|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Contemporary Parallels
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Contemporary Parallels
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 07:57 am |        | Hi Ivor,
(1) I'm afraid I have to treat the views of anyone who doubts the fact of there being any identification at all with complete floccinaucinihilipilification.
(2) You have not addressed the question WHY any suspect was ever stood up for identification at all: WHY anybody ever became a suspect in the first place. You just repeat that since you don't know what this evidence was you are going to behave as though it doesn't exist - (I spare you the affront of saying that you declare that it didn't exist, but you know that really is what one would have to deduce from your words).
Or do you think that people were called in for identification by lotteries, or by picking every fifth man to pass by Leman Street Police Station, or because Sergeant Thick or someone didn't like the look of them? You may suspect that the police used the flimsiest and least justifiable reasons for treating people as suspects. Certainly their 'responsibility' in following up the anonymous information against General Sir Sam Browne indicates that by the end of the case they didn't dismiss out of hand informant 'evidence' that anybody reasonable would see at once as totally worthless. But you simply aren't saying anything sensible at all if you keep banging on that you only know about the ID so this was the only evidence against the suspect. The only usable evidence, maybe. The only persuasive evidence, very likely. But SOMETHING, which has to be called evidence, however poor, has to lie behind the ID taking place in the first instance. If you don't see this point, then, however patient Paul may be, I shall stop discussing it further with you, and depart muttering into my beard offensive things like 'invincible ignorance...' (which should offend your antiCatholic sensibilities for good measure!). |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 07:58 am | | Hi Ivor,
Sorry I accidentally posted that without signing off. No offence was intended.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 08:02 am | | Ivor,
Nobody is expecting you to take for granted that Anderson had other evidence. You, however, are taking it for granted that he did not. If you want to believe that the suspect was picked up simply because he fitted a description then that’s fine by me, but it is an assumption not based on any evidence. You may be right, you may be wrong. We don’t know. Personally, I share Martin’s opinion that the descriptions were too vague, mainly concerned dress, and, if the suspect was Aaron Kosminski, an 1888 description is unlikely to have had any resemblance to his sartorial, physical or mental condition in 1891. And if we take Swanson’s statement into account, I doubt that the City C.I.D., who by inference were maintaining surveillance on the suspect before the identification, would have maintained costly and manpower absorbing round the clock surveillance off their own territory on a man who simply looked like a description given by someone 18-months earlier. |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 11:07 am | | Paul,
Thanks for the explanation. That is basically what I was trying to explain in a discussion some time ago only you say it far more astutely and succinctly.
I expressed concern in another post about the trap we fall into if we demand perfection in all information pertaining to the case when mere excellance will suffice. The quest for perfection can often inhibit creative thinking about possible solutions to this mystery. Sometimes I get the feeling promising leads are dismissed or discouraged at the first indication of an inaccurate detail.
I agree with your philosophy that we should expect inaccurate details but not let those flaws prevent exploration, investigation, and contemplation of possible scenarios which may prove promising and maybe even lead to an ultimate solution. There is a current saying in the dynamic world of business today that "Sometimes you have to think outside The Box." As you might guess "The Box" is conventional wisdom.
Some may be thinking as they read this post that now Robeer wants to ignore all responsible research methodology and jettison any inconvenient details so that he can go chasing after romantic notions and chimeric illusions that may catch his fancy as to how the case should be solved. No, that's not what I'm saying. 'The devil is in the details' and we cannot avoid the intellectual obligation to deal with them. They are the nails that hold the house together. However, sometimes all the details may be kept locked in a tool chest and when found come spilling out in abundance. The challenge is to find where that chest is hidden and which key will unlock it.
To carry the analogy a bit further the chest that holds the solution may be sealed with a combination lock that requires all the faculties at our disposal including diligent effort, meticulous research, intellectual discipline, proven investigative techniques, technical science, pertinent details, creative thinking, and some good luck along the way.
