Plausibility of Kosminski

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

An elaborate Cutbush "Family Pedigree", prepared for the 1891 case Cutbush v. Cutbush, does not include Charles amongst its number.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

This really did remind me of the last stroke of play at Lord's.

A beautifully timed drive through the covers, fielders unmoved, as the ball knocks into the fence around the boundary edge, the umpire strides forward and takes off the bails. End of play, in one majestic stroke.

The Old Father Time weather-vane aloft the pavillion has pointed the way for us all. In the game of Cutbush (Policeman's XI) vs Cutbush (Suspect's XI).. it really isn't cricket to play on.

Thank you.

kindly

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Denis Compton or Len Hutton, I ain't.

But thanks anyway for the cricketing metaphor, whatever it means.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

I dont belive what I read or what anyone tells me I like to prove or disprove it for myself.

Then like Sysiphus you'll be condemned to roll your ideas to the top of the hill, then have to do the whole thing over again, Trevor.

In this world, it will be academics like Sugden, and serious reserachers who follow the conventions of the historical method (I'd mention SPE, Martin Fido, Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg - among others - as falling into that category) that will take the laurels in Ripper studies - assuming there are any.

I'd liken your approach to writers (in other fields) like von Daniken and Graham Hancock - maybe Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh, who may make money out of their books, but attract little respect expect from the likes of "Pyramidiots", and fringe cults. It's like cheap journalism, sensationalist, tawdry and passing. It may be interesting to read - and I enjoyed your book - but it does not convince and is unlikely to gain peer credence. Your book sits on my shelf along with one's like "Uncle Jack", Knight and Mei Trow - the other authors I mentioned are where my hand can reach to them as trusted references.

Sorry if that's blunt, but that's where I see your self-categorisation as leading.

Phil

Hi Phil,
I understand your point.However, I heard Trevor a few years back expounding his sailor theory.He had some interesting ideas about it and it set me thinking about a number of factors -the close proximity of the area to the Docks and the Minories for example, and how easy it would have been for a sailor to escape from the police radar.
Also I don't believe anybody has a monopoly of expertise about this case.
Ofcourse the people you mention,Philip Sugden,Stewart Evans, Paul Begg ,etc are all experts and fascinating to read or hear talk about this subject they have studied so carefully and have so much knowledge about.But perhaps Trevor has had experience of serial killers in his job? Does that not count for example?
Best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

How is Neil?

He was very well Paul and couldn't have been more helpful.He also knew a lot about the local residents that Druitt may well have known,
Best Wishes,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

There's another problem with Abberline's opinion. He may have been geographically biased. Abberline was assigned to augment H-Division (for good reason), so Abberline would not have been directly involved with any investigations outside of H-Division, such as the West End. Abberline focused upon suspects living within H-Division and surrounding East End areas. He would have been privy to West End investigations, but not directly involved with them. This may have affected his recollections and opinions in later life.

Or I could be wrong.

Mike

But Mike, Anderson claimed it was 'well known' or something similar.A case like that where Abberline had held a leading position in the investigation would have been red hot news and the moment one of their rank hit on it everybody would have known in seconds---however 'retired' wherever they were.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,

An elaborate Cutbush "Family Pedigree", prepared for the 1891 case Cutbush v. Cutbush, does not include Charles amongst its number.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon well that is a surprise.[unless you are joking].How very convenient for Supt Charles Cutbush!

[Hunter]

You have said that you believe Swanson because he was in charge yes but only for a time his being in charge ended in December 1888. Who was left holding the baby after that Abberline until 1889 and who after that ? So if Kosminski or others came to light after that wouldnt other officers have known about it. They clearly did not close the file on the Ripper when Swanson left to go back to Scotland yard.

Although the WM were no longer Swanson's total concern after Dec. '88 (which is what that document relates too) he was still in charge of the case as is documented in later reports and alluded to by newspaper articles throughout the 1890s. Stewart Evans detailed that in an earlier post.

Insp. Moore took charge of ground operations after Abberline's recall to CO in March '89. If you read the last surviving 'Ripper' file (1896) as published in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook - Evans and Skinner, you will see that that command structure was still intact as Moore compiles a report on a Ripper letter and forwards it to Swanson, who annotates it with his regret that the letter was even circulated.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Sadly, it seems to this lay person that the influence given to the writings of these "top cops" has been overplayed. That is an assessment too, which we all can do, for or against. According them their "due" is a matter of assessment as well, and any conclusion, weight given for or against, takes assessment to another level.. i.e. evaluation. This is also something we all can do. We all have the right to evaluate the writings of these men. Different angles of evaluation will lead to differing conclusions.

