Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

I think the field of other contenders has been got rid of now

Request again that you stop inserting your replies in the posts of others.

[Phil Carter]

Swanson's report of 19th October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C f158, states that about 80 persons had been detained at various police stations and that the movements of upwards of 300 others had been investigated in the period from 30th September to 19th October alone. That means over 380 suspected persons and how many can we name? A mere 14 or so. So we still have around 366 to discover. That is the extent of our lack of knowledge of suspects for that period alone.

Hello Stewart,

...and that means, does it not, that the three persons MM chose to document for whatever reason who were "more likely than Cutbush" were a man previously convicted of walking an un-muzzled dog (thank you Stephen for the correction), a thief of whom whether MM knew it or not, was locked away in a prison abroad, and a man with no known criminal record. He had, in his owns words "many homicidal maniacs who were suspected" that "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one"... to choose from. He then lists his three. Without proof either.

Hello Paul,

Thank you for the reply.
How many people choose to agree with me is besides the point, as everybody has their own choice in the matter. Some may agree, some will partly agree, some may partly disagree and some will disagree entirely.
The assessment and agreement of Anderson, Macnaghten et al is that their "evidence" is as you yourself agree, un-uncorroborated. Discussing un-corroberated opinion (my word for the written material from Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten), for the nth time becomes pointless if their words cannot be corroborated . There comes a time when a line should be drawn, and this carousel's three part engine isn't exactly a Brunel masterpiece of ingenuity, let alone a Wankel Rotary Engine.

Without further evidence, the time honoured idea of putting more coal on the fire under their three names time and time again becomes bordering on the silly. Comparable to "flogging a dead horse", infact.

I do have one or two questions for you though. As you have demonstrated that the A-Z authors were in contact with the Moore family from at least 1992, may I ask whether the A-Z contact with the Macnaghten/Aberconway family has revealed any more written information pertaining to this genre? If so, is there a possibility that we can expect to see and/or given anything out into the public eye for perusal in the near future? Stewart has been kind enough to show many items from the personal letters from half a collection of Anderson's, which he purchased, I believe, a while ago. (Please correct me if I am wrong Stewart)
Thank you in advance for the reply.


kindly


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Stewart,

...and that means, does it not, that the three persons MM chose to document for whatever reason who were "more likely than Cutbush" were a man previously convicted of walking an un-muzzled dog (thank you Stephen for the correction), a thief of whom whether MM knew it or not, was locked away in a prison abroad, and a man with no known criminal record. He had, in his owns words "many homicidal maniacs who were suspected" that "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one"... to choose from. He then lists his three. Without proof either.

Hello Paul,

Thank you for the reply.
How many people choose to agree with me is besides the point, as everybody has their own choice in the matter. Some may agree, some will partly agree, some may partly disagree and some will disagree entirely.
The assessment and agreement of Anderson, Macnaghten et al is that their "evidence" is as you yourself agree, un-uncorroborated. Discussing un-corroberated opinion (my word for the written material from Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten), for the nth time becomes pointless if their words cannot be corroborated . There comes a time when a line should be drawn, and this carousel's three part engine isn't exactly a Brunel masterpiece of ingenuity, let alone a Wankel Rotary Engine.

Without further evidence, the time honoured idea of putting more coal on the fire under their three names time and time again becomes bordering on the silly. Comparable to "flogging a dead horse", infact.

I do have one or two questions for you though. As you have demonstrated that the A-Z authors were in contact with the Moore family from at least 1992, may I ask whether the A-Z contact with the Macnaghten/Aberconway family has revealed any more written information pertaining to this genre? If so, is there a possibility that we can expect to see and/or given anything out into the public eye for perusal in the near future? Stewart has been kind enough to show many items from the personal letters from half a collection of Anderson's, which he purchased, I believe, a while ago. (Please correct me if I am wrong Stewart)
Thank you in advance for the reply.


kindly


Phil

You got more chance of seeing the dead sea scroll published on here. The current owner of the Aberconway version has already asked Keith Skinner to publish it for all to see and examine but 6 months down the line we are still waiting for him to accede to the owners wishes.

[PaulB]

Hello Stewart,

...and that means, does it not, that the three persons MM chose to document for whatever reason who were "more likely than Cutbush" were a man previously convicted of walking an un-muzzled dog (thank you Stephen for the correction), a thief of whom whether MM knew it or not, was locked away in a prison abroad, and a man with no known criminal record. He had, in his owns words "many homicidal maniacs who were suspected" that "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one"... to choose from. He then lists his three. Without proof either.

Hello Paul,

Thank you for the reply.
How many people choose to agree with me is besides the point, as everybody has their own choice in the matter. Some may agree, some will partly agree, some may partly disagree and some will disagree entirely.
The assessment and agreement of Anderson, Macnaghten et al is that their "evidence" is as you yourself agree, un-uncorroborated. Discussing un-corroberated opinion (my word for the written material from Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten), for the nth time becomes pointless if their words cannot be corroborated . There comes a time when a line should be drawn, and this carousel's three part engine isn't exactly a Brunel masterpiece of ingenuity, let alone a Wankel Rotary Engine.