Robeer
________________________________________________________________
Police Officials: General Discussion: Detective Inspector Stephen White:
Archive through 09 April 2002: Author: Robeer / Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 05:51 am
General Discussion: Police Officials: The Steve White Story
Author: Robeer / Sunday, 19 May 2002 - 02:32 am |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 02:03 pm | | Paul,
I do not take it for granted that he never had any other evidence. I simply have no evidence to show that he did.Do you see the point?
I could not expect a jury to believe a story if I could not produce the evidence to back it up.The public are the jury in this case and we have no evidence to show why the suspect was believed to be the killer apart from the fact that we are informed that he was picked out by a witness.What we may THINK is neither here nor there.We are simply left with an open book in relation to whether or not other evidence existed.I think that to be a fair assessment of the situation. |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 04:26 pm | | Paul,
As an after thought it occurs to me that not all 'details' are created equal. Two details may be missing from an automobile. One is a radio the other a steering wheel. Do they have an equal impact on using the car for its intended purpose?
Details have a relative impact on the question at hand. We often run into brick walls and protracted debates over nomenclature. Sometimes this is relevant and sometimes questionable. One argument critical of the Steve White story makes the assertion the story should pivot on the use of the word cul-de-sac. This argument contends there are no cul-de-sacs in Whitechapel so the story must be false.
But is one man's cul-de-sac another man's square, quadrangle, close, alley, yard, court, atrium, compound, enclosure, curtilage, weir, paddock, warren, lager, etc.?
So do we carry on with the investigation of this story in spite of a near miss noun or decide to abort altogether if the bloody witnesses can't use proper English for heaven's sake!
How do you suggest we deal with contradictory details without letting them derail a promising train of thought?
Robeer |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 06:58 pm | | Martin, There really is no need to use such filthy words like that ( first para ) to me !!!!! We may have our differences of opinion but really. To use such words on a debate on the casebook is really too much!!! I cant even find it in my Collins Dictionary or am I more likely to find the meaning in the English revised edition of the Kama Sutra ? You of all people Martin I cant believe it :-).
Firstly I cant remember stating that the ID never took place can you quote me that I did state such a thing ?
I have my doubts that it did take place and under the circumstances I can hardly be blamed for having such doubts.
I thought I had given my thoughts on why the suspect was picked up in the first place.
He was picked up because he answered the description given by the witness.That is all the evidence we have and I am simply going by that evidence.
It really does not come into it that there MAY have been other evidence or THIS or THAT may be possible.
Paul noted 18 months seperated these two events. Which could indicate other evidence lay behind the arrest.
If there WAS other evidence it could not have been very strong because if it had of been the suspect would have been dealt with before the ID took place 18 months after the event.
The point is Martin that we just dont have the evidence at hand to show what happened we have conflicting statements with no evidence as such to back them up.Stewart made more than a valid point when he stated the Chief Commissioner of the Met when making a statement dated Sept 11th 1889, "had no idea whatsoever" who the killer was.Common sense dictates that if anyone knew he would have known if the killer had been arrested. Now Stewart knows more about the inside workings of the police that any of us who were not in the force.He is in a very good position to comment on police matters.Yet no one seems to be listening to him on this situation.His words and facts produced cannot be pushed aside because they do not conform to the beliefs held by yourself or Paul.
Also do you agree that the ID which took place 18 months after the murders was too long a time to be effective anyway.
Dont you find it more than strange that the comment that " no more murders took place after the ID" was a stupid remark when the killings had actually stopped 18 months before. 18 months after the Kelly murder it was thought by many officers that only 5 victims had been killed at the hands of the ripper. So surely Anderson did not believe the ripper was killing up to the time of the ID.
Far too many situations dont add up and the whole affair is more than suspect. And unless more concrete evidence is forthcoming a bloody big question mark will always remain on this saga of the ID.
