New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Chris]

What I believe Anderson is saying, Phil, is that the authorities had developed firm ideas regarding the wanted man and so mounted a detailed search of the area in order to identify any men who conformed to these expectations. Later, when Kosminski attracted police attention, it was found that he fitted the bill precisely.

No, I think that - as Paul is saying - Anderson means that the house-to-house search investigated men who could come and go in secret, and the result of that was that (because such men had been eliminated) "we" decided that the killer was being protected by the people he was living with, and from that concluded that they were "low-class Polish Jews". So there were two different "profiles" involved.

I'm not surprised that "Mentor" found what Anderson wrote offensive, but I'm sure that's what Anderson was getting at.

[Garry Wroe]

If this is the case then Lewande and any witness in connection to Eddowes murder can be ruled out.

Not really, Monty. If Lawende was summoned by the Met in relation to the Sadler affair, there is no reason why he couldn't have been used for the purpose of the Seaside Home identification.

[Garry Wroe]

So they knew of Kosminski and were looking for him, amongst others, during the house to house investigation? Yet they didn't know exactly where he lived or whether he lived alone or not.

What I believe Anderson is saying, Phil, is that the authorities had developed firm ideas regarding the wanted man and so mounted a detailed search of the area in order to identify any men who conformed to these expectations. Later, when Kosminski attracted police attention, it was found that he fitted the bill precisely.

[PaulB]

Hello Gary,

You quoted Anderson..my emphasis..



I would like to know a thing or two that has me a little puzzled.

Umm, Anderson says in certain terms that the police are well aquainted with this Polish Jew suspect..Really?

Because he apparently doesn't know if this suspect is living on his own or not. Then later...

He also says that the Polish Jew suspect comes under the catagory of a person who could "..go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."
Now that really is a revelation. Anderson would therefore know that this was a fact for his suspect, Kosminski, according to Swanson.

He also says that "During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him"..ahhh.. so Kosminski was known to the police BEFORE Anderson took charge of the investigation proper?

So they knew of Kosminski and were looking for him, amongst others, during the house to house investigation? Yet they didn't know exactly where he lived or whether he lived alone or not.

Finally, a cracker of the Christmas sort...

"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews;"...this comment followed the sentence..
"During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."..err.. the two sentences have nothing to do with each other if the police don't know whether he lived alone or not...or where he lived and with whom.

I just wonder, thats all.

best wishes

Phil

Sadly a complete misreading/misunderstanding of what Anderson wrote.

[PaulB]

There is a very real problem here which means this is a "dialogue" of the deaf. Paul B, myself and others have been seeking to discuss the HISTORICAL METHOD. that is not something we have invented but is the academic structure and approach that underlies most serious works and all historical scholarship.

Evidence, and the remarks of Anderson, Swanson et al are EVIDENCE, cannot be lightly discarded or dismissed. They can be discussed, weighed and a rational given for accepting or discounting what is said - the judgement of others is then on whether those arguments are valid and accepted. That is as true in discussing Augustus Caesar; the Black Death or JtR. A contemporary view has to be given weight, even if modern historians believe other perhaps scientific or archaeological evidence, or the views of other contemporaries contradict it.

It is through the careful analysis and comparison of what is said that understanding emerges, but more important a concensus is reached so that the conclusion established can be used as a building black in further discussion.

Others of you - either unaware of, uneducated in, or because you dislike its disciplines - seem to be relying on a looser and more subjective view based on reason or logic or just personal preference.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with that, but views that do not based themselves on the accepted approach are less likely to receive wide acceptance and will provide a less stable platform for continuing work.

Phil H

Halleluiah!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Gary,

You quoted Anderson..my emphasis..

‘One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of the virulent type; and that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.’

I would like to know a thing or two that has me a little puzzled.

Umm, Anderson says in certain terms that the police are well aquainted with this Polish Jew suspect..Really?

Because he apparently doesn't know if this suspect is living on his own or not. Then later...

