Quick Kosminski question (say that 5 times fast)

[Abby Normal]

Pierre is spot on, there is a clear suspect bias displayed on this site. By my calculations, around 1% of the suspects are princes, and yet barely 0.0000178% of the population as a whole can be described as such. Therefore they are massively overrepresented as suspects. How embarrassing anti-royalist.

LOL. now that's funny.

[Joshua Rogan]

Pierre is spot on, there is a clear suspect bias displayed on this site. By my calculations, around 1% of the suspects are princes, and yet barely 0.0000178% of the population as a whole can be described as such. Therefore they are massively overrepresented as suspects. How embarrassing anti-royalist.

[Abby Normal]

And, last but not least, nothing connects him to the murder sites.

Regards, Pierre

except the only direct evidence in the whole case against any suspect- positive ID of being with a murder victim shortly before her death.

[Wickerman]

Well, this thread started off good (thanks Errata), but then went south in a hurry. Lets get back to Aaron's mental condition and the possible reasons for suspecting him.

If I recall from previous similar discussions, we have no clue what his mental condition was in 1888, and he was far too young to match any suspect descriptions.

Have we advanced any further from this?

[MsWeatherwax]

[QUOTE=Pierre;388600][QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;388552]

Missing material can not be used as sources.

My feelings exactly, Pierre.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that AK was a suspect because he was poor, Jewish and had mental health issues. There is so much missing material that none of us can know (probably ever) the reasoning behind the Police suspicions.

Spitalfields and the East End have a massive history of Jewish immigration - those two areas in particular were very well known as Jewish neighbourhoods in the 1800's. You do not have to be a statistician to know that there is likely to be a skewed number of Jewish suspects in an area where there was a huge Jewish population.

Edit: That is not to say that there wasn't massive antisemitism at that time - there certainly was.

[Mayerling]

Hi Steve,

I do not have such a bias. History has it. 16 percent of the suspects on this site are described as jewish. The jewish population in England in the 1880s was not even 1 percent.

Best wishes, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Although I am Jewish, and hate to think of the possibility of it, a Jew in the East End is far from being an unlikely candidate for being the Ripper. And most of them were far from the middle class in income. Perhaps not all paupers, but some of them were. Even Anderson, in his comments, tried to emphasize it was not a better class Jewish person, like a Rothschild or Sassoon or a Disraeli type. The emphasis on poor (in the 19th Century mind set) suggested some type of mental block to failing to improve one's lifestyle or family situation. It was rather considered a type of moral failure, so that it could be seen as a breeding ground for insidieously evil behavior like that of the Ripper's toward prostitutes he slew.

It is stereotyping - definitely. But this type concentrated on the Jews because the East End was full of Jews. In some other cities of the time other minorities would have been knocked. In Liverpool (for decades) the Irish were similarly looked at as a criminal spawning class in it's lower sectors in the city.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Well, this thread started off good (thanks Errata), but then went south in a hurry. Lets get back to Aaron's mental condition and the possible reasons for suspecting him.

hi Scott

yes, I admit its easy to get drawn off track, but it did start out good I agree.

just like Bridewell my apologies too.

steve

[Elamarna]

You must compare the figure 16 percent to the fact that there was not even 1 percent in England. They are overrepresented as a group.

No Pierre the Jewish population is and was concentrated in certain areas. Therefore you must look at the figure of 16% and see where most of those were living to see if they are overrepresented.

I believe most of these 16% were living or working in the area of Whitechapel.
It seems clear therefore that the major criteria for suspects on this site is that the killer was local, not that they were Jewish.

Therefore how does 16% compare to the 1888 Jewish population in Whitechapel, Is it over or under represented if the belief is that the killer was local.
But you know all of this I find your attitude on this total incomprehensible.

If you think that a specific group of people is incidentally overrepresented in this case you should read some history about other accusations against Jews in history. They are not incidental. Every witness who is accusing a Jew in the past knows that it is a Jew he is accusing. We know this since the witness statements make this clear.

