Plausibility of Kosminski

[Phil Carter]

Klingons on the starboard bow...starboard bow...starboard bow........................Star Trekkin' 'cross the Universe....

I'm gone......

Hello Stewart,

I have to do this.. same song.. change of words...

" It's Kosminski Jim, but not as we know him...not as we know him"


or...

"It's more that that he's dead Jim, dead Jim...dead Jim"


kindly

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

Human psychology hasn't changed in thousands of years, Stewart. The modern serialist has precisely the same drives, emotions and motivations as those which influenced the behaviours of Jack the Ripper.

Yes, I know that Garry. In fact if you look back far enough on the archived boards you will find me saying a similar thing in response to what someone had posted about this subject. However, the difference was that I said that human nature doesn't change, which amounts to the same thing really. What I also pointed out then was the fact that influences on human nature do change, as do physical factors such as type of work, working hours, etc., etc.

I do not credit 'criminal profiling' with the accuracy and consistency with which some tend to endow it. I discussed this at length with Bill Hagmaier, former Chief Special Agent with the FBI, in charge of the Child Abduction and Serial Murder unit at Quantico (successor to John Douglas) when he came and stayed with us. It was most enlightening, and he told of some great experiences such as interviewing Ted Bundy and others series killers. The book he recommended as a bible on serial murder is Practical Homicide Investigation by Vernon J. Geberth which, if you haven't read it, is an excellent textbook.

But all that aside, blithely citing what a certain type of murderer is going to be like, and how he will act, is far from a science. Obviously the police of 1888 did not have the experience of serial murder that modern police forces do. But they did recognise a sexual side to these crimes and did not don the blinkers and set off in search of a mere raving lunatic, as we can see from what records we have left to us. They might have had a less refined view of the murders but I am sure they could recognise suspicious behaviour when they saw it. And they knew quite a bit about human nature.

[The Good Michael]

Human psychology hasn't changed in thousands of years, Stewart. The modern serialist has precisely the same drives, emotions and motivations as those which influenced the behaviours of Jack the Ripper.

The factors that go into what makes up the modern human psyche have changed a great deal, however. Film, television, computers, the internet, video games, higher education, and the modern ability to access any data, good or bad (if these extremes even exist) nearly instantaneously, have helped to create societies with a much higher propensity for random and serial murder. This means to me that drives, emotions, and motivations have altered as well, or have become nuanced.

Mike

[PaulB]

Oh, you saw me do that once? It's not Vulcan, it's just me babbling when I get confused.

Well, I had just bought you a pint. I've noticed that people tend to get confused and babble when I buy them a drink. I think it's because they are confronting what they'd thought was impossible, rather like meeting Bigfoot at the bacon counter in Tesco.

[Stewart P Evans]

Errr...

Well, I had just bought you a pint. I've noticed that people tend to get confused and babble when I buy them a drink. I think it's because they are confronting what they'd thought was impossible, rather like meeting Bigfoot at the bacon counter in Tesco.

Errr...let me think about that one a bit...



???

Confused of Cambridgeshire

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

Well, I had just bought you a pint. I've noticed that people tend to get confused and babble when I buy them a drink. I think it's because they are confronting what they'd thought was impossible, rather like meeting Bigfoot at the bacon counter in Tesco.

Yes, think I've gottit.

Possibly you are right, but I was confused by the fact that I don't recall you buying me a pint. Coke's my tipple. I am now picturing Bigfoot at the bacon counter in Tesco's. The mind boggles.

[PaulB]

Yes, think I've gottit.

Possibly you are right, but I was confused by the fact that I don't recall you buying me a pint. Coke's my tipple. I am now picturing Bigfoot at the bacon counter in Tesco's. The mind boggles.

It was a pint of coke. Yes, it is as difficult to imagine Bigfoor buying a pound of streaky at Tesco's as it is to imagine me buying someone a pint of anything.

[PaulB]

My understanding of Trevor’s argument, Paul, is that any name which came to the attention of the authorities would have been entered in the files, but that this information included individuals who were named maliciously or fallaciously. In other words, the fact that a name was contained within the files is no guarantee that any serious suspicion was attached to it at the time of the murders. Later on, however, the files may have been reviewed and undue importance accorded to some of those names. At least, that’s my understanding of Trevor’s reasoning.