He also says that the Polish Jew suspect comes under the catagory of a person who could "..go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."
Now that really is a revelation. Anderson would therefore know that this was a fact for his suspect, Kosminski, according to Swanson.

He also says that "During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him"..ahhh.. so Kosminski was known to the police BEFORE Anderson took charge of the investigation proper?

So they knew of Kosminski and were looking for him, amongst others, during the house to house investigation? Yet they didn't know exactly where he lived or whether he lived alone or not.

Finally, a cracker of the Christmas sort...

"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews;"...this comment followed the sentence..
"During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."..err.. the two sentences have nothing to do with each other if the police don't know whether he lived alone or not...or where he lived and with whom.

I just wonder, thats all.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Well, Paul, Macnaghten cast Ostrog as an uber homicidal manic, a claim which has since proven to have been utter nonsense. He also had Druitt as a much stronger Ripper candidate than either Ostrog or Kosminski, and yet was able to make only the flimsiest of cases against Druitt. This being so, it appears pretty self-evident that the authorities had little or no tangible evidence with which to link Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders.

Yes, Macnaghten did cast Ostrog in that role and I can only assume that he had reasons for doing so. Information which came to light subsequently has shown that Ostrog was not in the country when the murders were committed, a fact of which Macnaghten was self-evidently unaware. Or he was a complete tosspot, which he wasn't. And he did indeed favour Druitt over Kosminski and Ostrog, but whether or not he had the flimsiest of cases against him is unknown to me as I don't knew what that case was. And it isn't in the least self-evident that the authorities had little or no tangible evidence linking Kosminski with the murders. We don't know what evidence they had.

Sorry, Paul, but Anderson’s words leave no room for doubting Anderson’s opinions: ‘One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of the virulent type; and that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.’

That’s fairly unequivocal to my mind.

If that's how you read it, fine. But to me Anderson, never the clearest or carefullest of writers, is simply saying that that some basic conclusions were obvious - the murderer was a sexual maniac who lived in the area and, a no brainer, he either lived alone and nobody saw him clean himself up, or he lived with people who saw him get clean and didn't convey their suspicions to the authorities. This conclusion led to a house-to-house search of all men who were living on their own - two points of interest, one being that the house-to-house was probably organised and took place whilst Anderson was abroad. We're not told what the outcome of the house-to-house was but are left to infer that nobody living alone fitted the bill. Anderson then says what the conclusion was that "we" came to, the "we" arguably meaning the Metropolitan Police, or a group of policemen who may or may not have included Anderson.

The Met and City forces were exchanging case-related intelligence on a daily basis, Paul. Had the Met uncovered information implicating Kosminski in the Ripper series, Major Smith would have known about it. And yet Smith freely admitted to having been totally defeated by the Whitechapel Murderer. On top of this Smith’s own Kosminski investigation turned up nothing incriminating. So it is quite straightforward: if Smith either failed to uncover or learn of information that identified Kosminski as the killer, the evidence simply wasn’t there. This explains why Macnaghten concluded that Druitt was a more likely killer than Kosminski, and why Abberline dismissed the notion that the Ripper had been identified and committed to an asylum. It probably also goes some way to explaining Smith’s virulent condemnation of Anderson’s literary claims with regard to the killer’s identification.

Which boils down to Anderson and Swanson being tosspots along with Macnaghten who wrote that there were many circs which made Kosminski a strong suspects even though in your view there were none. That's fine by me, but unfortunately we have to demonstrate that these sources were tosspots and thus far it hasn't been done.

My feeling, Paul, is that Kosminski somehow came to the attention of the authorities and was investigated by the City with no tangible result. Anderson, on the other hand, noted that Kosminski met all of the criteria which constituted his ‘profile’ of the killer. Kosminski’s identification at the Seaside Home confirmed the issue beyond all doubt in Anderson’s mind, and Anderson then took Kosminski’s approximation to the profile as further evidence of guilt. This explains Anderson’s claim of moral certainty regarding the issue. No talk of evidence, just moral certainty. And that, as far as I’m concerned, is very revealing.

