Tweet
Paul B:
"Why would it make us look ridiculous? We theorise on the basis of the evidence in our possession and we adapt, change, and sometime abandon our theories as and when new information comes to light (or sometimes when existing evidence is reinterpreted). That's how theories work (or should work). It's how well we use the tools we have that matters."
It is. And using the tools and evidence we have to state firmly that "Kosminski" is a strong suspect is making a very poor use of them tools and that evidence. We - and I repeat - are in no position at all to make that call.
"Nobody is condemning anybody on no evidence"
Wrong, Iīd say - if we make the call that Kosminski is a strong suspect, we are doing exactly that. Once again, the level of viability as a suspect rests solely on the quality and amount of evidence existing. There can be no budging on that rule.
"All we can do is do our best to assess the reliability of our sources."
Thatīs correct. But we seem to reach different conclusions when doing so. I think that for example Smithīs and Littlechildīs discontentment with Anderson tells us that these men offered informed opinions. I think Abberlineīs stance is telling too. I think the faults in the description of the time of incarceration and death is a mighty warning sign. I feel that the "homicidal and violent" stuff is remarkable, not least in view of itīs being presented alongside the assessment of Ostrog as a crafty, murderous guy with the worst possible antecedents.
I see lots and lots of things that point totally away from putting too much trust in Anderson and his faithful companion, and therefore I deem it wise not to empty that particular cup too enthusiastically.
But even if I had put all the trust in the world in Anderson, even if I had regarded Smith, Littlechild and Abberline as envious nitwits and if I had bought the picture of Kosminski as a stealthy man, dead set on killing off prostitutes, I would still say that as long as we donīt have what Anderson had and regarded as enough, we simply cannot dub Kosminski a strong suspect. Any assessment of a mans viability as a suspect in any case is - once again - to be grounded on the evidence that exists in direct coupling to the deeds he is charged for. There is no other way - NONE!!! - and I hope you will come to realize that eventually.
I mean, if we were at liberty to make calls about the grade of viability of a suspect without being allowed to look at the evidence attaching to the case, then why would we use any breaks at all?
If you totally believe in Anderson and Swanson, then all you have to do is to realize that the two said that there was a succesful ID that would have hung Kosminski if the witness had agreed to testify.
So why not go all the way: pronounce Kosminski the Ripper, and be done with it! Surely that is the logical outcome of putting a total and uncritical trust in Anderson/Swanson...?
"We wouldn't attempt to bring Kosminski before the judge and jury, but needless to say this isn't a court of law and the rules of law don't apply. This is history. The rules are different."
Emphatically no, not in the context we are speaking of. No knowledge about the grounds on which a man is suspected is the exact same in history and in practical law: A clear pointer that we cannot assess and convict.
Of course history and todayīs legal matters do allow for different agendas - but not in this context. No matter if we move Kosminski back to the Meroving days or the Stone age - if we donīt know what the grounds were for the suspicion, we cannot respond to that knowledge by making an assesment of a strong candidacy as a suspect. In fact, we can make no assessment at all, but for the one we may make about Anderson and Swanson - they DID see Kosminski as a suspect (or claimed they did), and that is all we know.
"Who is jumping to conclusions? We have a source which states that Kosminski was a suspect and we have two sources which seem to say he was Jack the Ripper. We can assess the reliability of those sources, but we can do little beyond that. "
If we settle for accepting that he was a suspect we are not jumping to conclusions.
If we claim that he is a strong suspect today, then we are.
If we claim that he was a strong suspect back then, we are ALSO jumping to conclusions.
If we claim that Anderson saw him as a strong suspect, we are in the clear.
These are the exact distinctions that apply.
""Was a strong suspect" or "was regarded as a strong suspect" is a rather pedantic distinction isn't it?"
No, and that may well be where you misunderstand the whole affair. If Anderson thought that the knife threat in combination with the insanity made Kosminski a strong suspect, then I would disagree massively. We would then have a situation where we have somebody who is REGARDED as a strong suspect, but who in fact is a weak one.
You cannot bank on Anderson being correct in making his call, Paul! Why do you think Smith considered it outrageous? Because it was only ALMOST true and a good call? Is that what we call "outrageous"? No, we call things that are WAY off the mark outrageous. And in this case, Smith may have been outraged by what he saw as a miscarriage of justice, quite simply.
Littlechild, why did he think that Anderson only thought he knew? Because, I would submit, Littlechild had come to the conclusion that Kosminski was not a viable enough contender for the title. Both men would have been quite aware that Kosminski was REGARDED by messr:s Anderson and Swanson as a strong suspect - but none of them would agree.
So no, there is not anything pedantic at all about the distinction. It is as vital a distinction as we are going to get, and, legally speaking, if we COULD put Kosminski on trial, this distincion could mean the difference between the scaffold and freedom for him - if Swanson was going to come good on his intentions to hang a man he knew became a certified lunatic.
"Enthusiasm for a suspect doesn't enter into the equation."
Good - then we shall be quite fine, and Kosminski quite freed from any accusations of being a strong suspect.