That is a misrepresentation of what I said Pierre, the witness statements do not as far as i am aware name an individual.
Persons were suspected not because they were Jews. they were suspected for other reasons, and they just happened to be Jewish.
Actually I think I know a fair bit about the history of Jewish people, my paternal grand mother being of that religion, so please do not attempt to lecture me on this.

There you go.

There I go what?
Yes there are reports which say the person seen was of Jewish appearance, what ever that means.
Some of those reports may be bias, no one argues that, but it is an enormous jump to say all reports which mention a Jewish person are bias.

Where is the evidence that all such reports are untrue?

That is the problem. It is likely that some people would never have been thought of in this case if they had not been Jewish. And he we sit with old anti-Semitism instead of solving a real problem. For me as an historian this is not a question about speaking for different groups of people, it is a matter of throwing away old garbage. It is blocking the view.

Who in particular would not have been suspected if he were not Jewish?
Please back this up with evidence ? not opinion.

I do not rule out anything.

Yes you do, you rule out persons not on evidence but because of your bias.
To say you do not is disingenuous.
.

On the suspect site. Yes. That is right. How come they are there? What do you think is the history behind it? And while we are at it, what is the prince doing there?

Individuals are there because people have suspected them, often with little or no evidence.
That applies to the 16% of Jewish suspects and equally to the 84% of non Jewish suspects.

The prince is there because someone believed he was a suspect.

The majority of those on that list are very poor suspects, I actually do not like to call them such, much of the research to name many of them was faulty and poorly done.
However they are there and most people will see how ridiculously weak some of the arguments are.

Sure it can. But there is no evidence.

Actually there is, but it does not fit your ideal so you disregard it.

There is no depth to look into. Aaron is not mentioned. Aaron Kosminsky had nothing connecting him to any of the murder sites. For me it is easy. No connection to any one of the murder sites, no killer. A connection to one murder site, perhaps a killer, depending on the quality of the sources. A connection to more than one murder site, perhaps a serial killer, depending on the quality of the sources. Connections to several of the murder sites and rather good to very good quality, perhaps a serial killer. All those connections, a motive, explanatory sources, time periods explained - a serial killer.

That is your opinion, given the lack of forensic science i really wonder what you expect as a link.

And who says there must be a surviving link to a site?

Of course you are entitled too that opinion.

However I wonder how much time have you spent looking at Kosminski, it need not be Aaron, to come up with these conclusions?

How much research have you read?

Come on there is not much, have you read anything not on this site?

I can manage my bias, Steve. I know I have it. That is why I am waiting.

Unfortunately my friend it is clear that you cannot, you demonstrate this time and time again.
Has I said to you before, you cannot see the wood for the trees.


Best wishes,

Steve

[Bridewell]

Well, this thread started off good (thanks Errata), but then went south in a hurry. Lets get back to Aaron's mental condition and the possible reasons for suspecting him.

Apologies for my part in that, Scott. I just couldn't let the 1% figure pass unchallenged.

[Scott Nelson]

Well, this thread started off good (thanks Errata), but then went south in a hurry. Lets get back to Aaron's mental condition and the possible reasons for suspecting him.

[Bridewell]

There is an over-representation of Jewish suspects.

No there isn't.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/census/pandp/places/spit.htm

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...census&f=false

Pierre, for someone who claims to be an historian, you have a very hazy grasp of 19th century pogroms and their effect.

[Bridewell]

16 percent of the "suspects" on this site. Not even 1 percent in England in the 1880s. Embarrassing.

Not embarrassing at all. As per my last post. The Jews made up something like 40% of the Whitechapel population. The 1% figure you quote for the whole of England is irrelevant. The murders were confined to the East End of London.

[Bridewell]

Hi Steve,

I do not have such a bias. History has it. 16 percent of the suspects on this site are described as Jewish. The Jewish population in England in the 1880s was not even 1 percent.

Best wishes, Pierre

1%? Not in the East End it wasn't. Closer to 40%.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;388611][QUOTE]

Pierre

We are not talking about murders in England as a whole are we?
How does that compare to the population in Whitechapel in 1888?