I have looked in my dictionary and it is payback time I have found a rather long word to fire back at you. All I have left to say to you Martin is ( wait for it ) telecommunications!!!!! so there chew on that. :-) I was going to hit you with the long name of that Welsh town ( you must know the one ) but I could not find it.You got off rather light this time. |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 10:22 pm | | | Very entertaining response. Well done, Ivor! |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 03:12 am | | Hi Ivor,
You said that Anderson’s conclusion was based solely on the identification. I said you were making an assumption because we don’t know what evidence Anderson based his conclusion on. You replied that we only know about the identification and that you are not going to assume the existence of any other information. And so far that's fine. But there is a difference between saying we don’t know of any other evidence and saying there was no other evidence. In saying that Anderson’s conclusion was based solely on the identification you are saying that there was no other evidence.
Martin and I are not saying that there was other information; we're saying we don't know what evidence existed. It's you who is making the flat statement, namely that there was no other information. This is something you don't know. It is an assumption.
Of course, as an addendum Martin and I have observed that that there may have been other information, and we give as evidence for that suggestion the (unknown) reason(s) why the suspect became a suspect in the first place and the ‘many circs’ ascribed to ‘Kosminski’ by Macnaghten.
So, if you are saying that we don’t know of any other information, I agree with you. If you are saying that there was no other information, I don’t agree with you. And if you conclude that Anderson’s conclusion is worthless because it was based solely on the identification, they I will vehemently disagree with you because you will be basing a conclusion on an assumption built on inadequate and insufficient information.
Turning to your post to Martin, two American ladies were in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch having lunch and discussing the name of the place. On paying they asked the waitress to say very slowly where they were. The waitress looked at them strangely, then said “Burrr-gerrr-kingggg”.
Now, there are a number of things in you post to Martin that I'd take issue with. For example, I don’t recall saying that other evidence behind the arrest is indicated because 18-months separated the witness seeing the suspect and the witness identifying the suspect. What I recall saying is that I doubted that the suspect would have been picked up and sent for identification simply because he resembled a description furnished 18-months earlier. But lets' not get bogged down in all that.
You wrote:
‘The point is Martin that we just dont have the evidence at hand to show what happened we have conflicting statements with no evidence as such to back them up. Stewart made more than a valid point when he stated the Chief Commissioner of the Met when making a statement dated Sept 11th 1889, "had no idea whatsoever" who the killer was. Common sense dictates that if anyone knew he would have known if the killer had been arrested. Now Stewart knows more about the inside workings of the police that any of us who were not in the force. He is in a very good position to comment on police matters. Yet no one seems to be listening to him on this situation. His words and facts produced cannot be pushed aside because they do not conform to the beliefs held by yourself or Paul.
First, I must say I find it offensive when someone suggests that Martin and I are so biased in favour of Anderson that we ignore, skate over, push aside, or in any other way fail to address information that runs counter to what we are supposed to believe. Not only is this insulting, it is a glib and easy way of dismissing our counter-arguments without actually having to address them. I appreciate that nobody intends to be insulting, but it is a point worth making.
Secondly, don’t drag my name in on this one! To begin with, Aaron Kosminski was identified after 1890 and almost certainly in early 1891, long after James Monro’s statement, which therefore doesn’t apply to my thinking at all. Indeed, I happen to agree that it argues against David Cohen being Anderson’s suspect!
Thirdly, Martin hasn’t ‘pushed aside’ the Monro statement. I don’t happen to agree with Martin’s thinking, but I understand it and respect it and recognise its validity. Now, Martin accepts for very solid reasons that there was an identification. Therefore there was a suspect. If the suspect wasn’t Aaron Kosminski, and in the absence of another K-something-ski in the asylum records, Martin has concluded that David Cohen is the most Ripper-like Jewish inmate in the asylum records. Martin’s assessment of the evidence in Cohen’s favour (if necessary he’ll no doubt tell you what it is) outweighs the evidence that Martin and others have against him (such as the Monro statement). The Monro statement could argue against Cohen being the suspect, but it may also be plausibly explained in a way that fits the known facts. Martin’s explanation in the case of Monro is that Anderson was certain about the suspect’s guilt but recognised that it wasn't guaranteed until it became clear that the Ripper murders had ceased. There was therefore an interval between the identification and an acknowledgement that the Ripper crimes had stopped. It was during that interval that Monro and others speculated whether or not murders were Ripper crimes. As evidence supporting this conclusion Martin points to Swanson’s otherwise peculiar observation that no further murders happened after the committal of the suspect. As you have acknowledged, there wouldn’t have been further murders if the Ripper had definitely been put away, so the comment seems unnecessary, almost a non-sequitur. But if it is seen as saying that the absence of further murders proved the conclusion right, as it does in Martin’s scenario, then it makes sense.