God only knows what he's arguing. One minute he's rabbiting on about the names being entered on a C.I.D. register, the next he claims the names were in files. The point is that Macnaghten got the name of Druitt from information privately received, not from a file or a register. He's also argued that the postulate that files existed in which there were papers pertaining to the investigation is what I seem to recall him describing as an "old chestnut". No such files existed, he claimed, from which he appears to be suggesting that there was simply a list of names.

Even allowing that there was a later review of the files, how can anyone say that undue importance was attached some of the names? Since we don't know the evidence on which those names became suspected, we can't say whether the emphasis was due or undue.

More a hypothesis than a theory, Paul. And nor do I consider that a review would have been restricted solely to the case files. There is the possibility that suicides were looked into, as well as prison and asylum intake records. But it is certainly interesting that the cessation of the murders features prominently in each of the arguments proposed by those officials who claimed to have established the killer’s identity. Macnaghten claimed that Kelly’s death and Druitt’s subsequent suicide were related events – ‘otherwise the murders would not have ceased.’ Swanson stated that, after Kosminski’s identification at the Seaside Home, ‘no other murder of this kind took place in London …’ And so on and so forth. But frankly, I would be astonished had an a posteriori review not occurred given the magnitude of the Ripper case and the determination of the authorities to bring the killer to justice. There again, as you say, it would be nice to have some evidence one way or the other.

Again the point is that Macnaghten settled on Druitt as a consequence of information received privately. We don't know that there was ever an investigation - Macnaghten doesn't seem to even hint of one - so I doubt that his name came forward as a result of a review of the files.

Macnaghten’s case against Druitt is just about the most blatant example of speculation masquerading as fact that I have ever encountered.

Hardly, I'd have thought. He clearly indicates that it is a personal conjecture based on information privately received.

Kosminski is an entirely different issue, if only because Anderson’s claims are afforded a certain corroboration by Swanson. But then I refer you to a scenario I outlined earlier on this thread. If Kosminski really did fall under City suspicion, he must have been exonerated in order for Major Smith to have subsequently declared his ignorance regarding the murderer’s identity. So how is it that a short time later the Met managed to succeed where the City had failed? And why did this identification fail to convince any of the senior investigators other than Anderson and Swanson?

To my mind it is clear that Kosminski came to prominence only after the murders had ceased. The alternative is that the Met had specific evidence as to Kosminski’s dangerousness whilst the murders were in progress, yet failed to confront him with ‘the only witness who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Not only does this make no logical or operational sense, it casts those who led the investigation as having been utterly incompetent.

As said before, I think, you are assuming that "Kosminski" was suspected of being the Ripper by the City C.I.D. They may have been maintaining surveillance for some other reason altogether, in which case there is no particular reason why Major Smith would have known about the Met's ID. As to why the ID didn't convince others, we don't know. Maybe they didn't know about it. But it's to answer questions like that that research has been conducted.

Yes, certainly "Kosminski" came to the attention of the police after the cessation of the crimes, probably late in 1890 or very early 1891.

[Supe]

Paul,

I think it's because they are confronting what they'd thought was impossible, rather like meeting Bigfoot at the bacon counter in Tesco.

As opposed to any other counter in the market or is Bigfoot Jewish?

Don.

[Scott Nelson]

Anderson, noting more bad press about Scotland Yard: "I think it's high time for another identification try with Kosminski. See if you can round up a costermonger this time, Swanson. There may a few in the asylum with him."

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

An 'agenda' means 'we're right, you're wrong -- no matter what'.

A theory is an interpretation of evidence, and is contingent and provisional

OK, how about this for simplicity.

But ... once read it cannot be unread so do not say you were not warned.

In 1898 a source with top police contacts announced that the case was solved.

If that opinion was too ambiguous, then another widely-ready source with top police chums agreed.

It was solved.

In 1913, a police chief confirmed that this same suspect was the fiend.

In 1914 the same cop confirmed this opinion in writing under his own name. He also admitted that the police did not know about him at the time of the 1888 murders.

Jack the Ripper is not a mystery according to this interpretation of certain primary sources.

Plain and simple.

Rather it was secondary sources, starting in 1929, who [sincerely but mistakenly] claimed that it was still a mystery.

They rebooted the whole thing and relegated the sources above to a footnote, if they mentioned them at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

Blind faith

I see you are at it again !!!!!!