All the best,
Fisherman
"Why would it make us look ridiculous? We theorise on the basis of the evidence in our possession and we adapt, change, and sometime abandon our theories as and when new information comes to light (or sometimes when existing evidence is reinterpreted). That's how theories work (or should work). It's how well we use the tools we have that matters."
It is. And using the tools and evidence we have to state firmly that "Kosminski" is a strong suspect is making a very poor use of them tools and that evidence. We - and I repeat - are in no position at all to make that call.
"Nobody is condemning anybody on no evidence"
Wrong, Iīd say - if we make the call that Kosminski is a strong suspect, we are doing exactly that. Once again, the level of viability as a suspect rests solely on the quality and amount of evidence existing. There can be no budging on that rule.
"All we can do is do our best to assess the reliability of our sources."
Thatīs correct. But we seem to reach different conclusions when doing so. I think that for example Smithīs and Littlechildīs discontentment with Anderson tells us that these men offered informed opinions. I think Abberlineīs stance is telling too. I think the faults in the description of the time of incarceration and death is a mighty warning sign. I feel that the "homicidal and violent" stuff is remarkable, not least in view of itīs being presented alongside the assessment of Ostrog as a crafty, murderous guy with the worst possible antecedents.
I see lots and lots of things that point totally away from putting too much trust in Anderson and his faithful companion, and therefore I deem it wise not to empty that particular cup too enthusiastically.
But even if I had put all the trust in the world in Anderson, even if I had regarded Smith, Littlechild and Abberline as envious nitwits and if I had bought the picture of Kosminski as a stealthy man, dead set on killing off prostitutes, I would still say that as long as we donīt have what Anderson had and regarded as enough, we simply cannot dub Kosminski a strong suspect. Any assessment of a mans viability as a suspect in any case is - once again - to be grounded on the evidence that exists in direct coupling to the deeds he is charged for. There is no other way - NONE!!! - and I hope you will come to realize that eventually.
I mean, if we were at liberty to make calls about the grade of viability of a suspect without being allowed to look at the evidence attaching to the case, then why would we use any breaks at all?
If you totally believe in Anderson and Swanson, then all you have to do is to realize that the two said that there was a succesful ID that would have hung Kosminski if the witness had agreed to testify.
So why not go all the way: pronounce Kosminski the Ripper, and be done with it! Surely that is the logical outcome of putting a total and uncritical trust in Anderson/Swanson...?
"We wouldn't attempt to bring Kosminski before the judge and jury, but needless to say this isn't a court of law and the rules of law don't apply. This is history. The rules are different."
Emphatically no, not in the context we are speaking of. No knowledge about the grounds on which a man is suspected is the exact same in history and in practical law: A clear pointer that we cannot assess and convict.
Of course history and todayīs legal matters do allow for different agendas - but not in this context. No matter if we move Kosminski back to the Meroving days or the Stone age - if we donīt know what the grounds were for the suspicion, we cannot respond to that knowledge by making an assesment of a strong candidacy as a suspect. In fact, we can make no assessment at all, but for the one we may make about Anderson and Swanson - they DID see Kosminski as a suspect (or claimed they did), and that is all we know.
"Who is jumping to conclusions? We have a source which states that Kosminski was a suspect and we have two sources which seem to say he was Jack the Ripper. We can assess the reliability of those sources, but we can do little beyond that. "
If we settle for accepting that he was a suspect we are not jumping to conclusions.
If we claim that he is a strong suspect today, then we are.
If we claim that he was a strong suspect back then, we are ALSO jumping to conclusions.
If we claim that Anderson saw him as a strong suspect, we are in the clear.
These are the exact distinctions that apply.
""Was a strong suspect" or "was regarded as a strong suspect" is a rather pedantic distinction isn't it?"
No, and that may well be where you misunderstand the whole affair. If Anderson thought that the knife threat in combination with the insanity made Kosminski a strong suspect, then I would disagree massively. We would then have a situation where we have somebody who is REGARDED as a strong suspect, but who in fact is a weak one.
You cannot bank on Anderson being correct in making his call, Paul! Why do you think Smith considered it outrageous? Because it was only ALMOST true and a good call? Is that what we call "outrageous"? No, we call things that are WAY off the mark outrageous. And in this case, Smith may have been outraged by what he saw as a miscarriage of justice, quite simply.
Littlechild, why did he think that Anderson only thought he knew? Because, I would submit, Littlechild had come to the conclusion that Kosminski was not a viable enough contender for the title. Both men would have been quite aware that Kosminski was REGARDED by messr:s Anderson and Swanson as a strong suspect - but none of them would agree.
So no, there is not anything pedantic at all about the distinction. It is as vital a distinction as we are going to get, and, legally speaking, if we COULD put Kosminski on trial, this distincion could mean the difference between the scaffold and freedom for him - if Swanson was going to come good on his intentions to hang a man he knew became a certified lunatic.
"Enthusiasm for a suspect doesn't enter into the equation."
Good - then we shall be quite fine, and Kosminski quite freed from any accusations of being a strong suspect.
All the best,
Fisherman
Comment