Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kosminski Letter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • From The Daily Mail--

    “Mr. Atkinson paid £242 for the letter to an eBay seller specializing in antiquities….”

    Yes, antiquities and chemicals for tropical fish tanks.

    Comment


    • In addition to Post #210 below, I found the following reference in The Oxford Magazine, 12 June 1889, p. 388 (available on google books).

      It shows that William Patrick Dott was not only enrolled at Oxford by June 1889, but may well have been living there. At the debate society held in June he is arguing that "the state should encourage emigration as a remedy for social distress."

      Of course, the alleged "Kosminski" letter dates to the following month, July 1889, and the internal content implies it was written by someone staying in East London.

      But no use flogging the horse much longer. The adherents can always argue he was visiting Toynbee Hall unless it can be shown otherwise. Ciao.
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • http://northyorkshirehistory.blogspo...is-family.html

        Comment


        • Hi Robert

          I was assuming we'd all seen that...

          mea culpa

          Dave

          Comment


          • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
            In addition to Post #210 below, I found the following reference in The Oxford Magazine, 12 June 1889, p. 388 (available on google books).

            It shows that William Patrick Dott was not only enrolled at Oxford by June 1889, but may well have been living there. At the debate society held in June he is arguing that "the state should encourage emigration as a remedy for social distress."

            Of course, the alleged "Kosminski" letter dates to the following month, July 1889, and the internal content implies it was written by someone staying in East London.

            But no use flogging the horse much longer. The adherents can always argue he was visiting Toynbee Hall unless it can be shown otherwise. Ciao.

            Hi Roger,
            I am obviously missing it, but where does the internal content imply that writer was in East London? The only suggestion of that I'm seeing is the comment that on being frightened by Kosminski 'Mary ran all the way back'. Unfortunately, he does not say where 'back' was. I assume the recipient was supposed to know, but wherever 'back' was, we shouldn't assume the writer was there.

            Cheers
            Paul

            Comment


            • Hi Paul – such interpretations are unavoidably subjective, of course, but, to me, the writer is describing—or attempting to describe--an intimate neighborhood scene in East London. Yes, as you say, he has Mary running ‘all the way back,’ and the writer is obviously assuming the recipient will know what this refers to—she will be familiar with the neighbor, just as ‘Dott’ is familiar with it. The writer also refers to the ‘fruit barrow’ and, again, the writer assumes that the recipient will know WHICH fruit barrow, just as she will recognize the reference to a local Jew with a ‘devil’s tongue,’ with ‘Tilly,’ etc.

              I suppose one could argue the unknown letter writer was describing such details while writing from Oxford or Canterbury or Miami or anywhere else, but would that be natural? Would a casual visitor to the East End (or someone passing on second hand information), and later writing from a distance, describe the events this way? To me, the hoaxer wants to imply that the letter was written by someone in the ‘hood,’ who had a day-to-day knowledge of Tilly, Kosminksi, the local fruit barrow, etc.—otherwise it wouldn’t make a heck of a lot of sense.

              Of course, the lack of a stamped envelope, and or any specific reference to whom these people are supposed to be, allows the reader to weave any number of theories, including W. P. Dott writing the letter from Oxford. To some degree, the very vagueness of the content defies any attempts at identification, though I would suggest that ‘Homer nodded’ when he chose to make a specific reference to the death of the evidently fictitious ‘Rachel Bell.’

              A worrisome detail, among others, is that in less than 9 months this letter has had three different provenance stories attached to it—not a very promising beginning.

              Cheers, RP

              PS. Since the appearance of this relic from Australia, I’ve never been able to hear “Waltzing Matilda” in quite the same way again.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                Hi Paul – such interpretations are unavoidably subjective, of course, but, to me, the writer is describing—or attempting to describe--an intimate neighborhood scene in East London. Yes, as you say, he has Mary running ‘all the way back,’ and the writer is obviously assuming the recipient will know what this refers to—she will be familiar with the neighbor, just as ‘Dott’ is familiar with it. The writer also refers to the ‘fruit barrow’ and, again, the writer assumes that the recipient will know WHICH fruit barrow, just as she will recognize the reference to a local Jew with a ‘devil’s tongue,’ with ‘Tilly,’ etc.

