Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kosminski Letter

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

  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    Actually, Matilda Kosminski had been mentioned in newspapers all over the globe.

    Her name had been broadcast during the "Eddowes shawl" flap, because one of her descendants had supplied the DNA sample. This appeared in many newspapers, including the Daily Mail.

    Matilda is also mentioned on Russell Edward's site, etc.

    Indeed, the paperback edition of Russell Edwards's book included a photograph, "believed to show her in her later years," but bearing no resemblance to the genuine photographs of her. And of course the book also says Jacob Cohen must have been referring to her when he told Dr Houchin about Aaron's threatening his sister's life with a knife.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karsten Giese
    replied
    Hi Jeff!

    At the end I was rather surprised than disappointed when I read the news article. You know we have been in contact with Tim after he had bought the letter. I gave him a lot of information and the advice to work with people who have the skills to solve the problems. I got to know him as a very nice guy who worked hard on the letter. But I was not satisfied with the result. He criticised Howard and RJ and I think that was wrong. I am very sorry for that. I very interested in people like them. They are always polite, friendly and helpful. They deserve our highest respect. Of course, I am a member of the "Aaron Kozminski- Team". People like Rob House, Chris Phillips, Patricia Marshall and John Malcolm do an excellent job on this matter. Their considerations sound logical. But there is also another side, please take a look at the Bachert & The Sauce thread. In my opinion it is not clear that Kosminski is Aaron Kozminski but, of course, it would be possible. I donĀ“t know whether the letter is genuine or forged. "If the letter is genuine" is the better choice for me at the moment.

    Karsten.

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    Actually, Matilda Kosminski had been mentioned in newspapers all over the globe.

    Her name had been broadcast during the "Eddowes shawl" flap, because one of her descendants had supplied the DNA sample. This appeared in many newspapers, including the Daily Mail.

    Matilda is also mentioned on Russell Edward's site, etc.

    This is relevant, because the letter suddenly appeared on eBay only days after the shawl controversy had resurfaced in the world media.

    Anyone researching it would have stumbled upon Matilda's name very quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    I'm afraid I can't assist ..it had nothing to do with me..and i advised against the artist impression being released at this stage. It certainly has no science behind it.

    I'm sorry if I misunderstood. It was just that in a previous post you seemed to be apologising for it:

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    No, I'm afraid I don't understand why the photo claimed to be of Isaac should have been used in that mock-up, given the strong evidence that it's not Isaac.
    I'm afraid I can't assist ..it had nothing to do with me..and i advised against the artist impression being released at this stage. It certainly has no science behind it.

    I am however interested in assisting anyone undertaking serious research into the contextual evidence of the letter....as my gut feeling (as a complete amateur) is that it is genuine..

    I did supply Peter Bower (Paper expert) with back lit photographs and he confirmed the paper is of genuine Period for the date via telephone...What he couldn't say is when the ink touched the paper which is a difference set of expertise and requires different tests. My guess is he is being cautious given his treatment by the Ripperolgist community in the past.

    My professional opinion is the provenance of the letter will always be poor and thus will only be proven definitively either way via the Contextual evidence.

    The nickname 'Tilly' is certainly interesting as very few people would have known of its significance....probably only a handful of people who frequent these boards. So if it is a forgery its a very sophisticated one and that doesn't fit with my understanding of the circumstances by which it was purchased.

    I have been requested accurate images of the letter, which i am happy to provide for research purposes to anyone undertaking serious research.

    If i had money to invest in testing I think it would be far better trying to date the Crawford letter.

    Trusting this clarifies

    Yours Jeff

    PS and for the record if the letter is proven fake, i am more than happy to admit error, as i said, its not my area of expertise. The truth is always more important than personal pride, and seeking the truth is the most important quality of a documentary producer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    I'm sorry Chris...But i have no problem destighising between my personal beliefs as an amateur Ripperologist...of which i have a long and heart felt track record

    And my professional opinion as a long and hardworking Television Producer

    They are quiet separate things

    I wear two hats

    As a professional TV producer i think the letter lacks provenance and cedability

    As a ripperologist I'm convinced its genuine but i accept I'm not an expert and could be wrong

    I responded to the Daily Mail as a TV producer which is probably why they didn't quote me..