You can pick holes in this line of reasoning if you feel so inclined, but you can’t say that Martin has pushed anything aside. On the contrary, he has answered the objection within the framework of his theory, has stayed within the constraints of the known facts and produced a piece of evidential argument to support his suggestion.
Altogether now, repeat after me: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch! |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 05:11 am | | Hi Robeer,
I meant what I said about mistakes as a broad generalisation and as you indicate the importance of the mistake depends on how the mistake is being treated by the historian. Anderson’s error about when the house-to-house inquiry took place isn’t in the least important to whether the inquiry took place or not, but if the date was crucial to a chronological sequence of events then Anderson’s error could be hugely important.
Sgt. White’s story is more problematic than Anderson's in that it is ascribed to him by someone else, doesn’t obviously fit the scene of any of the murders and lacks additional information by which we can judge the author’s veracity. This means that we can’t be sure that Sgt. White actually told the story himself and that the story is free of embellishment by the person who wrote it up. It is therefore almost impossible to assess and given that it doesn’t fit any known history of the Ripper crimes I would be inclined to leave it out of any assessment. This said, it is a fascinating story that sort of fits with other events and, in my view, could just about be made to fit Berner Street – Dutfield’s Yard wasn’t a cul-de-sac, though it did only have one entry and exit, and as a major socialist/anarchist club it is the sort of place that would have been kept under surveillance. I think the story is certainly one that deserves following up |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 05:33 am | | Why would further investigation be conducted.I'll go over it again.To discover if the suspect spoke or wrote English,so as to compare against the Goulstan street graffito or any of the letters that were supposedly sent by the killer.To discover the weapon,or clothing.To establish which murders could be reasonably attributed to the killer,so as to establish if more than one killer was operating at the time.Do I have to make it any clearer.They are only some of the ends that would have to be tied up.
The fact that the alledged killer was in an institution would have no bearing on the activities of the police.The decision as to whether he would stand trial was not a police matter,no more than it is today.
In some criminal investigations,the number of police used are many indeed,and I see no reason why the ripper situation should be any different.
Of course I assume much,who doesn't.No documents exist that would convey the truth,or relate to a suspect.That is why Andersons words mean little.
It is what I have been saying allalong.
We can however apply sound reasoning to a situation in the lack of evidence,it is what most people do,and Anderson's statement of an I.D,lacks credibility.
These are my opinions,if certain persons believe there is no substance to them,they are not forced to respond.The reason they do so is because of a fear my reasoning is correct,and their theories are wrong. |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 06:15 am | | Just something I forgot in above post.Against the law to inform the press that the killer had been found.You are joking of course Mr Begg,unless you can confirm this law.
In the time of the ripper murders,as there is today in major crimes,there is a very close association between police and press,and important developements,so long as they do not impede the investigation,are almost always divulged.Of course the name of the individual is suppressd,but that is another matter.
It would be unlawfull for unauthorised personnel to submit information to the press,and perhaps against department policy to do so in certain cases,but is it to be seriously accepted that it would be unlawfull to disclose that the ripper had been identified. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 06:35 pm | | Paul, Perhaps you could explain to me why many senior officers including the Police Commissioner mentioned by Stewart had no knowledge of such an affair. If such an ID took place as Anderson stated and the ripper was identified as he believed one would have thought that such an event would have been general knowledge at the top. Word would have got round," Look we have the Ripper in custody he has been identified" Before you know it the papers would have printed the story. We can forget about Anderson being gagged and not allowed to tell the press.In fact Harry has brought in a very valid point when he inquires into the law which forbade Anderson to talk to the press about finding Jack the Ripper. I would also like to know which law stopped him from telling the press thet Jack the ripper had been caught.Even if such a law existed news like that would have been leaked as many gagged stories get leaked to the press.You could not keep the lid on a story like that. The alleged witness was not gagged by a goverment code of conduct.Yet the story was not leaked from such a direction.Things just dont add up and that fact cannot be ignored. Anyone can tell a story but without the evidence to back it up it is worthless. Not many authorities that I know of on the subject place any faith in the story. I think it fair to state that both you and Martin are the two main champions of the story and neither of you can agree on certain points. It is not very encouraging to say the least.