                I suppose one could argue the unknown letter writer was describing such details while writing from Oxford or Canterbury or Miami or anywhere else, but would that be natural? Would a casual visitor to the East End (or someone passing on second hand information), and later writing from a distance, describe the events this way? To me, the hoaxer wants to imply that the letter was written by someone in the ‘hood,’ who had a day-to-day knowledge of Tilly, Kosminksi, the local fruit barrow, etc.—otherwise it wouldn’t make a heck of a lot of sense.

                Of course, the lack of a stamped envelope, and or any specific reference to whom these people are supposed to be, allows the reader to weave any number of theories, including W. P. Dott writing the letter from Oxford. To some degree, the very vagueness of the content, defies any attempts at identification, though I would suggest that ‘Homer nodded’ when he chose to make a specific reference to the death of the evidently fictitious ‘Rachel Bell.’

                A worrisome detail, among others, is that in less than 9 months this letter has had three different provenance stories attached to it—not a very promising beginning.

                Cheers, RP

                PS. Since the appearance of this relic from Australia, I’ve never been able to hear “Waltzing Matilda” in quite the same way again.

                Thanks Roger. I was anxious in case I wasn't seeing something in the letter that you were seeing. I agree that there are a barrow-load of reasons to doubt the authenticity of the letter, but I'm not convinced that the writer was in the East End. 'Mary’s health remains well' and 'She shares no exceptional news...' suggest that the writer and Mary were in the same place, but, of course, the writer could have been repeating what Mary had conveyed in a letter. And if the reader knew which fruit barrow and the place Mary is likely to have left and run back to, the writer wouldn't have had to identify them. And finally, what is the evidence that William Patrick Dott was the letter writer? Maybe you know, but all I know about him as the writer is that Tim Atkinson identified him. How and where and why, I don't know. If William Patrick wasn't the letter writer, then the writer could have been in the East End and Dott being in Oxford becomes irrelevant as far as authenticating the document is concerned. Grrrrr, these things can drive one mad, or in my case already have done...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                  And finally, what is the evidence that William Patrick Dott was the letter writer? Maybe you know, but all I know about him as the writer is that Tim Atkinson identified him. How and where and why, I don't know...
                  Hi Paul -- My understand is the same as yours. I don't think there is any good reason to suppose that the 'Dott' of the letter is meant to be the Rev. W. P. Dott; this just appears to be Tim Atkinson's working theory, which, regrettably, the Daily Mail stated as a certainty. We'll see how it goes.

                  Have a good evening.

                  Comment


                  • Is this the final proof that Jack the Ripper was a Polish barber?

                    https://miniamazon.co.uk/trending/is...-polish-barber

                    Comment


                    • Are there any other extant writings of William Patrick Dott? Has anyone done any linguistic comparisons?

                      However it all turns out, whether or not Kosminski was violent at times, does not prove he was JtR.
                      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                        Hi Paul – such interpretations are unavoidably subjective, of course, but, to me, the writer is describing—or attempting to describe--an intimate neighborhood scene in East London. Yes, as you say, he has Mary running ‘all the way back,’ and the writer is obviously assuming the recipient will know what this refers to—she will be familiar with the neighbor, just as ‘Dott’ is familiar with it. The writer also refers to the ‘fruit barrow’ and, again, the writer assumes that the recipient will know WHICH fruit barrow, just as she will recognize the reference to a local Jew with a ‘devil’s tongue,’ with ‘Tilly,’ etc.

                        I suppose one could argue the unknown letter writer was describing such details while writing from Oxford or Canterbury or Miami or anywhere else, but would that be natural? Would a casual visitor to the East End (or someone passing on second hand information), and later writing from a distance, describe the events this way? To me, the hoaxer wants to imply that the letter was written by someone in the ‘hood,’ who had a day-to-day knowledge of Tilly, Kosminksi, the local fruit barrow, etc.—otherwise it wouldn’t make a heck of a lot of sense.