    I trust that clarify's the situation

    Yours Jeff

    No, I'm afraid I don't understand why the photo claimed to be of Isaac should have been used in that mock-up, given the strong evidence that it's not Isaac.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    Hi Anne..well thats the beef..the one piece of the jigsaw that doesn't add up...He died shortly after being placed in the asylum..

    Frankly i believe this was a ruse created by Anderson, given the Crawford letter

    And thats why dating the Crawford letter is simply of more importance than dating the Tilly letter

    Which lets face it has terrible provenance and no amount of scientific tests will prove its authenticity either way

    So research on Dott for the Tilly letter...Contextural

    And science on the Crawford letter...when was it written?

    Yours Jeff
    I think all the investigators were in similar circumstances as we are today. Nobody caught JtR in the act. Police back then had more information at hand but they could not arrest anyone. I get the feeling a number of investigators had opinions and those opinions at some point more or less made a list and the men on that list were followed or watched.

    Yes, dating and scientifically studying the Crawford letter would be great. The other letter, IMO, has problems but I am very careful what I say. I never want to be hurtful to anyone. I have been in the antique business and am very leery of paper itens in the first place. Some things about the specific letter are troubling but it is a good conversation piece. I don't think I would have been willing to pay very much for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    I think police had a list of lunatics and others that were suspectss. I think police kept an eye on these men until there was a final answer. Tumblety went back to America, Bury was executed, Kosminski was in an asylum, etc.

    The marginalia could refer to Aaron because of his personal habits, therefore he must have been considered a lunatic. On the other hand, he was not necessarily violent and he lived a long time whereas the Kosminski suspect was said to have died soon after entering the asylum.

    It also seems possible that if Aaron was the suspect, police would have kept track of him for the rest of his life. He was in the asylum something like 27 years. If he was the suspect it would be very possible more information would have come down to us, that people involved in his care would have gleaned information and whispered about JtR in their asylum.

    Even if the letter should be proved authentic, it still does not prove Aaron was JtR. JtR prowled the streets at night and escaped detection at least five times. Aaron in the letter was out of control.
    Hi Anne..well thats the beef..the one piece of the jigsaw that doesn't add up...He died shortly after being placed in the asylum..

    Frankly i believe this was a ruse created by Anderson, given the Crawford letter

    And thats why dating the Crawford letter is simply of more importance than dating the Tilly letter

    Which lets face it has terrible provenance and no amount of scientific tests will prove its authenticity either way

    So research on Dott for the Tilly letter...Contextural

    And science on the Crawford letter...when was it written?

    Yours Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    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.
    I'm sorry Chris...But i have no problem destighising between my personal beliefs as an amateur Ripperologist...of which i have a long and heart felt track record

    And my professional opinion as a long and hardworking Television Producer

    They are quiet separate things

    I wear two hats

    As a professional TV producer i think the letter lacks provenance and cedability

    As a ripperologist I'm convinced its genuine but i accept I'm not an expert and could be wrong

    I responded to the Daily Mail as a TV producer which is probably why they didn't quote me..

    I trust that clarify's the situation

    Yours Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    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
    I think police had a list of lunatics and others that were suspectss. I think police kept an eye on these men until there was a final answer. Tumblety went back to America, Bury was executed, Kosminski was in an asylum, etc.

    The marginalia could refer to Aaron because of his personal habits, therefore he must have been considered a lunatic. On the other hand, he was not necessarily violent and he lived a long time whereas the Kosminski suspect was said to have died soon after entering the asylum.

    It also seems possible that if Aaron was the suspect, police would have kept track of him for the rest of his life. He was in the asylum something like 27 years. If he was the suspect it would be very possible more information would have come down to us, that people involved in his care would have gleaned information and whispered about JtR in their asylum.

    Even if the letter should be proved authentic, it still does not prove Aaron was JtR. JtR prowled the streets at night and escaped detection at least five times. Aaron in the letter was out of control.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    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..

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X