I am not taking it for granted that Anderson never had any more evidence apart from the ID. It is a case of there being no evidence to show that he did, and to either prove or support a case you must have the evidence.It is no good saying he may have had other evidence if you cannot show evidence to support such a claim. There is such a thing as guidelines in matters such as this.There is nothing to support the notion that he had any other evidence apart from the ID to justify his comment that the suspect identified was Jack the ripper. That is simply a fact and to state otherwise is simply clutching at straws.
My mother was Welsh ( father English ) by the way and I was taught from a very eary age to say Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilogogogoch the problem was that I could never spell it without looking it up. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 07:44 pm | | Mr. Begg,
Do you think Anderson and Swanson may have suspected that Francis Coles was a Ripper victim, at least at the time of her murder on 2/14/1891? If they did, then this may explain why they may have thought that the validity of the identification of Kosminski in early 1891 depended in part on the cessation of the murders.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 08:33 pm | | | David,Thought you might like to know that Macnaghten believed that Thomas Sadler was Coles killer. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 02:38 am | | Hi Ivor,
I’ve already explained why Martin probably doesn’t think the Monro statement matters, and as far as I am concerned, who says Monro and his successors didn’t know about Anderson’e belief/theory – Littlechild apparently did? As for Mr. Mann’s question, what exactly is he trying to say? That at the time of the identification the police would have formally told journalists that they’d caught Jack the Ripper? (Would they? Would journalists have published the fact if they’d been told? If not, how do we know they weren’t told? Littlechild told Sims about Tumblety, but did Sim’s print the information?) That they’d let slip that they caught the Ripper? (They did didn’t they? Major Arthur Griffiths, and the Pall Mall Gazette in 1895, for example) That it would have leaked out? (Well it did, Major Arthur Griffiths, the Pall Mall Gazette, G.R. Sims and others). As for legal constraints, nobody has used the word ‘gagged’, but Mr. Mann has been answered several times and seems to ignore it: (1) officials were not permitted to make public statements without official authorisation; witness Sir Charles Warren; (2) A little thing called the Presumption of Innocence, which along with afternoon tea and the herbaceous border is one of the great gifts given by Britain to the world, means that a person cannot legally be presumed guilty until shown to be so beyond reasonable doubt in court. This means that any formal announcement would have been illegal since it assumed the guilt of the suspect, even though the suspect was not named. As for saying that they had suspicions about who the Ripper was, this was made public, witness Major Griffiths in 1895, and that invalidates Mr. Mann’s argument completely.
I think we’ve exhausted the subject of why the suspect was suspected. I’ve explained my position and you have explained yours and I’m content to let people judge. Going over old ground is just borning.
And I guess few people can spell Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilogogogoch without looking it up, but I, too, learned to say it at an early age, but along with most of my Welsh I have forgotten it; for some reason I always manage to leave out ‘wyrndrobwl’ or, if I try to remember to put it in, I lose track and forget ‘llantysilo’. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 02:45 am | | Hi David
That is the only interpretation of Swanson’s words that I have reached. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 07:29 am | | Hi David,
But I differ and have differed for 15 years!
Hi Ivor,
I know you haven't made the absurd claim that there never was any identification at all: I was using you as a chairman through whom to address the observation that I will not be responding to anyone who does hold such a belief.
