New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[PaulB]

Hi Paul

[/B] My emphasis.

So Rob is also incorrect when he says? :

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
I know what you mean, but he's not a weak suspect. He can't be. We know next to nothing about why he was suspected, so how on earth can we judge whether he's strong or weak? All we can say is how people back then thought of him.
Hi Paul

Quote:
We know next to nothing about why he was suspected, so how on earth can we judge whether he's strong or weak?
My emphasis.

So Rob is also incorrect when he says? :

Quote:
I also think that today, we as historians must still consider Kozminski as a strong suspect in the Ripper case
__________________

No, he's not wrong. We know that Macnaghten says there were many things which made him a strong suspect and we know that Anderson thought he was Jack the Ripper. And we know that Swanson may have thought he was too. So we know without shadow of doubt that we must consider Kosminski a strong suspect in this case.

What we don't know is whether or not those many things which made him a good suspect actually did make him a good suspect, or, indeed, whether they really were many or lots and lots. We don't know whether Anderson's conclusion was sensibly based or whether he was heavily biased or talking through the back of his neck.

From our vantage point toady, with the paucity of information at our disposal, and with no knowledge of the evidence at all, we can't judge whether Kosminski was a strong or weak suspect. But as historians we can form an opinion of what informed and senior people thought back then.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
I dont discount their words-I count them! Thats why Kos has to be considered a suspect today.

My point is if we are playing detective TODAY-given all we know now-the case is weak. Kos is a weak suspect. They all are. Kos (and a few others IMHO) are just less weak.

Ah, well the case may be weak on the basis of the information which has survived, but even people playing detective today have to acknowledge that the information which exists today is unlikely to be all the information that existed back then. Even people playing detective today have to listen to the voices from back then, so that when one of them tells us that there were many things which made Kosminski a good suspect then there probably were many things that made him a good suspect even though we don't know what those many things were. And unless people playing detective today have very good reasons for doubting the word of our witnesses to the past, they have no real alternative but to accept what they are told, especially when other witnesses to the past describe actions that were taken and conclusions that were reached. The bottom line is that what exists today is not what existed back then, and unless you have very good reasons for believing that what doesn't exist today didn't exist back then either, the detective today has to accept that all the witnesses and suspects and evidence and everything is just a fragment of what once existed. Anyone playing detective today has a tough job. Most of their evidence, evidence in every form, doesn't exist anymore.

[PaulB]

PaulB,
To answer your post 566.A person of interest is a well known description.It does not,as you imply,neccessarily mean the subject is a suspect,not in law enforcement terms,that is.Kosminski's name may have come to police attention in one of several ways,and the information given may have been that the informant considered Kosminski a person they (the police)should investigate.Perhaps the informant places Kosminski at or near,a murder site.No matter what,because a name has been supplied,the police decide to act.At this time Kosminski would be a person of interest only.It may be that at a later time,during the police enquiry,evidence surfaces that supports the informant's information,and connects Kosminski in an incriminating way,to one or more murders.Then he would be classed as suspect,and if the evidence be strong enough,accused of a crime.

I'm afraid I am very well aware of what a person of interest is, but thanks for taking the time to explain it. I also know when it came to be used, and why, and how, and also that it has no real official definition in the US or in England, and that it wasn't a term or a distinctionused in Whitechapel in 1888. Or probably in 1998 for that matter. And above and beyond all else, I know that to all intent and purposes it is a euphemism for someone thought to have a connection to a crime or criminal group - and in the down and dirty real world, the word suspect seems to happily cover that. Obviously. Because someone with no real or perceived connection with any crime or criminal group wouldn't be a person if any interest at all. Not to any law enforcement agency anyway. Would he?

Now police then nor now, do not jump in with two feet accusing anyone simply on the basis of what a member of the public might say,they gather and apply their own evidence...

Yes, Harry, Now, hold that thought.

[QUOTE=harry;245921]and it is this lack of any evidence gathered,or known,that leads some of us to state there was never any in the ripper murders,that pointed to a suspect named Kosminski./QUOTE]

Right, so the police do not accuse anyone simply on the basis of what a member of the public might say. That's what you said. So it follows, does it not, that if they did accuse someone then they would have evidence?

So when Macnaghten tells us there were many circs which made Kosminski a good suspect, and when Swanson says it was with great difficulty that Kosminski was sent for identification, and when Anderson says Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, it would follow, would it not, that they said and did those things on the basis of evidence?

Sorry, Harry, but the problem you and others seem to have is that you can't get your heads around the fact that information not existing today doesn't mean it never existed at all. By your own defining words, the "police... gather and apply their own evidence...", so if the police accused anyone they did so after having gathered and applied their own evidence. Yet you deny that evidence was gathered and applied against Kosminski. And why? Because that evidence doesn't exist today. And since the evidence associated with a vast number of criminal investigations doesn't exist today, that is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Now police then nor now, do not jump in with two feet accusing anyone simply on the basis of what a member of the public might say,they gather and apply their own evidence,and it is this lack of any evidence gathered,or known,that leads some of us to state there was never any in the ripper murders,that pointed to a suspect named Kosminski.

