Head to Head

[Robert]

Hi all

I like the Kosminski theory and while I am not actually convinced by it, I think it's one of the handful of theories definitely worth working on. However, there's something that bothers me :

If

1. Anderson is morally certain that JTR was a low class Polish Jew, but cannot nail him in court.

and

2. Very few people other than Anderson are in the know.

then it seems to me that Anderson was being extremely reckless - he could have dropped dead of a heart attack, been run down by a hansom, etc, at any time. If that had happened, what would have been the fate of any innocent man convicted of the murders? If I had been Anderson, I'd have left an unambiguous document behind, to forestall any possible miscarriage of justice.

Robert

[Dan Norder]

Since you accused me on another thread of "running away" for not seeing this post earlier, I might as well waste my time explaining what he should already be familiar with:

Exactly what of any importance at all in Anderson's claims about the Polish Jew is demonstrably incorrect assuming the person in question is Kozminski? Can you give me one example?

The claim that it was a "definitely ascertained fact" that the Ripper was a Polish Jew. The claim that the suspect was unhesitatingly identified by a witness who then refused to testify. The claim that Jews as a whole refused to give up their members to justice. Probably more if I wanted a complete list.

Also, you say Machnaghten said "only that he was a suspect and make no reference to any identification, only the part that the clothing was said to resemble."

Macnaghten actually said "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square." I am not sure where you got the bit about the clothing...

The City PC witness (which Macnaghten is clearly referring to but dropped a word) was Lawende, who only really had a look at the clothing of the person he saw.

And clearly, and obviously as has been pointed out endlessly, the reference to a City PC is wrong, but in general this does seem to support the idea that the suspect was identified.

No, it supports the idea that an identification was attempted. You can't leap to assuming that that means that the witness did identify him, especially when, if that were true, Macnaghten certainly would have mentioned it. You don't just leave that kind of detail out when listing reasons why someone should be suspected of being a killer. If Macnaghten didn't mention it then it obviously didn't happen, unless you assume it was so secret that Macngathen wouldn't have heard of it, which is not at all realistic.

So Macnaghten disagreed with Anderson... I dont think anyone is debating that.

But you are ignoring that and trying to twist what Macnaghten said as if it supported Anderson's claims.

But again, in my opinion Anderson believed that the Polish Jew was the Ripper... for whatever reason, he believed it.

Ego. Wishful thinking. Religious prejudice. Not having direct information about what really happened and filling in the details to suit his own ends. Confused memory. All of those are completely in line with what has been documented about Anderson's personality and standard way of dealing with things.

And, as we can see on these boards every day, lots of people confuse bizarre baseless assumptions with facts. Some odd person is running around these boards right now who honestly believes that Macnaghten was the killer. Belief is nowhere near the same as something that actually happened.

A strong belief that Kozminski was the Ripper, a moral certainty, for whatever reason, that he knew he could not prove in court.

The problem is that if events went as he said, he could prove it in court. A witness couldn't just have refused to testify once he made a positive identification. "Moral certainty" is just another way of saying that his mind is made up, don't bother him with facts.

And the identification was probably inconclusive anyways.

How can you not get that this alone is a direct contradiction to what Anderson claimed? The only reason anyone hangs anything on Anderson's claim is that he said the identification was solid. Tons of other people were brought in and inconclusively identified... big deal.

And, for future reference, if I don't bother to respond to a post of yours in the future you shouldn't try to pretend that means that your arguments are so insightful that nobody can poke a hole in them. If anything it means they are so old and pointless that nobody can be bothered to point out the same arguments anyone who has been in the field more than a year or so should already be familiar with.

[robhouse]

I am not going to bother debating with you anymore as you are clearly an *******. I am also not going to bother posting on these boards anymore.

So Ciao everyone. Nice knowing you.

[Robert]

Hey Rob, chill out. It doesn't matter what assumptions someone makes, what methodology he adopts, or what he happens to believe at any given moment. Someone can believe himself to be a poached egg for all I care, because if he contributes a valuable insight, makes a valid point, or unearths important information - as you and Chris have in your Kosminski researches - then that's all anyone need be concerned about. So it's a question of keeping on keeping on.

As for the lack of general interest in the Polish Jew theory, this was and always will be a highly specialised theory appealing to fairly few people, involving as it does difficult genealogical research coupled with two confusing and contradictory police accounts which require intimate knowledge of police methods and of the personalities of the men involved.

Robert

[Dan Norder]

Gee, Rob... You were the one who accused me of "running away" instead of debating a topic when I merely didn't see the post, and now you throw a tantrum and leave?

I would agree with Robert that you just need to chill out. You certainly aren't the worst example of someone obsessed with a single suspect, and you have done some good research here and there.