst the ripper community find that a reasonable arguement there are a few odd balls who have difficulty with it..

Yours Jeff
There you go again Jeff just as I said previous the same old chestnut to cover over the cracks "lost or stolen or destroyed records" thats wearing thin now.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:02 AM
jason_c jason_c is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Lets make it three or shall we say perm any one from three. Aaron Kosminski, jacob Cohen, Nathan Kamiski.

Perhaps four if you add to that the ridiculous suggestion that the police made a mistake or got confused over the names, if that be correct then what other mistakes or names mixed up did they make throughout this enquiry.

You want answers I can give you answers but can you handle the truth !
Thank goodness we don't have ripperologists who's theories remain exactly the same over a 30 year period. I'd have thought the main positive attribute of any researcher/theorist is to change their opinion as different evidence comes to light.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:10 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robhouse View Post
What developments do you mean? I have read Clutterbuck's thesis, and I don't know what you are referring to.

Also, what do you mean by asking if I am "suggesting the primacy of a Polish Jew line of police inquiry"? What I am suggesting is that Kozminski was a prime suspect in the case, and the police lacked evidence to secure a conviction. I do not believe that the police were looking at Polish Jews in a general sense, nor do I buy any of the Cohen/Kaminsky confusion nonsense.

RH
Rob
Prime suspect you are talking utter rubbish someone needs to take you aside and explain to you the differences between a prime suspect, a likely suspect and someone who comes under suspiscion by reason of their actions.

Aaron Kosminski may well have come under suspicion by reason of the incident with his sister the same applies to Cutbush. Thats a long way from sugesting they were prime suspects.

You only have to read all the connecting papers and police correspondence to see how naieve the police were at times. Many of these documents clearly show they didnt have a clue about the killer let alone have a prime suspect, not then nor in 1891 nor in 1895 and certainly not in 1910 when Hans Christian wrote his book,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:14 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_c View Post
Thank goodness we don't have ripperologists who's theories remain exactly the same over a 30 year period. I'd have thought the main positive attribute of any researcher/theorist is to change their opinion as different evidence comes to light.
But Jason you do have Ripperologist who have done and still do champion the same theories Paul Begg to name but one.

What you have to accept is that whatever new material comes forth there are those that will constantly challenge it and wont accept it simply because it goes against their beliefs and of course now his lovechild Leahy is doing the same I just home somebody in the family heard of contraception the thought of any more is frightening.

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 03-26-2012 at 01:18 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:22 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
There you go again Jeff just as I said previous the same old chestnut to cover over the cracks "lost or stolen or destroyed records" thats wearing thin now.
And the ignorance continues.

Kosminski compared to Feigenbaum.

A solicitors hearsay against two senior Yard officials.

Get a grip Trevor.

Monty
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:33 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
And the ignorance continues.

Kosminski compared to Feigenbaum.

A solicitors hearsay against two senior Yard officials.

Get a grip Trevor.

Monty
Yes and look at one of them Hans Christian name fits him aptly.

If you are going to use Senior Yard officials why not quote all those in later years who went public saying they didnt have a clue, argument cuts both ways.

And as far as Feigenabaum was concerned at least we know he murdered someone with a long bladed knife and cut the throat almost to the point of decaptiation. Does that ring any bells or are you deaf as well as daft.?

The nearest Kosmisnki came to becoming a serial killer was when he was taken to the asylum and when asked what he wanted to eat for breakfast he said "he could murder a bowl of cornflakes"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.