Without further evidence, the time honoured idea of putting more coal on the fire under their three names time and time again becomes bordering on the silly. Comparable to "flogging a dead horse", infact.

I do have one or two questions for you though. As you have demonstrated that the A-Z authors were in contact with the Moore family from at least 1992, may I ask whether the A-Z contact with the Macnaghten/Aberconway family has revealed any more written information pertaining to this genre? If so, is there a possibility that we can expect to see and/or given anything out into the public eye for perusal in the near future? Stewart has been kind enough to show many items from the personal letters from half a collection of Anderson's, which he purchased, I believe, a while ago. (Please correct me if I am wrong Stewart)
Thank you in advance for the reply.


kindly


Phil

That's okay, Phil, you carry on believing that Macnaghten et al are pillocks who plucked names out of thin air and for no reason whatsoever accused them of being Jack the Ripper, and dismiss accepted historical methodology because it doesn't suite the way you think people should evaluate source material, and people here can decide for themselves whether you should be taken seriously or not. We'll leave it at that.

[PaulB]

You got more chance of seeing the dead sea scroll published on here. The current owner of the Aberconway version has already asked Keith Skinner to publish it for all to see and examine but 6 months down the line we are still waiting for him to accede to the owners wishes.

I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are being Googleised right now, so we will be able to see them on the internet, though I can think of no reason why they should be made available on a Jack the Ripper website. So who knows, one day... Overall, though, it's probably never a good idea to call somebody a thief and then expect them to do what you want them to.

[Chris]

Overall, though, it's probably never a good idea to call somebody a thief and then expect them to do what you want them to.

Or a liar.

I could never quite work out who Trevor Marriott was accusing when he said my summary of the Swanson correspondence didn't agree with what he had been told by a member of the family. Either way, I didn't think much of it as an incentive to share information.

[robhouse]

You keep sidestepping the obvious and that is if there ever was a file as you refer to and it contained important information why would Moore make the statement that he did suggesting they suspected a mad sailor and mention no one else. As I said he is as important to negating the Kosminkis saga as you suggest swanson and Anderson are to keeping it going. So now at this point the scales are evenly balanced.
(...)

I think the field of other contenders has been got rid of now

I am beginning to think that this may be Trevor's startling new discovery... the one which will put all other suspects in the dustbin...

[Phil Carter]

That's okay, Phil, you carry on believing that Macnaghten et al are pillocks who plucked names out of thin air and for no reason whatsoever accused them of being Jack the Ripper, and dismiss accepted historical methodology because it doesn't suite the way you think people should evaluate source material, and people here can decide for themselves whether you should be taken seriously or not. We'll leave it at that.

Hello Paul,

I have never called them pillocks, neither have I stated that they pulled names out of thin air.. those are your words. What I have said is that MM, Anderson and Swanson's opinions, for that is what they are, are not proven, not substantiated, without proof and thereby not corroberated. On that basis I choose to draw a line. Whether people think I should be taken seriously or not is a pathetic comment. The point is whether the three men's opinions named above should be taken seriously.
More personal barbs from your historically minded tongue won't help either. And you don't look down on people do you... no, of course not.
Yet the suggestion of elitism in this genre is something that is baulked at.

You may be an historian and author of repute, but from the above it seems you cannot disuss against others without maligning them and using vague forms of insult, belittling others' differing methodology through insinuated down-putting, I see. That is a shame, and I would have thought that you would know better. I do not, and will not, stoop to such argumentative tactics, note.

You decided not to answer my politely asked questions, I notice. Others can make up their minds about that too. I wasn't referring to the Aberconway version on this occasion, in case you thought so. I was referring to any known other material from that source connected to this genre, because of the comment that MM had destroyed his material or nay. It is a shame you cannot answer a straight question or two. I was hoping the possibility that more material was being looked at and worked on. Not too much of a question now, was it?

I surmise that you just don't want to accept that nothing more can be gained from the known material discussed a thousand times. Thereby, more can be carried on forever and ever, regurgitated and re-wrapped in a new skin..keeping the Merry-Go-Round alive.

At some point in time, a line must be drawn. Do we have to wait for the icons of the genre to do it..or do we have to wait until every last drop of nothing is discussed again and again and again?

To my mind it IS flogging a dead horse. Without new information from these sources, there will NEVER be a concensus of any sort whilst the wheels go round and round using the same old oil.

That is indeed where we shall leave it. Going nowhere.



kindly


Phil

[Monty]

God knows why I'm replying to this as its addressed to Paul and Phil won't see it anyway.

However....