Fine. It's the "somehow came to the attention of the authorities" which worries me. Why would Kosminski have come to the attention of the authorities and been investigated as a potential Ripper if the authorities "had little or no tangible evidence" linking him to the crimes? Why would Macnaghten says there were many circs making Kosminski a strong suspect if there weren't any. Why would Kosminski have been positively identified if he wasn't anywhere near the crimes? And you have yet to prove that the profile, as you perceive it, was Anderson's favoured profile, or, even if it was, that it played any part whatsoever in Kosminski having come under suspicion.

Now, you say that ‘policemen don’t usually think someone is a murderer on the basis of non-existent evidence’, and by and large you are correct. But policemen can and do get things wrong – especially policemen possessed of an authoritarian personality as was certainly the case with Anderson. I have already referred to the case of Terry Hawkshaw, and there are plenty more examples besides. Remember Colin Stagg? Or Tim Evans? The Birmingham Six? The Guildford Four? Stefan Kiszko? Sean Hodgson? Sally Clark?

Absolutely. But they also get things right. Our problem is that we don't know which applies in the case of Kosminski. But let's make it absolutely clear that we're not talking about guilt here. This isn't about whether or not Anderson was right that Kosminski was the Ripper, this is about whether suspicion justifiably existed against him.

Again, look at the ‘evidence’ cited by Macnaghten in support of his Druitt theory. It is nonexistent. Yet Macnaghten clearly believed that the case against Druitt was more compelling than that relating to Kosminski. Thus one is bound to conclude that, beyond the Seaside Home identification, there wasn’t a scrap of tangible evidence linking Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders. Not a scrap. And there was certainly nothing to justify Anderson’s contention that the killer’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’.

I don't know how you can say the evidence against Druitt was non-existant. Of course evidence against Druitt existed, MAcnaghten obviously found it more persuasive than the evidence against Kosminski, but he acknowledges that there were many things which made Kosminski a strong suspect. Many things. Not just a positive eye-witness identification, which arguably Macnaghten may not have known about. And Anderson didn't say that the killer's identity was "a definitely ascertained fact", he said that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the man he believed was the Ripper was a Polish Jew.

[Monty]

Smith made no reference to it, Scott, and both Anderson and Swanson create the distinct impression that the affair was a Met operation.

If this is the case then Lewande and any witness in connection to Eddowes murder can be ruled out.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

There can only be a follow up if enough new information or documents are discovered which warrant an article. Otherwise, these discoveries will be posted here.

Regarding Monro, I did respond on that thread to say that I discussed the idea with Keith and he agrees it would be a good thing. He's going to approach the Monro family to seek their permission to publish his memoirs. If we get that, we'll be working on an article similar to Swanson and Macnaghten.

Best wishes
Adam

Hello Adam,

Thank you for the positive responses.

On the first point, of course, only if more turns up etc.. I was hoping for the exact response you have given. Thank you.

Re Monro.. I apologise as I have missed your answer on the other thread.
It is indeed superb news and it really would be of great value, imho. My thanks to Keith and yourself for this positive consideration to my request.

best wishes

Phil

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello Adam,

Ae there any plans in the pipeline for an eventual follow-up article related to the History of the Marginalia?

Also, may I ask if there any plans to an equivilent article relating to the Monro papers, as asked on the relevant Monro thread?

Many thanks in advance

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

There can only be a follow up if enough new information or documents are discovered which warrant an article. Otherwise, these discoveries will be posted here.

Regarding Monro, I did respond on that thread to say that I discussed the idea with Keith and he agrees it would be a good thing. He's going to approach the Monro family to seek their permission to publish his memoirs. If we get that, we'll be working on an article similar to Swanson and Macnaghten.

Best wishes
Adam

[Phil H]

There is a very real problem here which means this is a "dialogue" of the deaf. Paul B, myself and others have been seeking to discuss the HISTORICAL METHOD. that is not something we have invented but is the academic structure and approach that underlies most serious works and all historical scholarship.

