Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

David Cohen:The Polish Jewish Suspect ?

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

  • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Up until 1910 Anderson was telling the world and his brother that the identity of JTR was unknown and then in 1910 when his book is published suddenly the identity is known.How good is that?
    -Trevor Marriott-

    Try 1895 (Windsor Magazine)
    .....1901 (Nineteenth Century Magazine, February)
    .....1904 (Otago Witness, December 18, 1904)
    .....1907 (Criminals & Crime)
    Lets also try these Anderson quotes that I have

    October 23rd 1888.

    “But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

    November 4th 1889

    “Our failure to find Jack the Ripper as they call him.”

    June 1892

    Cassell's Saturday Journal,

    “The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes.”

    September 1908

    Speaking retrospectively to the Daily Chronicle

    “I told Sir William Harcourt that I could not accept the responsibility for the non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes.”

    No mention of any suspect or ID parade up until 1908.

    Sequence of events

    Memorandum 1894 Macnaghten who was not in the police at the time of the murders so anything he wrote must have come from police records.

    Aberconway Version ? Macnaghten after compiling the Memo then clearly does some more work on those named in the Memo and finds that two are not suspects after all, those being Ostrog and Kosminski and eliminates them

    Swanson 1895 -"The Killer is dead" so the killer could not have been Kosminski in any event he was still alive at that time

    Andersons book published 1910. At the time of publication there is not one piece of official evidence to back up what Anderson writes about the ID in his book. So one asks, where does he get the information from to suggest the killer was known and that he was identified? Or was he simply making it up to bolster his ego?

    Those who support its authenticity would say it came from Swanson, but Macnaghten was Swansons immediate superior, so surely if the marginalia and in particular the part relative to the name Kosminski was genuine and it did happen as written, why does Macnaghten not mention it and why does he eliminate Kosminski? After all the identification of the killer was an important event, even if the killer could not be brought to justice, but the only two persons who make any reference to such an event are Anderson and Swanson. Not one other officer over the ensuing years makes mention of this event.

    So that brings us back to the marginalia which some use to support the ID, and the question of did Swanson pen all of the marginalia in 1910 or thereafter, or was the last line and the most important line where he names Kosminski added by person or persons unknown.

    Simon Wood asks a very relevant question on a recent casebook post, I quote

    "I would like to know the reason why the concluding line, "Kosminski was the suspect," did not appear in Charles Sandell's 1981 typewritten article for the News of the World"

    I would like to know that same answer but to date no one has come forward with any answer !

    Its therefore unsafe for researchers to totally rely on what Anderson writes in his book and the marginalia in its entirety.


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • I'm not sure about this. This was the high-profile Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders, so extra precautions would have been taken to ensure secrecy. There were other asylum entries for patients (who thought they were the Ripper or believed they were under suspicion for being the Ripper, etc.) that were low profile and not taken seriously by authorities.

      -Scott Nelson-

      Undoubtedly true, Scott....but the attending physicians themselves didn't think they were. The attending physicians may jot down that a patient believed himself to be the King of France or the Whitechapel Murderer....but not that the police believed the man in question was a suspect in the murders.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment



      • Perhaps you would be kind enough to post those relevant quotes from those publications.

        Are they primary or secondary articles ?

        -Trevor Marriott-


        Look in the A To Z on pages 24 and 25 for those articles or excerpts of the same.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • Hi Howard
          Trevor has been told this many times, but I don't think he's interested in remembering the facts if they run contrary to what he wants to think.
          -Paul Begg-

          ....which is precisely why I won't type out the relevant passages. He's got the references which I've listed. He's got the ball.
          To Join JTR Forums :
          Contact [email protected]

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post

            Perhaps you would be kind enough to post those relevant quotes from those publications.

            Are they primary or secondary articles ?

            -Trevor Marriott-


            Look in the A To Z on pages 24 and 25 for those articles or excerpts of the same.
            Thank you for the references but having read those I note he doesn't say the ripper was identified he seems to be aluding towards the belief that in his opinion the killer was a lunatic and confined to an asylum.

            A far cry from what he later wrote in his book in 1910. So no I still stand by the fact that up until his book was published in 1910 he had failed to make mention that the the ripper had been identified. and at no point in the book or therefater does me mention the ripper was a lunatic a fact he had gone to great lengths to mention in those pre 1910 articles you cite

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              Thank you for the references but having read those I note he doesn't say the ripper was identified he seems to be aluding towards the belief that in his opinion the killer was a lunatic and confined to an asylum.

              A far cry from what he later wrote in his book in 1910. So no I still stand by the fact that up until his book was published in 1910 he had failed to make mention that the the ripper had been identified. and at no point in the book or therefater does me mention the ripper was a lunatic a fact he had gone to great lengths to mention in those pre 1910 articles you cite

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Trevor, you have already had all this discussed wit you in great detail in the past, evry one of your quotes answered and the quotes in the A to Z examined carefully. I, for one, am not prepared to go through it with you all over again, especially as I am sure it'll go in one of your ears and come straight out the other. I would strongly advise Howarrd not to waste any more time on you. So believe whatever you want to believe and leave serious researchers to get on with what they are doing, in command of the facts.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                Trevor, you have already had all this discussed wit you in great detail in the past, evry one of your quotes answered and the quotes in the A to Z examined carefully. I, for one, am not prepared to go through it with you all over again, especially as I am sure it'll go in one of your ears and come straight out the other. I would strongly advise Howarrd not to waste any more time on you. So believe whatever you want to believe and leave serious researchers to get on with what they are doing, in command of the facts.
                Its not a question of believing what I want to believe, its interpreting the facts, something you seem to not be able to do, and serious researchers should be able to interpret the facts in unbiased fashion, but do they all do that ?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Its not a question of believing what I want to believe, its interpreting the facts, something you seem to not be able to do, and serious researchers should be able to interpret the facts in unbiased fashion, but do they all do that ?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  It is a matter of you believing what you want to believe.

                  You have made exactly the same observation about what Anderson wrote in 1910 before, using almost exactly the same words. It was explained to you that there were statements from Anderson dating back to 1895 and you were told what they were and why they probably referred to the Polish Jew. Then you pop up later and make the exactly the same comment about Anderson in 1910 and when Howard refers you to Anderson's pre-1910 references you don't recall them and have to ask whether they were primary or secondary sources. You clearly have no memory whatsoever of what had been explained to you.And this is not the only example of you ignoring things you are told.

                  And to cap it off, you say that the pre-1910 references "seems to be aluding towards the belief that in his opinion the killer was a lunatic and confined to an asylum" which you say was "a far cry from what he later wrote in his book in 1910." When that is exectly what he wrote - he said that the suspect was identified in an asylum. And the point of Anderson's 1910 statement was that the murderer's identity was known and that he was committed to an asylum.

                  Talk about interpreting the facts. You're pretty good at misinterpreting them and getting into a mess. But carry on, Trevor. My recommendation, though, is that people here don't bother arguing with you because it is a complete waste of valuable time.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X