Quick Kosminski question (say that 5 times fast)

[Elamarna]

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

Regards, Pierre

Not 100% true Pierre

At one stage in his life he had lived next door to the Berner street site, but not at the time of the murder, but a connection (tenuous) none the less.

Steve

[Pierre]

Not 100% true Pierre

At one stage in his life he had lived next door to the Berner street site, but not at the time of the murder, but a connection (tenuous) none the less.

Steve

Yes, 100 percent true, my dear Steve.

Living near to a murder site does not make anyone a killer.

It is an interesting matter of the concept of "connection", and the concept is of course extremely important within ripperology since people struggle to define the concept and use it in their "theories".

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = passing that site on the way to work, we can all see what "significance" it is rendered in the theory of Fisherman (not particularly discussing that theory now, but showing the function of the concept of "connection" for the theory").

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = living nearby, we could make hundreds, perhaps thousands altogether for the five sites, of "suspects" of those who lived nearby.

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = is having been seen by a witness (often no one knows who the person seen is, since he is only described in a source from the past) there are a lot - a lot! - of such sightings.

I will make myself clear in this case. My opinion (!) is that the first two definitions of the concepts are worth absolutely nothing and that the third definition can be useful if there are historical reasons to think so. But sightings are legio and differing so one has to analyse the sources, often in absurdum, hypothesizing and disproving and going back again postulating the same hypothesis and reject it again. One has to scrutinize the sources in detail and look for patterns.

I must say that I am impressed by your critical thinking and reasoning, Steve. It is much needed in this forum and it is certainly helping the case forward.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;388491]

Eating food from the gutter may be (as Paddy suggests) less a sign that he was mentally ill than that he was starving. I doubt if he was the only one driven by poverty to such desperate measures.

But since it is an issue of a specific type of eating, i.e. a postulated serial killer´s eating - the hypothesis being that this Aaron was the Kosminsky and that this Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper - the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

The specific (idiographic) myth / idea / picture of Jack the Ripper as a dog was already well known in 1888 through the papers where he was described as such. An example is the Lord Mayor who called him "a mad dog".

Another picture is the one I published here in the forum in the thread about the "human tiger".

For Kosminsky, whoever he might have been and whereever he might have lived and whatever he might have done - since no source is giving his first name(s) the picture of the mad creature eating in the gutter is now applied.

And still there is nothing connecting this Aaron Kosminsky to the murders.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

Who, apart from you, has referred to Kosminsky as a dog? Why does eating food in the gutter equate to being a dog?

Might I suggest that the link between Kosminsky and a dog has been produced in your imagination due to a 'tendency' on your part because you believe in the idiographic myth of Jack the Ripper as a dog (or 'mad dog') due to the reported comment of the Lord Mayor. Hence you want to believe that Kosminsky was being pictured in 'the sources' as a dog when no-one was, in fact, doing this.

[Elamarna]

Yes, 100 percent true, my dear Steve.

Living near to a murder site does not make anyone a killer.

It is an interesting matter of the concept of "connection", and the concept is of course extremely important within ripperology since people struggle to define the concept and use it in their "theories".

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = passing that site on the way to work, we can all see what "significance" it is rendered in the theory of Fisherman (not particularly discussing that theory now, but showing the function of the concept of "connection" for the theory").

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = living nearby, we could make hundreds, perhaps thousands altogether for the five sites, of "suspects" of those who lived nearby.

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = is having been seen by a witness (often no one knows who the person seen is, since he is only described in a source from the past) there are a lot - a lot! - of such sightings.

I will make myself clear in this case. My opinion (!) is that the first two definitions of the concepts are worth absolutely nothing and that the third definition can be useful if there are historical reasons to think so. But sightings are legio and differing so one has to analyse the sources, often in absurdum, hypothesizing and disproving and going back again postulating the same hypothesis and reject it again. One has to scrutinize the sources in detail and look for patterns.

I must say that I am impressed by your critical thinking and reasoning, Steve. It is much needed in this forum and it is certainly helping the case forward.

Best wishes, Pierre

Yes Pierre

The idea of "a connection" is used by many who push there own specific theory, and as you say living nearby or regularly passing a murder site is worthless on its own.

And while the connection pointed out with Berner street is in the same category, it is nevertheless the only example I am aware of where a "suspect" and lets be fair, for some senior officers Kosminski is at least portrayed as a suspect, actually had lived right next door to a murder site, not near, but next door.

However he was not living there at the time of the murders, and the information is a point of interest for those looking at Kosminski no more!

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;388523]

But since it is an issue of a specific type of eating, i.e. a postulated serial killer´s eating - the hypothesis being that this Aaron was the Kosminsky and that this Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper - the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

The specific (idiographic) myth / idea / picture of Jack the Ripper as a dog was already well known in 1888 through the papers where he was described as such. An example is the Lord Mayor who called him "a mad dog".

Another picture is the one I published here in the forum in the thread about the "human tiger".

For Kosminsky, whoever he might have been and whereever he might have lived and whatever he might have done - since no source is giving his first name(s) the picture of the mad creature eating in the gutter is now applied.

And still there is nothing connecting this Aaron Kosminsky to the murders.

Regards, Pierre

Other that is Pierre than 3 senior police officers naming him as a suspect or in the case of Macnaghten as a potential suspect.


One assumes there was some reasoning for this, and some information( possible evidence of some sort) which is no longer available lead them to this line of thinking, of course that does not make him the killer.