The theories about the suspects are not created in Whitechapel. That is the point. There is an overrepresentation of Jewish suspects. The easiest way of making the problem visible to you might be to state that Prins Albert Victor did not live in Whitechapel. Nor did some of the other suspects. So it is not a matter of counting percent of princes or Jews in Whitechapel.

So 84% of suspects are not described as Jewish, yet you feel that being Jewish was a reason to be suspected, that is not born out by those figures is it?

You must compare the figure 16 percent to the fact that there was not even 1 percent Jews in England. They are overrepresented as a group in ripperology. That is due to the anti-Semitism of the 1880s.

The failure you have, is that you do not see that these suspects as you refer to them, this 16% may be named not because they are Jewish, that is incidental, but because they may be violent, may live in the area, may have acted suspiciously or even been report by family members.

If you think that a specific group of people is incidentally overrepresented in this case you should read some history about other accusations against Jews in history. They are not incidental. Every witness who is accusing a Jew in the past knows that it is a Jew he is accusing. We know this since the witness statements make this clear.

Yes there are comments by some witnesses, such as Long and Hutchinson which indicate a Jewish person, and yes that may show a bias of that individual towards members of that group, or it may be an accurate report, While there may be a tendency in some reports to anti-Semitic comments, that does not mean every report is false or inaccurate.

There you go.

However such descriptions by a witness does not make an individual a suspect unless they are specifically identified by that witness.

That is the problem. It is likely that some people would never have been thought of in this case if they had not been Jewish. And here we sit with old anti-Semitism instead of solving a real problem. Garbage in, garbage out. For me as an historian this is not a question about speaking for different groups of people, it is a matter of throwing away old garbage. It is blocking the view.

To rule out a solution because you feel that such a solution echoes or reinforces what you consider to be a bias, is not scientific.

I do not rule out anything.

If such a bias did exist, and it may do, it means that you have to be very careful in analyzing the cases of individuals. However you do not appear to do this.

Instead you seem to suggest:

1.) There is a bias in history. 16% of suspects are described as of a particular race/religion, this is wrong

On the suspect site. Yes. That is right. How come they are there? What do you think is the history behind it? And while we are at it, what is the prince doing there?

2.) Therefore the solution to the killer cannot be a person of that race, because to name someone of that race is bias in itself.

Sure it can. But there is no evidence.

Result is that you exclude for the wrong reasons, and never look in depth at the cases, be that Kosminski or someone else.

There is no depth to look into. Aaron is not mentioned. Aaron Kosminsky had nothing connecting him to any of the murder sites. For me it is easy. No connection to any one of the murder sites, no killer. A connection to one murder site, perhaps a killer, depending on the quality of the sources. A connection to more than one murder site, perhaps a serial killer, depending on the quality of the sources. Connections to several of the murder sites and rather good to very good quality, perhaps a serial killer. All those connections, a motive, explanatory sources, time periods explained - a serial killer.

Aaron had nothing of all that.

Pierre your failure to see and acknowledge your own bias is a great failing for any scientist.
Such a tendency in any research is bound to bring the whole of the research by that individual into question, which is always a shame.

I can manage my bias, Steve. I know I have it. That is why I am waiting.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

16 percent of the "suspects" on this site. Not even 1 percent in England in the 1880s. Embarrassing.

Pierre

What is embarrassing is that you are not addressing the issues being raised with you.

To say that the Jewish population of England was less than one percent ( sources please by the way, which I am sure you understand as a good historian) in 1888 and to compare that to 16% of "suspects" on this site does not automatically transfer across to the area of Whitechapel as you well know..

To see if if that figure is bias, one need to compare it to the Jewish population of Whitechapel, which of course as someone interested in statistics you will know you must do.

You are excluding persons from the list of possible killers because of race that is embarrassing research.

Please argue against kosminski if you want, but base that argument on sources and accurate information not bias opinion, something you often say others do.


Steve