Doubt
Hello Mike,
Yes, I agree. There is doubt. And I happen to agree with Jonathan that we can doubt it actually happened.
For if, as I have maintained, and as others, such as Paul Begg have written, that DSS is actually only expanding on Anderson's story, then it all comes down to the veracity of the original story and it's story teller.
Now if there is one thing that is certain in Riperology, Sir Robert Anderson's versions of certain events in his book, TLSOMOL, are open to grave doubt. His version of his departure/retirement for example, has been shown by Simon Wood to have been totally false. The story, again shown by Simon Wood, of his award from the Russian Tsar, is also very doubtful. Anderson's way of manufacturing guilt in moral terms, is deceptive in the least and his outright boasting of his leadership and his own ability to have everything under total control at all times is staggeringly pretentious. Examples of these things have been written and talked about many a time, and I don't need to go into them here. The point is, that Sir Robert Anderson, as a recaller of the truth, leaves much to be desired. So on that basis alone, there is much room for doubt.
Which leaves a rather simple possibility. DSS is expanding and semi-detailing Anderson's story.
It has been said that Jim Swanson was convinced that DSS thought "Kosminski" to be killer. Sadly, this cannot be regarded as evidence as Jim Swanson also states that DSS would not reveal the killer's name at any cost..wild horses..etc. DSS was also known to be most reluctant to talk shop. So how would Jim Swanson know that DSS thought Kosminski was the killer if he never talked to any family member about the killer? Ipso facto...and respectfully said, Jim Swanson could not have possibly have known if DSS meant Kosminski was the killer. It was never discussed.
Oh yes, there is a great deal of room for doubt...and this is before we start looking at the mistakes and unprovable points DSS made in his annotations.
Jonathan and Mike, you both know my thoughts on Kosminski, Druitt and Tumblety. I respect you both for your efforts to get nearer the truth... but it has to be said that this ever on-going Kosminski story is really starting to grind down to nothing. DSS wrote the marginalia. That is the extent of the positivity towards the Kosminski story. From what has been revealed recently, the more I see, the more holes I see in anything other than annotating some details giving expansion of Anderson's story.
I won't be surprised if more material is found though..which may or may not cover the holes. And there is starting to be a huge amount of holes in the Kosminski story.
Just an opinion.
best wishes
Phil
Hello Mike,
Yes, I agree. There is doubt. And I happen to agree with Jonathan that we can doubt it actually happened.
For if, as I have maintained, and as others, such as Paul Begg have written, that DSS is actually only expanding on Anderson's story, then it all comes down to the veracity of the original story and it's story teller.
Now if there is one thing that is certain in Riperology, Sir Robert Anderson's versions of certain events in his book, TLSOMOL, are open to grave doubt. His version of his departure/retirement for example, has been shown by Simon Wood to have been totally false. The story, again shown by Simon Wood, of his award from the Russian Tsar, is also very doubtful. Anderson's way of manufacturing guilt in moral terms, is deceptive in the least and his outright boasting of his leadership and his own ability to have everything under total control at all times is staggeringly pretentious. Examples of these things have been written and talked about many a time, and I don't need to go into them here. The point is, that Sir Robert Anderson, as a recaller of the truth, leaves much to be desired. So on that basis alone, there is much room for doubt.
Which leaves a rather simple possibility. DSS is expanding and semi-detailing Anderson's story.
It has been said that Jim Swanson was convinced that DSS thought "Kosminski" to be killer. Sadly, this cannot be regarded as evidence as Jim Swanson also states that DSS would not reveal the killer's name at any cost..wild horses..etc. DSS was also known to be most reluctant to talk shop. So how would Jim Swanson know that DSS thought Kosminski was the killer if he never talked to any family member about the killer? Ipso facto...and respectfully said, Jim Swanson could not have possibly have known if DSS meant Kosminski was the killer. It was never discussed.
Oh yes, there is a great deal of room for doubt...and this is before we start looking at the mistakes and unprovable points DSS made in his annotations.
Jonathan and Mike, you both know my thoughts on Kosminski, Druitt and Tumblety. I respect you both for your efforts to get nearer the truth... but it has to be said that this ever on-going Kosminski story is really starting to grind down to nothing. DSS wrote the marginalia. That is the extent of the positivity towards the Kosminski story. From what has been revealed recently, the more I see, the more holes I see in anything other than annotating some details giving expansion of Anderson's story.
I won't be surprised if more material is found though..which may or may not cover the holes. And there is starting to be a huge amount of holes in the Kosminski story.
Just an opinion.
best wishes
Phil
Comment