However it is probably fair to say that in 1888/89/90/91 there was something which linked him, however it need not have been strong or conclusive.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388532]

Who, apart from you, has referred to Kosminsky as a dog? Why does eating food in the gutter equate to being a dog?

If Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a mad dog, Kosminsky was a mad dog. Dogs are found in the gutter. Search the British Newspaper Archives for "in the gutter" for 1880-1910 for example and you find dogs together with that expression.

Might I suggest that the link between Kosminsky and a dog has been produced in your imagination due to a 'tendency' on your part because you believe in the idiographic myth of Jack the Ripper as a dog (or 'mad dog') due to the reported comment of the Lord Mayor.

No, you are wrong. I do not "believe in" what the newspapers wrote about what Lord Mayor said. What sort of a very strange suggestion is that?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;388538][QUOTE=Pierre;388523]

Other that is Pierre than 3 senior police officers naming him as a suspect or in the case of Macnaghten as a potential suspect.

But no Aaron was mentioned in the sources.

One assumes there was some reasoning for this, and some information( possible evidence of some sort) which is no longer available lead them to this line of thinking, of course that does not make him the killer.

Right.

However it is probably fair to say that in 1888/89/90/91 there was something which linked him, however it need not have been strong or conclusive.

What linked him was being Jewish, poor and put into an asylum. That is THE ideal type for Jack the Ripper. And it is an illusion hiding other pieces of evidence and making people look into the wrong historical sources.

Regards, Pierre

[MsWeatherwax]

[QUOTE=Pierre;388550][QUOTE=Elamarna;388538]

What linked him was being Jewish, poor and put into an asylum. That is THE ideal type for Jack the Ripper. And it is an illusion hiding other pieces of evidence and making people look into the wrong historical sources.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre.

What do you say to the possibility that vast amounts of files and other evidence have gone missing through pilfering and two World Wars?

Given that your research is *extremely* source based, I don't understand how you can progress to a logical conclusion given the enormous amount of information that is said to be missing.

Truthfully, regardless of how competent they are, nobody in the 21st Century can adequately research all of the sources relating to The Whitechapel Murders because frankly, many of them don't exist any more. You can't say with certainty that being poor, Jewish and institutionalised was what "linked" AK, because you have no evidence that is the truth. It's supposition, and it's a biased supposition at that.

For the record, I am neither for or against AK (or anyone else, for that matter) as a suspect.

[Elamarna]

But no Aaron was mentioned in the sources.

Agreed and that is why the possibility that they meant another person must always be considered.

What linked him was being Jewish, poor and put into an asylum. That is THE ideal type for Jack the Ripper. And it is an illusion hiding other pieces of evidence and making people look into the wrong historical sources.

Pierre,

That is an assumption you make, has to links and connections.

We do not have the documents, which almost certainly existed to know what the links were? or if they were strong or weak?

Unfortunately sometime back you decided that certain people were only named or suspected because they were Jewish, not that they were suspects or persons of interest whom happened to be Jewish.

Please allow me to point out that you have developed a bias in this area , you may not be aware of it, but it is there.
This is that you seem to rule out persons because they are Jewish, saying that the perceived anti-Jewish slant of the police was the only reason these persons were suspect.
This may or may not be the case and each occurrence needs to be looked at individually.
Jacob levy is such a case where you appear to rule out because you assume he is looked at because and only because he is a Jewish butcher, which are to me not the major reasons for looking at him. However that goes off topic, but i use it purely to demonstrate.

I am sure if you take a step back and look at the situation analytically you we see that this is happening, a failing we can all fall into.

The fact remains that someone refered to as "kosminski" was looked at by senior officers at the time and some of them believed he was a highly possible id for the killer.

They could well be wrong.
However to name an individual by 3 separate persons there must have been more than just race as a link, or else why not name say Levy whom seems a more likely fit than the Kosminski we know about?


respectfully

Steve

[David Orsam]

If Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a mad dog, Kosminsky was a mad dog.

But that's meaningless logic, firstly because Jack the Ripper was called lots of things, only a "mad dog" by the Lord Mayor (reportedly), and secondly because you can insert any name in there, Tumblety, Druitt, Sadler, Lechmere and they are all mad dogs. Why is Kosminsky the only mad dog?

To be clear. I'm suggesting that you are the only person in the world linking Kosminsky to a dog.

[David Orsam]

Dogs are found in the gutter. Search the British Newspaper Archives for "in the gutter" for 1880-1910 for example and you find dogs together with that expression.

Lots of things are found in the gutter though Pierre. Rats for example. I have no idea what newspaper reports you have found that links dogs to gutters but I note that haven't posted a single example.

In any case, the issue is Kosminsky eating food in the gutter. Why is that dog like behaviour any more than rats or other vermin?

[David Orsam]

No, you are wrong. I do not "believe in" what the newspapers wrote about what Lord Mayor said. What sort of a very strange suggestion is that?

It's not a 'strange' suggestion at all because you are the only person in the world who seems to be comparing Kosminsky to a mad dog.

So I'm suggesting that it is you who has been influenced by the Lord Mayer's use of the phrase 'mad dog' and you are seeing mad dogs which don't actually exist.

[Robert]

I suppose it's possible that Kosminski had some bread in the midday sun.....

[Bridewell]

What linked him was being Jewish, poor and put into an asylum.

I doubt very much if that was the link. He was hardly unique in being a poor Jew who was put into an asylum. Why him? Why not one of the others?