Floccinaucinihilipilification is the act or state of considering something utterly worthless, and is only used as a jocularity. Paul Begg and I were introduced to it as the longest word in the language about 12 years ago in St Katherine's Yacht Club, when a woman called Grace who owned a 20-foot two-berth cabin cruiser used it to end argument about honoroficabitudilinis or antidisestablishmentarianism as the supposed longest words. I have only ever seen it used in print by H.J.Eysenck, in the introductory material to one of his later books.
Otherwise, I think Paul has answered all points satisfactorily on my behalf. I would just say again, looking for a 'suspect' on the basis of the witness descriptions wouldn't just have been difficult, it would, I'm sure, have been impossible; and I don't think that any stray lunatic picked up would have been remarked as matching the descriptions unless he matched Hutchinson's extraordinary detail or Mr Lawende's account of a pepper and salt coat and cap.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 11:58 am | | Is this the paladin cabal at work in the above--very short dismissive-type reactions to my position--?
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 12:27 pm | | I'm not sure what the paladin cabal is, but it's certainly Paul and me - (sounds better, regardless of grammar) - being aware that we'll bore each other to tears if we reopen our "How to interpret Swanson" debate. It was amusing to us and other people in Cattolica in 1988. It's rather lost its shine by now!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 02:30 pm | | Hi Martin
I think David means the followers of that hired gun who used to travel from San Francisco’s Palace Hotel on TV in the 60s. Either that or he means that we are ‘knightly conspirators’ or a ‘noble group’.
Hi David
I’m sorry, I was just busy and I didn’t really have anything further to add. As you know, Martin doesn’t think ‘Kosminski’ was a Met suspect, so as far as he’s concerned Anderson and Swanson wouldn’t have thought anything about him at all. However, Martin may think that Anderson and Swanson believed Cohen to be the Ripper in 1888, but did not finally concede that this conclusion was correct until the time of the Coles murder in 1891. I find Swanson’s remark about there being no further crimes after the committal of the suspect persuasive of an early date for the identification, which would of course mean that Aaron Kosminski was not Anderson’s suspect, but if the Aaron Kosminski was Anderson’s suspect then I can only relate Swanson’s words to Coles being the last person included in the case papers – hence Swanson said that there were no further crimes of ‘this sort’ and as far as the case papers are concerned there weren’t. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 03:40 pm | | I should only add that I KNOW Swanson had heard the name Kosminski, and knew some things about him (e.g. that he had a brother in Whitechapel). I also KNOW that Swanson had heard of a Polish Jewish suspect from Whitechapel who was under restraint when incarcerated, and who died shortly after transfer to Colney Hatch. I KNOW that these last details do not apply to Kosminsky in any way or shape, and to a greater or lesser extent they DO apply to David Cohen. I observe that Swanson believed that data drawn from the case histories of two definitely different men were a complete description of one single man. I DEDUCE, from his remarks about the City CID and from the FACT that while in Met care or being transferred out of it, Aaron Davis Cohen became David Cohen, that the Met were not certain if their man's name. I ACCEPT Don Rumbelow's immediate observation that if the City CID knew of a sane brother of the man they were following, they certainl knew his name. And I conclude (i.e. speculate) that Swanson knew of the incaceration and death of Cohen, whom he knew Anderson to believe to be the Ripper, and later - (certainly after 1891) - learned, probably via the City Police, some details about Kosminsky whom he assumed to be the same man (the young Jewish suspect from Whitechapel who went into Colney Hatch) and so added the wrong name and the detail of the brother to what he knew about Cohen.
Apart from the name Kosminsky, I know of no evidence to suggest that Anderson or Swanson etertained the slightest suspicion of Kosminsky or that they were so foolish as to think an ID in 1891 could positively ascertain anything.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 07:26 pm | | Martin,Hello Sailor, Thanks for clearing some points up for me. Has this brother in Whitechapel ever been traced through a census or any other record and is anything known about him apart from what we are told concerning the ID. I was informed that a Kosminski had a bakers shop in Berner Street but a poster stated that the latter was nothing to do with the former.If true it is rather a pity because we have a reason for the suspect Kosminski to be in Berner Street. Also on the question of Anderson unable to name the suspect as Jack the Ripper to the papers surely it would be quite in order for him to state, "A suspect has been arrested in connection with the murders and he has been identified by a witness" No name is given so surely no breach has been made. Such statements as I have mentioned are made all the time by the police in murder cases.By the way the police were looking for the suspect seen by Hutchinson based on his description they even went around with him trying to find the suspect.