Evidence, and the remarks of Anderson, Swanson et al are EVIDENCE, cannot be lightly discarded or dismissed. They can be discussed, weighed and a rational given for accepting or discounting what is said - the judgement of others is then on whether those arguments are valid and accepted. That is as true in discussing Augustus Caesar; the Black Death or JtR. A contemporary view has to be given weight, even if modern historians believe other perhaps scientific or archaeological evidence, or the views of other contemporaries contradict it.

It is through the careful analysis and comparison of what is said that understanding emerges, but more important a concensus is reached so that the conclusion established can be used as a building black in further discussion.

Others of you - either unaware of, uneducated in, or because you dislike its disciplines - seem to be relying on a looser and more subjective view based on reason or logic or just personal preference.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with that, but views that do not based themselves on the accepted approach are less likely to receive wide acceptance and will provide a less stable platform for continuing work.

Phil H

[Garry Wroe]

The identification described by Anderson and Swanson may have been conducted by the City

Smith made no reference to it, Scott, and both Anderson and Swanson create the distinct impression that the affair was a Met operation.

[Garry Wroe]

If I have not burnt my ships, Garry - can I please kiss you?

Well, Fish, since this is the best offer I've had all day ...

[Garry Wroe]

Fine. Prove it. And I don't mean that rudely. But the point is that maybe the evidence against "Kosminski" was rubbish, but Macnaghten tells us that there ‘were many circs' that made "Kosminski" 'a strong suspect’ and Anderson and Swanson thought he was Jack the Ripper. Prima facie that doesn't look like a completely empty hand of cards.

Well, Paul, Macnaghten cast Ostrog as an uber homicidal manic, a claim which has since proven to have been utter nonsense. He also had Druitt as a much stronger Ripper candidate than either Ostrog or Kosminski, and yet was able to make only the flimsiest of cases against Druitt. This being so, it appears pretty self-evident that the authorities had little or no tangible evidence with which to link Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders.

Did Anderson have a priori conclusions regarding ethnicity and so forth of the killer? He says that the conclusion we came to was that he was a low-class Polish Jew. That could mean Anderson, or Anderson and others, or just the police (or those police responsible for reaching the conclusion). Tellingly the supposedly arrogant and boastful Anderson does not claim it as his conclusion. And as far as we know it may have been but one of several conclusions the police reached.

Sorry, Paul, but Anderson’s words leave no room for doubting Anderson’s opinions: ‘One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of the virulent type; and that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.’

That’s fairly unequivocal to my mind.

And there is no evidence that the whole case against "Kosminski" rested on the eye-witness identification. Maybe it did, but there is no evidence for that.

The Met and City forces were exchanging case-related intelligence on a daily basis, Paul. Had the Met uncovered information implicating Kosminski in the Ripper series, Major Smith would have known about it. And yet Smith freely admitted to having been totally defeated by the Whitechapel Murderer. On top of this Smith’s own Kosminski investigation turned up nothing incriminating. So it is quite straightforward: if Smith either failed to uncover or learn of information that identified Kosminski as the killer, the evidence simply wasn’t there. This explains why Macnaghten concluded that Druitt was a more likely killer than Kosminski, and why Abberline dismissed the notion that the Ripper had been identified and committed to an asylum. It probably also goes some way to explaining Smith’s virulent condemnation of Anderson’s literary claims with regard to the killer’s identification.

And maybe the evidence against "Kosminski" was non-existent, but that's doubtful. Policemen don't usually think someone is a murderer on the basis of non-existent evidence. That the evidence was crap and they were barking up the wrong tree, I can accept. But not that no evidence existed at all.

My feeling, Paul, is that Kosminski somehow came to the attention of the authorities and was investigated by the City with no tangible result. Anderson, on the other hand, noted that Kosminski met all of the criteria which constituted his ‘profile’ of the killer. Kosminski’s identification at the Seaside Home confirmed the issue beyond all doubt in Anderson’s mind, and Anderson then took Kosminski’s approximation to the profile as further evidence of guilt. This explains Anderson’s claim of moral certainty regarding the issue. No talk of evidence, just moral certainty. And that, as far as I’m concerned, is very revealing.