"Hello Paul,

I have never called them pillocks, neither have I stated that they pulled names out of thin air.. those are your words. What I have said is that MM, Anderson and Swanson's opinions, for that is what they are, are not proven, not substantiated, without proof and thereby not corroberated. On that basis I choose to draw a line. Whether people think I should be taken seriously or not is a pathetic comment. The point is whether the three men's opinions named above should be taken seriously.
More personal barbs from your historically minded tongue won't help either. And you don't look down on people do you... no, of course not.
Yet the suggestion of elitism in this genre is something that is baulked at."

It seems Phil has this hang up about elitism. Its never really been mentioned outside his and Trevors posts. I'm sure someone will make Phil aware of this post so Phil, what exactly is this elitism you speak of.

Whatever it is you cannot lay that against Paul. Infact in my experience none of the leading enthusiasts such as Don, Stewart and Martin have ever showed any degree of elitism towards me. The have all treated me as a grown up and been extremely considerate in their dealings.



"You may be an historian and author of repute, but from the above it seems you cannot disuss against others without maligning them and using vague forms of insult, belittling others' differing methodology through insinuated down-putting, I see. That is a shame, and I would have thought that you would know better. I do not, and will not, stoop to such argumentative tactics, note."

This is an out and out lie, yes I will state it again, an outright lie. Phil, not long ago, decided to belittle me by ridiculing my spelling and grammar. Its there for all to see. My spelling is poor, my grandma even worse, but that is irrelivant if I am understood. However, that's not the point. The point is that Phil smacks of hypocrasy on that front. And the evidence is clear.


"You decided not to answer my politely asked questions, I notice. Others can make up their minds about that too. I wasn't referring to the Aberconway version on this occasion, in case you thought so. I was referring to any known other material from that source connected to this genre, because of the comment that MM had destroyed his material or nay. It is a shame you cannot answer a straight question or two. I was hoping the possibility that more material was being looked at and worked on. Not too much of a question now, was it?

I surmise that you just don't want to accept that nothing more can be gained from the known material discussed a thousand times. Thereby, more can be carried on forever and ever, regurgitated and re-wrapped in a new skin..keeping the Merry-Go-Round alive.

At some point in time, a line must be drawn. Do we have to wait for the icons of the genre to do it..or do we have to wait until every last drop of nothing is discussed again and again and again?

To my mind it IS flogging a dead horse. Without new information from these sources, there will NEVER be a concensus of any sort whilst the wheels go round and round using the same old oil.

That is indeed where we shall leave it. Going nowhere.



kindly


Phil"

What Phil is failing to understand is that Macnaghten (apologies Stewart if my spelling is wrong ) and Swanson were in a far better position to pass comment than we are today. They are contemporary persons and therefore hold some degree of importance.

To state that they had no evidence is neither here nor there given the context of the document (again something that seems to be lost on some). The fact remains they were either invoved in, or briefed on the case. Which is far more than I sitting in my shed as I am, or Phil, sitting in his armchair in Norway.

My point is that we are not in possession of the full accounts and I suspect not many of the day were.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are being Googleised right now, so we will be able to see them on the internet, though I can think of no reason why they should be made available on a Jack the Ripper website. So who knows, one day... Overall, though, it's probably never a good idea to call somebody a thief and then expect them to do what you want them to.

I did not call anyone a thief so please retract that statement or i will have to report you to admin. You have continuosly called me an assortment of names over the past week or so now would ask you to kindly desist.

Its not what I want them to do its what Mr McClaren wants them to do. I have to ask why do they not want to do what he has requested. I think everyone with an interest in this mystery is asking that same question.
If there is nothing of interest in them or nothing which raises any issues with the MM then why not publish it. You keep referring to my actions well its not about me. I was out of the loop as soon as Mr Mclaren asked for it to be posted for all to see.

[Garry Wroe]

I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are being Googleised right now, so we will be able to see them on the internet, though I can think of no reason why they should be made available on a Jack the Ripper website.

Oh, I can think of one or two posters who might propose a link of common authorship with the Goulston Street message.

[Chris]

I did not call anyone a thief...

Only because innuendo is your preferred modus operandi.

But the implication was clear enough to get the posts in question removed and to get you banned from Casebook.

[Phil Carter]

For the attention of those suspects sitting on the horses, and for the persons turning the handle..The Macnaghten Ripperology Machine.

Now who's who. A prize coconut for correct identification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fI7zm7RXHs

kindly


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Only because innuendo is your preferred modus operandi.

But the implication was clear enough to get the posts in question removed and to get you banned from Casebook.

Big difference between the two and perhaps I dont have the clout with admin to which you and your other cartel members have in getting people banned

[Trevor Marriott]

Now Mr Leahy has crossed the "rubicon" on his crusade against me
(from post number 1102 on this same thread)

Hello All,
It has been brought to my attention that he is on his way..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3nM2Ul4rLU&NR=1