                        Of course, the lack of a stamped envelope, and or any specific reference to whom these people are supposed to be, allows the reader to weave any number of theories, including W. P. Dott writing the letter from Oxford. To some degree, the very vagueness of the content defies any attempts at identification, though I would suggest that ‘Homer nodded’ when he chose to make a specific reference to the death of the evidently fictitious ‘Rachel Bell.’

                        A worrisome detail, among others, is that in less than 9 months this letter has had three different provenance stories attached to it—not a very promising beginning.

                        Cheers, RP

                        PS. Since the appearance of this relic from Australia, I’ve never been able to hear “Waltzing Matilda” in quite the same way again.
                        Really...I think if we were in court this would be classed as 'Leadinging the Witness' The FACT is we don't know yet..

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                          Thanks Roger. I was anxious in case I wasn't seeing something in the letter that you were seeing. I agree that there are a barrow-load of reasons to doubt the authenticity of the letter, but I'm not convinced that the writer was in the East End. 'Mary’s health remains well' and 'She shares no exceptional news...' suggest that the writer and Mary were in the same place, but, of course, the writer could have been repeating what Mary had conveyed in a letter. And if the reader knew which fruit barrow and the place Mary is likely to have left and run back to, the writer wouldn't have had to identify them. And finally, what is the evidence that William Patrick Dott was the letter writer? Maybe you know, but all I know about him as the writer is that Tim Atkinson identified him. How and where and why, I don't know. If William Patrick wasn't the letter writer, then the writer could have been in the East End and Dott being in Oxford becomes irrelevant as far as authenticating the document is concerned. Grrrrr, these things can drive one mad, or in my case already have done...
                          Hi Paul...we are going on Patrick Dott...as that is the best idea at present..it could be someone else

                          The letter in my opinion is genuine...and i will post my photographs and findings of that letter

                          However it makes me smile to remember your recollections of the Maybrick Diary and Barret...so many similarities:

                          The provenance is crap

                          and our friend Tim Atkinson is unstable and (well lets say simply.. likes a drink..and publicity)
                          there are alot of similarities with the Maybrick Diary but not showmanship

                          Apart from the object itself of course which is tiny and precise

                          The letter...the letter...if you take everything else away...is very very interesting

                          I've photographed it in detail...have been thinking about it in detail... and will start to post and discuss

                          Frankly i feel i can now start to un-wind the mystery and i think Martin Fido was correct all along with his theorising...Kozminsk entered the asylum in March 1889....Thats what happened

                          Yours Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                            Are there any other extant writings of William Patrick Dott? Has anyone done any linguistic comparisons?

                            However it all turns out, whether or not Kosminski was violent at times, does not prove he was JtR.
                            Its always been possible that Swanson and Anderson were incorrect

                            The mystery is why they said what they said in the LSOMOL and in the Marginalia

                            Even if they are talking about Aron Kozminski which i now believe is incontrovertible

                            That doesn't mean they were correct about Aaron Kozmninski being the Ripper...Matilda could have been mistaken..

                            Yours Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                              Hi Paul -- My understand is the same as yours. I don't think there is any good reason to suppose that the 'Dott' of the letter is meant to be the Rev. W. P. Dott; this just appears to be Tim Atkinson's working theory, which, regrettably, the Daily Mail stated as a certainty. We'll see how it goes.

                              Have a good evening.
                              Yes regrettable...why can't people simply wait and do the research?

                              Yours Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                                Yes regrettable...why can't people simply wait and do the research?

                                If you're telling other people to wait for the results of research, then you shouldn't say "The letter in my opinion is genuine."


                                In my opinion the letter is an obvious fake, and whatever the letter may or may not be, the attribution to William Patrick Dott is clearly wrong.


                                And as for the computer generated image of Aaron Kozminski that was published by the Daily Mail, I think it only adds to the misinformation that's already prevalent. Particularly if it's based on claimed photos of the family that have already been shown to be most probably spurious.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X