Now, you say that ‘policemen don’t usually think someone is a murderer on the basis of non-existent evidence’, and by and large you are correct. But policemen can and do get things wrong – especially policemen possessed of an authoritarian personality as was certainly the case with Anderson. I have already referred to the case of Terry Hawkshaw, and there are plenty more examples besides. Remember Colin Stagg? Or Tim Evans? The Birmingham Six? The Guildford Four? Stefan Kiszko? Sean Hodgson? Sally Clark?

Again, look at the ‘evidence’ cited by Macnaghten in support of his Druitt theory. It is nonexistent. Yet Macnaghten clearly believed that the case against Druitt was more compelling than that relating to Kosminski. Thus one is bound to conclude that, beyond the Seaside Home identification, there wasn’t a scrap of tangible evidence linking Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders. Not a scrap. And there was certainly nothing to justify Anderson’s contention that the killer’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’.

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"I am saying that you are wrong."

That I am. Or perhaps I am right. Thing is, Paul, neither you nor me can tell. AS you so aptly put it yourself:

" You see, nobody is asking you to agree with what Anderson said and that's just as well because you can't honestly do that. You don't know why he said it, so there is no reason why you should agree with him. The trouble is that you can't disagree with him either, for the self same reason: you don't know the evidence on which what Anderson said was based."

Nor do you. We are both left in the dark. But you claim that you are allowed to switch the light back on again, since we may safely conclude that Anderson and Swanson are more likely to be right than wrong.

No, I do not and I have never claimed that Anderson and Swanson are more likely to be right than wrong. My whole point is that we don't know what evidence they had against Kosminski and therefore can't even begin to assess it and reach any conclusion about the probability of them being right or wrong.

My point has nothing whatsoever to do with Anderson et al being right or wrong. I am simply making a statement of fact: Macnaghten states that Kosminski was a strong suspect, Anderson and Swanson (subject to certain caveats) state Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. Kosminski was clearly a strong suspect to those gentlemen. You agree with me.

And that´s where I think YOU are wrong (on two counts, actually...!)

You are accepting that Anderson and Swanson, as I´m told, were experienced policemen, totally capable of making the right call. And the fact that Smith, Littlechild, Abberline, MacNaghten etc, etc, did NOT buy Andersons story is something you detract from your mathematical exercise. These men do not detract anything at all - if Anderson implied that the case was strong, then we must accept that the case WAS strong. No downgrading must be there.

Once again you are investing me with opinions I don't hold. To begin with, I am not engaging in any mathematical excercise. Nor am I saying that we must accept that the case against Kosminski was strong because Anderson tells us it was (nor, indeed, am I saying that we must accept it was strong because Macnaghten tells us it was strong). Nor am I discounting anything Littlechild et al said.

I am stating that Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson clearly believed that the case against Kosminski was strong. You agree with me. I am saying that Smith et al don't appear to have shared that opinion. You agree with me. I am saying that we don't know why Anderson etc believed what they did. You agree with me. I am saying that we don't know why Smith and Co believed what they did. You agree with me.

You, however, argue that because we don't know the evidence on which Anderson and Co based that their belief that Kosminski's stature as a suspect is therefore diminished TODAY.

I do not say that. I say that Kosminski's status as a suspect is no different now than it was back then. The evidence against Kosminski is the same now as it was back then. It hasn't changed at all. The only difference is that back then they knew what that evidence was, whereas today we don't.

I am drawing no conclusion about Kosminski's status as a suspect. You are. You acknowledge that Kosminski was a strong suspect back then (at least as far as Anderson and Co are concerned), but without knowing any of the evidence against him, you are saying he isn't a strong suspect TODAY.

That's like saying Boudica wasn't "fearsome of aspect" because we don't have the evidence on which that claim by Dio Cassius was based.