So what our job is, as you put it, has add ons. Assess, evaluate and conclude.

Some here assess and evaluate Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog and concluded that in their assessment, evaluation and conclusion, the weight falls against the words of these "top cops" written offerings. Some hold the reverse conclusion.

The point being that no amount of counter argument from your side, my side, Scott's side, Rob's side, Stewart's side, Trevor's side, Simon's side, Norma's side, Robert's side.. or anyone's side, will ever be productive in terms of agreement UNLESS it is accepted that the three men's writings (Swanson, Macnaghten and Andersen) are not evidence against any one of the MM3 as being killers. There is no evidence against Kosminski as being a killer. There is no evidence against Druitt as being a killer. There is no evidence against Ostrog as being a killer.

I assess, evaluate and conclude that these writings are merely opinions, NOT based on any sort of tangible proof.

It is said, "we can only go on what we are given". Well, given what these men present us, I only see one possible conclusion, based on the lack of evidence. Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog are not killers. Therefore, their candicacy as Jack the Ripper, or the Whitechapel murderer (another name for this particular killer)..is totally baseless. It is therefore time to move on from the argument. The Merry-Go-Round grinds to a definitive halt, at this juncture, based on "what we have been given".

I assess, evaluate and conclude therefore that the "plausibility of Kosminski" as Jack the Ripper is non-evidential.

Those who differ in their conclusion, have that right. But in order to start the Merry-Go-Round again..tangible evidence must be produced from somewhere, showing these men, or one of them even, as a killer. It does not come from these three "top cops' " presently known offerings.


kindly


Phil

Phil,
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that there is a lack of evidence, but from a historical perspective the evidence is the source or sources, and you are failing to make the proper distinction between what the source says and the evidence on which the source said it, and because you don't know the latter, you dismiss the former. That's bad logic, bad reasoning, bad history... Put simply, because Anderson doesn't tell us what the evidence against "Kosminski" was doesn't mean that no evidence existed. What we don't know is whether is was good evidence or bad evidence, therefore we can't know whether Anderson was possibly right or possibly wrong. You, however, are assuming there was no evidence, ergo you dismiss what Anderson says. That's not an assessment, it's an assumption.

[Jonathan H]

To Garry Wroe

You are putting the cart before th horse, as do many, by accepting Macnaghten's words as gospel. He wanted to give the impression in his 'Report(s)' that the 'police' were trawling suicides, because he was burying the embarrassing truth: that Druitt was an entirely posthumous suspect which he conceded in his memoirs twenty years later.

The reason Druitt came to his attention was because he was a Ripper suspect among his family circle, a tale so devastating that people only had to hear it to be convinced -- rightly or wrongly.

Druitt did not come to Macnaghten's attention for this:

Dorset Chronicle (U.K.)
Thursday, 10 January 1889

'DISTRESSING OCCURRENCE.
We regret to hear of the sad death of Mr. M. J. Druitt, a barrister of this circuit, and son of Mr. Druitt, of Wimborne. An enquiry into the circumstances attending his death was held by Dr. Diplock at Chiswick, on Wednesday, deceased having been found drowned in the Thames near that place. The deceased was identified by his brother, Mr. William Harvey Druitt, a solicitor, residing at Bournemouth, who stated that the deceased was a barrister-at-law, but had lately been an assistant at a school at Blackheath. The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. A paper had also been found upon which the deceased had written, "Since Friday, I have felt as if I was going to be like mother," who had for some months been mentally afflicted. Evidence having been given as to discovering deceased in the Thames - upon his body were found a cheque for £50 and £16 in gold - the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst of unsound mind." The funeral took place at Wimborne on Thursday. Deceased was a prominent member of the Kingston Park Cricket Club, and as such was well known in the county.'

But rather for this, 'some years after' he had killed himself.

'I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder. I can't give details, for fear of a libel action; but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it. He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania. I do not know what the police think of the story, but I believe that before long a clean breast will be made, and that the accusation will be sifted thoroughly.' 'The Bristol Times and Mirror', Feb 11th, 1891


To Norma

Thanks for that.

Also, Abberline was out of the loop about Druitt and Kosminski as they were suspects known only to certain senior police officers, and to nobody else. How could Abberline have known? He just thought the suicide and the lunatic were creations of the tabloids. He is completely mistaken -- they originate with his superiors.

Anderson was saying this from 1895, under his own name, yet Abberline mistakenly says 'we' never believed ...