God only knows what he's arguing. One minute he's rabbiting on about the names being entered on a C.I.D. register, the next he claims the names were in files. The point is that Macnaghten got the name of Druitt from information privately received, not from a file or a register. He's also argued that the postulate that files existed in which there were papers pertaining to the investigation is what I seem to recall him describing as an "old chestnut". No such files existed, he claimed, from which he appears to be suggesting that there was simply a list of names.

There was no argument it was plain and simple I related details of how names of suspects could have come to the notice of the police. Those names would have been recorded in some way. ie, The CID register. That is a fact because we know there was A CID register which was in line with the SB registers in existence.

Now if you look at the entries from the SB registers it is quite clear that the information they received was without a doubt innacurate and without foundation and hearsay to the point of perhaps being malicious nevertheless it would have been recorded and would not have been expunged or any file torn up after investigation into the names.

So looking at the suspect names from the MM it is natural to assume they were entered in the register in the same way and perhaps a file opened on each one. They would then have been investigated and any file wriiten up accordingly. A file may have contained nothing more then several sheets of paper.

I say again Kosminski would have come to notice in the same way Cutbush did by reason of incidents involving a knife and females.

For whatever reason MM wrote the memo, we dont know who asked for it, where it was destined for or if it ever left his desk. Now we have to ask what suddenly made him compile the memo, 1894 was a nothing year. I suspect someone of higher rank than himself may have requested an overview of the ripper investigation with regards to suspects or someone in government office.

As he was not around in 1888 in order to answer any such request he would have to have referred to the Ripper file. Now knowing high ranking senior officers and how they work the saying "you dont have a dog and bark yourself" come to mind. So someone would have brought the file to him for him to peruse and take out what information he needed. The inconsistencies in the memo must surely reflect on the information he had before him which as I said earlier may have been without foundation, hearsay or malicious.

I have no doubt that the ripper file would have been quite large at some time but when MM opened it what would have been sitting at the top of the pile by reason of date order the current "suspects" Kosminski and Cutbush and Ostrog. How was he to know the contents before him were accurate. Could it have been a case of blind faith on his part.

Do you not think that if anyone had these files in their possesion today and they contained vital information they would sit on them. To have them would be like possesing the holy grail but I forgot that may have not existed either.

So Mr Begg if you have any alternate suggestions as to how these became suspects I would be only to glad to debate them with you in an orderly fashion, becasue you dont seem to want to subscribe to plausible explantions.

Even allowing that there was a later review of the files, how can anyone say that undue importance was attached some of the names? Since we don't know the evidence on which those names became suspected, we can't say whether the emphasis was due or undue.



Again the point is that Macnaghten settled on Druitt as a consequence of information received privately. We don't know that there was ever an investigation - Macnaghten doesn't seem to even hint of one - so I doubt that his name came forward as a result of a review of the files.



Hardly, I'd have thought. He clearly indicates that it is a personal conjecture based on information privately received.




As said before, I think, you are assuming that "Kosminski" was suspected of being the Ripper by the City C.I.D. They may have been maintaining surveillance for some other reason altogether, in which case there is no particular reason why Major Smith would have known about the Met's ID. As to why the ID didn't convince others, we don't know. Maybe they didn't know about it. But it's to answer questions like that that research has been conducted.

Yes, certainly "Kosminski" came to the attention of the police after the cessation of the crimes, probably late in 1890 or very early 1891.

[Tom_Wescott]

For whatever reason MM wrote the memo, we dont know who asked for it, where it was destined for or if it ever left his desk. Now we have to ask what suddenly made him compile the memo, 1894 was a nothing year. I suspect someone of higher rank than himself may have requested an overview of the ripper investigation with regards to suspects or someone in government office.

You don't think the Sun articles on Cutbush, referenced by Mac in the MM were an instigating factor?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

It's a shocker I know.

If not the Nutcruncher!

You can do it with the Polish Jew suspect if you regard those sources as more relable.

From 1895, Anderson, under his own name and for public consumption, claimed that the case was solved. It could just not go to court.

In 1910 he confirmed this opinion from retirement.

(Swanson, a different figure from Anderson, confirmed this opinion privately to himself thiough this was not known until 1987).

It was secondary sources, from 1929, which rebooted the case as a mystery.

[Roy Corduroy]

It's a shocker I know.

If not the Nutcruncher!

And only two men had the nuts of steel to claim such a thing. The case solved. We know of the adverse reaction to Anderson, but what of Melville Macnaghten's "Laying the Ghost?" How did it rate?

Roy