Quick Kosminski question (say that 5 times fast)

[Elamarna]

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?

Hi Bridewell

my point exactly, you put it much more concise.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;388552][QUOTE=Pierre;388550]

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.

Missing material can not be used as sources.

[Elamarna]

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

Missing material can not be used as sources.

Pierre,

Firstly you still have not got the quote function under control have you, however that is not important.

I do not believe anyone is trying to use non existent sources as "sources" as such. Frankly such would be ridiculous.

However it is highly probably that information did exist which was not just:
he is poor and Jewish.

And one can suggest that such information is what the Police officers were basing their ideas on.

Seriously if you were looking to lay blame on a Jewish person, just because of race/religion, then Kosminski would not be an obvious choice.

regards

Steve

[Pierre]

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

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

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

[John G]

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

"16% of the suspects on this site are described as Jewish." How is that reliable, or even relevant, source material in determining whether the police had an inherent bias towards Jewish suspects? For instance, assessing what percentage of police suspects were Jewish would be a far more academic approach.

And the ratio of Jews in Whitechapel was much higher than 1%.

I'm sorry Pierre but you really must learn to be discerning when discussing source material.

[Pierre]

"16% of the suspects on this site are described as Jewish." How is that reliable, or even relevant, source material in determining whether the police had an inherent bias towards Jewish suspects? For instance, what percentage of police suspects were Jewish?

And the ratio of Jews in Whitechapel was much higher than 1%.

I'm sorry Pierre but you really must learn to be discerning when discussing source material.

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

[Elamarna]

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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


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.

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

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.

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

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.

Regards

Steve

[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

[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

[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%.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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