Lack of any evidence......

So you mean to tell us Anderson and Swanson had no evidence. Not weak evidence, not bad evidence, not mistaken evidence.

No evidence. Never any.

Except you say the police are wise and do not just jump in.

You sound like another beat cop with a prejudiced eye towards his superiors. We've seen a few here. The field would have been better off with more historians, but this is what they have left us. Sources mean nothing.

[harry]

PaulB,
To answer your post 566.A person of interest is a well known description.It does not,as you imply,neccessarily mean the subject is a suspect,not in law enforcement terms,that is.Kosminski's name may have come to police attention in one of several ways,and the information given may have been that the informant considered Kosminski a person they (the police)should investigate.Perhaps the informant places Kosminski at or near,a murder site.No matter what,because a name has been supplied,the police decide to act.At this time Kosminski would be a person of interest only.It may be that at a later time,during the police enquiry,evidence surfaces that supports the informant's information,and connects Kosminski in an incriminating way,to one or more murders.Then he would be classed as suspect,and if the evidence be strong enough,accused of a crime.Now police then nor now, do not jump in with two feet accusing anyone simply on the basis of what a member of the public might say,they gather and apply their own evidence,and it is this lack of any evidence gathered,or known,that leads some of us to state there was never any in the ripper murders,that pointed to a suspect named Kosminski.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Thanks for the reply. Tuke and Howden are not, I maintain, whackos in their field.

No argument here on that. None whatsoever.

I maintain that contemporary expert opinion on the murderer's mind is of import to our understanding.

The issue here is how much weight we should give it. If we were discussing astrophysics we would not denigrate Ptolemy, but he wouldn't factor into our discussion. Maybe someone would open a paper with a quote from him....but he wouldn't be relied on....

1888 was the dawn of the Serial Killer. It is to be expected that Victorian investigators and physicians would make serious mistakes in analysis.

[Jenni Shelden]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

Or is that too much for some?

Monty

Indeed - it was an excellent article. I think much kudos should be being given to the authors for their outstanding research

Jenni

[Phil Carter]

I've had to read a lot about Victorian medicine to understand what in God's name James Maybrick's doctors were pumping him full of in his last few weeks. It's appalling by our standards.

Why would you give heavy weight - I'm not saying no weight - to a Victorian era expert on the insane?

Should we not then also hold said experts responsible for the treatment of the mentally ill in the asylums of the day?

Hello Robert,

Thanks for the reply. Tuke and Howden are not, I maintain, whackos in their field.

I maintain that contemporary expert opinion on the murderer's mind is of import to our understanding.

And what of the SRA observation I made? Any thoughts?

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert Anderson:

"You said earlier in the thread you hadn't read it. "

Gee! What a strange thing to say - of course I have read it. AND commented on it many times, acknowledging a great effort. I have called it the best suspect book I have read.

One has to wonder why I would suddenly claim not to have read it...?

"I guess you're a quick read."

Nope - painfully slow, if anything.

The best,
Fisherman

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Does this evaluation also apply to Dr Sir John Batty Tuke, probably the foremost contemporary expert on the subject of the mentally impaired in asylums, who made a crystal clear evaluation, as far as I can see, unopposed, on the mental health and condition of the Whitechapel murderer?

Does this evaluation also apply to Dr Howden, the President of the Section (same subject as above) who refers to Dr Tuke in his evaluation of contemporary lunacy in asylums and the patients therein?

Nope..I don't think their comments were wild leaps either. And ignoring them just because their expertise and commentary obviously don't fit the Kosminski identikit picture is plain wrong. These people knew more about the lunatics, the insane, the mad, the feeble minded and every other type of patient in the asylum system in the UK...in the Late Victorian Period and spoke specifically in 1888 about exactly that. In Tuke's case, specifically about the murderer's mind.

I've had to read a lot about Victorian medicine to understand what in God's name James Maybrick's doctors were pumping him full of in his last few weeks. It's appalling by our standards.

Why would you give heavy weight - I'm not saying no weight - to a Victorian era expert on the insane?

Should we not then also hold said experts responsible for the treatment of the mentally ill in the asylums of the day?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

PS. I will give the book a renewed read, and try to see it from your angle. But donīt hope for too much - I am pretty certain I remember it.

You said earlier in the thread you hadn't read it.

I guess you're a quick read.

[Monty]

Yeah,

Seemingly it is.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

I think Kosminski was a bad case back then, mainly grounded in events not related to the murders and in prejudiced conceptions of what the Ripper would be. And before I see anything that tells us that I am wrong on this score, I am going to be very steadfast in my conviction that Aaron Kosminski, regardless of the status he held as a suspect back in the 19:th century, is but a weak suspect today.

Hello Christer,

I am in complete agreement with this. Thank you for posting this.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

Or is that too much for some?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert Anderson:

"Why not read the book you are commenting on? That is frequently a good start for a discussion."

Ah - your swipe at irony! A little rough around the edges and not very original, but well performed all in all!

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I will give the book a renewed read, and try to see it from your angle. But donīt hope for too much - I am pretty certain I remember it.