Cutbush and Cutbush

That the 'uncle' and the 'nephew' were nothing of the kind is further evidence, arguably, that Macnaghten was deceitful. He put them together to make it look as if the story was driven by a despicable, 'sour grapes' game of guilt-by-association in the lower ranks-- by Inspector Race -- against a retired policemen, a claim which could be heading for th defamation courts. A destination that H H Asquith and the Liberal government of 1894 would want to steer well clear of ...

[Hunter]

Maybe it was the other way around..... the city police informing Anderson that the suspect had been positively identified, but nothing more forthcoming, so they wrote it off as a failure -- but not Anderson. Smith apparently did not even think it worth mentioning.

Of course, Swanson writes, 'sent by us' in the marginalia and seems to imply a personal knowledge as to what transpired. But, if the ID did involve a city witness with City officials conducting the procedure and, thus, an explanation as to why the City CID would follow up with surveillance, your idea certainly may be a plausible one. Hence, as you say, the different reactions from Smith and Anderson.

Again, however, Smith may have known about it whether it was conducted by the Met or the City (or both) and disregarded it because he believed the graffito to have been written by the killer and that it was a 'blind' written by a gentile. This may have colored his reaction to the results obtained at the ID attempt. Anderson and/or Swanson may have already thought that the killer was a local Jew and was being protected by his family and the Kozminski ID confirmed that in their minds.

In other words, by that time, these officials had already formed solid opinions on the type of person who could have committed the murders and that affected their conclusions about the veracity of this undertaking.

[Phil H]

Hi Phil,
I understand your point.However, I heard Trevor a few years back expounding his sailor theory.He had some interesting ideas about it and it set me thinking about a number of factors -the close proximity of the area to the Docks and the Minories for example, and how easy it would have been for a sailor to escape from the police radar.
Also I don't believe anybody has a monopoly of expertise about this case.
Ofcourse the people you mention,Philip Sugden,Stewart Evans, Paul Begg ,etc are all experts and fascinating to read or hear talk about this subject they have studied so carefully and have so much knowledge about.But perhaps Trevor has had experience of serial killers in his job? Does that not count for example?
Best
Norma

Norma

I think you mistake my point.

I am not criticising Trevor personally, or denying his energy, enthusiasm, his research writing ability or even (despite some over-egging and holes) his knowledge of the Ripper case. I enjoyed his book.

My point relates to the professional and amateur approaches and the differences between them. Trevor may take whatever approach he wishes, but anything other than the conventional historical method (basically peer assessment of standards and rigour, in a form refined by decades of scholarly work) is unlikely to achieve much respect or acceptance outside the narrowest of fields.

I was also rather shocked by Trevor's unawareness of why criticism of older books differs from the way more recent works are treated. We may comment that an older work was compiled or written without access to or availability of modern materials and sources, even that its judgements seem flawed; but it is impossible to criticise a work written say forty (say Cullen) or even eighty (say Matters) because it does not reflect modern standards, evidence or style, because those were not known at the time of writing.

McCocmick, for instance was able to get away with much more than a modern writer would because conventions (and standards) have changed. So one cannot tear into his work as one would a writer puiblishing today.

Ripperology IS emerging from the shadows of amateurism and commercial pulp, because since Wittington-Egan, a higher set of standards have begun to apply. The authors I mentioned in my earlier post have all (by and large) applied the same standards. We have sources freely available now thanks to the efforts of SPE, Keith Skinner and others - in the Source book and the letters, and the topic has attracted the attention of those with acaemic credentials such as Sugden. I would be loath to see those advances undone because some feel uncomfortable with the aparatus of scholarly study, or the strictures of those who adhere to the established wisdom (and I am certainly not referring to theories here but to approaches and disciplines of thought).

To end, I make no claims for myself (I am simply an interested reader in these matters with no aspirations or inclination to undertake original reserch) and I am - I hope - not making personal attacks here. My points are general. But some unwise and rather foolish statements have been made which I felt needed comment.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Norma,
Nobody said the search for the Ripper is about more than studying the swan songs of top cops, not that I am searching for the Ripper or give a damn who he was,but it is inevitable that the conclusions of people who were there are going to be of great importance, and that only a fool would accord them less than their due. Any one of them could be right or all of them could be wrong, and it is highly likely that we'll never know and that Jack the Ripper died in front of the fire in some East End common lodging house, a stranger, his name and his past unknown. Our job is to assess what all the sources tell us.

And the accuracy of the sources !