Thanks for explaining about floccinaucinihilipilification.Silly me I thought it was some type of reference to flagellation. I wont go into why you and Paul were together in a Yachting Club with sailors it makes the mind boggle!!! Living near to Cowes I am familiar with all the Yachting types and weekend sailors but in saying that I am not that familiar with them!! Living near to Portsmouth I have heard stories that when the sailors in Nelson's day were flogged by Capt. Hardy on HMS VICTORY they were heard to cry, " Harder, Hardy, harder, you are naughty but I love you." and, "More, more, Oh yes, dont stop." Then we have Nelson's final words to Capt Hardy as he was dying in the cockpit of the Victory which were," Kiss me Hardy, Kiss Me" He was at it right up until the end. I am amazed that they ever found the time to fight!!! |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 07:15 am | | Hi Ivor,
Serious work on the Kosminsky family has been done by Paul Begg, who can enlighten you about the brother situation.
Although Dan Farson once asked if Paul and I were lovers, we were certainly not, and Paul would, I am sure, confirm that at the time I roosted afloat in St Katherine's, I was between marriages and suffering from all the aggressively active heterosexual ego-soothing of one who has been badly bruised by the break-up of a relationship he took to be for ever. My insistence on freedom to prowl was rather irritating to one who wanted to enjoy bottles of beer and good conversation on the boat.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 07:18 am | | Hi Ivor,
Serious work on the Kosminsky family has been done by Paul Begg, who can enlighten you about the brother situation.
Although Dan Farson once asked if Paul and I were lovers, we were certainly not, and Paul would, I am sure, confirm that at the time I roosted afloat in St Katherine's, I was between marriages and suffering from all the aggressively active heterosexual ego-soothing of one who has been badly bruised by the break-up of a relationship he took to be for ever. My insistence on freedom to prowl was rather irritating to one who wanted to enjoy bottles of beer and good conversation on the boat.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 07:51 am | | | Martin, You know me I am larking about I can't believe Dan Farson would ask you such a question what was he thinking of ? that really is outrageous.Surely he was having a laugh.Such a thing would never have crossed my mind. I would never have the front to ask anyone a question like that and for a start I would not consider such a thing any of my business anyway. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 08:08 am | | Hi Ivor
Martin and I were guests at an international conference in Italy, as was Dan, whose sexual inclinations were neither heterosexual nor, I gather, particularly discerning - which is why he probably fancied Martin :-) And at the time he was, like the man on The Fast Show, 'very, very drunk'. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 02:03 pm | | | Paul, Good Lord, let me know what pub he drinks in so I can stay well clear of it!!! |
Author: Ally
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 02:26 pm | | Hey Ivor,
Unlike Paul, I think Dan is a man of discriminating taste. Therefore, you'd be safe. 
Just joshing,
Ally |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 03:40 pm | | Like Dan Farson, I have entertained suspicions concerning the sexual orientation of certain individuals. As a matter of fact, I think a certain Mr. G and a Mr. D could provide details very enlightening on the matter.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 05:23 pm | | Hi Ally, Phew thank God for that. A great weight has been lifted from my shoulders I feel safer already. :-)
PS Trying it on with me would gain him the nickname of "Desperate Dan". |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 01:27 am | | | Ivor, I sincerely hope that you won't be drinking in any pubs used by Daniel Farson for many years to come. He died a few years back. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 04:31 am | | | Paul, Oh Dear sorry to hear that. By the way Martin stated you did some research into Kosminski's brother did you find out anything about him ? I understand a Kosminski had a bakery in Berner St but a poster wrote that this person was nothing to do with Aaron.If true it is a pity because this would give Aaron Kosminski a valid reason for being in Berner Street. |
|
|
|
|