But Paul, if we are to rely on Anderson and Swanson, then why not rely totally on them? Swanson, with all that experience and knowledge, puts it beyond questioning that what they had on the suspect was enough to hang him. He was - or could be successfully claimed to be, in a court of law - Jack the Ripper. And Anderson tells us that the Ripper was the man they had.

Is it your realization that claiming somebody is something that you cannot prove in any minimal manner at all, is the equivalent of pulling a pink rabbit out of a a mqagician´s hat? If so, I say don´t be shy - if you can pull off a strong candidacy on no evidence at all, exchanging it for putting trust in the theory of a man that was called outrageous by a contemporary senior officer, then you can of course pull a proven Rippership off too on behalf of Aaron Kosminski. That´s how it works - if you can conclude on thing without evidence, then you can equally conclude another. ANY other, as it were.

Yet again you attributing things to me that I don't say. This whole discussion is about whether or not something somebody said in the past is any the less reliable in the present simply because we don't now know why they said it.

" in discounting Kosminski's status as a suspect today, based on the evidence you possess today (which is next to nothing), you are discounting his status as a suspect back then"

I am doing no such thing at all, and you should know it. I have very clearly and explicitly said that it is blatantly obvious that Anderson put great trust in Kosminski, and that he may well have been correct, just as he may have been wrong. I am therefore effectively not saying anything at all about any proven status back then, and I am refraining from it for the exact same reason as I do so today: we don´t know what had him accused.

On the contrary, that is precisely what you are doing. Kosminski's status as a suspect is wholly and absolutely dependent on the evidence that existed back then. Unless that evidence has changed, and it hasn't, there are absolutely no grounds for concluding that Kosminski is more or less valid as a suspect today that he was back then.

"You can't discount Kosminski's worth as a suspect"

No. And I don´t do so either. I don´t comment explicitely on any shred of evidence from the 19:th century, because I have no idea what it was. Therefore I totally accept that he was the top suspect in Anderson´s eyes, and nothing at all like that in Smith´s and Littlechild´s eyes. You see, he did not have just the one status as a suspect back then - he had many. As many as there were commentators among the senior men.

We're not discussing Kosminski's worth in Anderson's eyes. We're discussing Kosminski's status as a suspect. Two different things. And Smith et al don't comment on his worth as a suspect. And Macnaghten, who prima facie didn't share Anderson's opinion that Kosminski was Jack, does acknowledge that he was a strong suspect. And, as I repeatedly observe, since we don't know what those 'many circs' which made him a strong suspect were, we cannot say whether they were valid or not.

And please note that just as I do not accept that Anderson must have been right - but could have been - I don´t accept that Smith must have been right either - but he too could have been. There is a choice of two roads and no sign telling us which is the right one. To me, that is the equivalent of no road being the obviously right choice. And in consequence with that, Kosminski is TODAY a man with a not only weak, but factually almost non-existant amount of evidence behind him as a Ripper suspect.

Right, one last attempt: Today there is no evidence against Kosminski. Well, yes there is. There is exactly the same evidence against him as existed back then, we just don't know what it was. However, those who did know, like Macnaghten, said there were many circs which made Kosminski a strong suspect. You don't know what those circs were, so you can't even begin to assess whether Macnaghten was correct in saying what he did.

The whole point is that the evidence hasn't changed. Not one iota. He doesn't have weak or even non-existant evidence against him, it is only that you don't know what the evidence was.

As I have said, Macnaghten says Kosminski was a strong suspect, Dio Cassius says Boudica was a woman fearsome of aspect. Neither statement is based on evidence we possess today, but that doesn't make Kosminski any less of a suspect than it makes Boudica less fearsome to look upon.

Now, Paul, we have sung our respective arias in all keyes possible, have we not? I think we are going to need to agree to disagree before we run out of server capacity. I know where you stand and why, you know where I stand and why. Let´s leave it there and move on!

The best,
Fisherman

Yes.