[Trevor Marriott]

To Garry Wroe

You are putting the cart before th horse, as do many, by accepting Macnaghten's words as gospel. He wanted to give the impression in his 'Report(s)' that the 'police' were trawling suicides, because he was burying the embarrassing truth: that Druitt was an entirely posthumous suspect which he conceded in his memoirs twenty years later.

The reason Druitt came to his attention was because he was a Ripper suspect among his family circle, a tale so devastating that people only had to hear it to be convinced -- rightly or wrongly.

Druitt did not come to Macnaghten's attention for this:

Dorset Chronicle (U.K.)
Thursday, 10 January 1889

'DISTRESSING OCCURRENCE.
We regret to hear of the sad death of Mr. M. J. Druitt, a barrister of this circuit, and son of Mr. Druitt, of Wimborne. An enquiry into the circumstances attending his death was held by Dr. Diplock at Chiswick, on Wednesday, deceased having been found drowned in the Thames near that place. The deceased was identified by his brother, Mr. William Harvey Druitt, a solicitor, residing at Bournemouth, who stated that the deceased was a barrister-at-law, but had lately been an assistant at a school at Blackheath. The deceased had left a letter, addressed to Mr. Valentine, of the school, in which he alluded to suicide. A paper had also been found upon which the deceased had written, "Since Friday, I have felt as if I was going to be like mother," who had for some months been mentally afflicted. Evidence having been given as to discovering deceased in the Thames - upon his body were found a cheque for £50 and £16 in gold - the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst of unsound mind." The funeral took place at Wimborne on Thursday. Deceased was a prominent member of the Kingston Park Cricket Club, and as such was well known in the county.'

But rather for this, 'some years after' he had killed himself.

'I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder. I can't give details, for fear of a libel action; but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it. He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania. I do not know what the police think of the story, but I believe that before long a clean breast will be made, and that the accusation will be sifted thoroughly.' 'The Bristol Times and Mirror', Feb 11th, 1891


To Norma

Thanks for that.

Also, Abberline was out of the loop about Druitt and Kosminski as they were suspects known only to certain senior police officers, and to nobody else. How could Abberline have known? He just thought the suicide and the lunatic were creations of the tabloids. He is completely mistaken -- they originate with his superiors.

Anderson was saying this from 1895, under his own name, yet Abberline mistakenly says 'we' never believed ...

Cutbush and Cutbush

That the 'uncle' and the 'nephew' were nothing of the kind is further evidence, arguably, that Macnaghten was deceitful. He put them together to make it look as if the story was driven by a despicable, 'sour grapes' game of guilt-by-association in the lower ranks-- by Inspector Race -- against a retired policemen, a claim which could be heading for th defamation courts. A destination that H H Asquith and the Liberal government of 1894 would want to steer well clear of ...

I find it very strange that all of these murders were headline news and not an inkling as to who the killer was despite all the police activity etc.

Not a whisper at the time about any of these suspects from the MM then lo and behold suddenly years later evidence supposedly surfaces implicatiing not only against one new suspect but three and now that evidence has vanished as quickly as it appeared I can buy perhaps hearsay against one but three a bit OTT for me.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Phil,
I myself have spent long periods of time doing research actually-it was a requirement of my post as a Linguistic Assessor for a London Education Authority so I am no stranger to the requirements of academic research .
All I am saying is that a number of specialisms seem to come into play regarding Ripper studies.It isn't just a question of historical Research.It is also about a knowledge and familiarity of Police methodology; its about the attitudes to and prejudices held in terms of gender ,race and class to the various indigenous and ethnic minority groups that existed in Whitechapel by senior policemen such as Robert Anderson ;Its also about an understanding ----and experience of ---- the criminal psyche and how it is likely to operate in a given place at a given time; all this has to be understood in the context of the politics of the time, its class system , the attitude to women by police officers such as Robert Anderson ,the attitude to the different classes of people etc etc
A question we need to ask is from whose perspective is this document or newspaper or police report being written viz Who is the scribe?' Who was the scribe of 'The Lighter years OMOL?
So yes,the Historical research is important so long as its analysed from a socio economic /race and gender aware perspective.
Cheers Phil,
Norma

[Trevor Marriott]

The trouble is that Jack the Ripper is history.
Historians do not simply believe what they read or what they are told.
It's a tad difficult to prove for yourself something that happened in the past.

To you it may be history to others it could looked upon as cold case murder investigation. Again I say a big difference.

I dont know of any police forces who have engaged the services of an historian in an effort to detect any crime let alone a series of murders.