On another thread, Martin Fido posted the following:
I don't deny that it could mean Anderson still had no positive conclusion in November 1889, and instantly concede that this would rule out David Cohen (who, I believe, is far more likely than Kosminski to have been Anderson's supect - and again, I note that my conclusions are being challenged by people who have not undertaken the necessary scholarly re-checking of my original work in tracing all Jewish patients in London asylums between 1888 and 1890 and all deaths of Kosminskis, Kosminskys and Kaminskys registered between 1888 and 1960 before I reached the conclusion that Cohen is the only patient who fits Anderson's account. To dismiss my arguments opponents depend instead on logic-chopping.)
[my emphasis]
I think the part I've put into bold is a remarkable claim. It would be interesting to know whether anyone else agrees with it, two decades on from the publication of Martin Fido's book proposing Cohen as a suspect.
I don't deny that it could mean Anderson still had no positive conclusion in November 1889, and instantly concede that this would rule out David Cohen (who, I believe, is far more likely than Kosminski to have been Anderson's supect - and again, I note that my conclusions are being challenged by people who have not undertaken the necessary scholarly re-checking of my original work in tracing all Jewish patients in London asylums between 1888 and 1890 and all deaths of Kosminskis, Kosminskys and Kaminskys registered between 1888 and 1960 before I reached the conclusion that Cohen is the only patient who fits Anderson's account. To dismiss my arguments opponents depend instead on logic-chopping.)
[my emphasis]
I think the part I've put into bold is a remarkable claim. It would be interesting to know whether anyone else agrees with it, two decades on from the publication of Martin Fido's book proposing Cohen as a suspect.
Comment