Plausibility of Kosminski

[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

[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.

[PaulB]

The delicious irony of this, of course, is that Paul was trying to be helpful.

Thanks, Stewart.

I could have been even more helpful, Stewart, and pointed out that the A To Z authors were in contact with Moore's family as long ago as 1992 and we continue to develop this research for the A To Z.

I could also have pointed out that Moore wrote:"One of these days, now I have more leisure, I may go to work and before I die I might have the luck to see 'Jack the Ripper' standing in the dock of the Old Bailey." This was just three years after Feigenbaum had been executed and obviously casts doubt on the suggestion that Feigebaum was the mad sailor Moore had in mind.

I could have been even more helpful and pointed Trevor in the direction of a report in the Daily Telegraph, but as Moore is so pivotal in Trevor's thinking, he will certainly already have it.

[PaulB]

Which is why we cannot count any of these three as a potential killer. And if one argues one cannot discount them either.. then on that basis you, me and Fred Bloggs are potential killers. How many parents have said they would rip a person to pieces if a pedophile touched one of their kids?.. Most parents have, or thought it. So we are all potentially murderers. But evidence that we DID kill someone.. that's a different matter.. and we ARE talking about three historical figures. They didn't kill anyone, and there is no tangible evidence to show they ever did.

You can and must count all three as potential killers. The difference between you, me, and Fred Bloggs is that nobody has suspected us of being a murderer or elevated us to the position of actually being a murderer. The Macnaghten 3 have been, and by an informed senior policeman who publicly conjectured that one of them actually was Jack the Ripper.

When you say there is no "tangible evidence", what you mean is that we don't know why Macnaghten suspected Druitt. Well, of course we don't, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any, but, of course, your argument is that Macnaghten was a total noodlebrain who threw out wild and baseless accusations without cause or reason.

This is opinion. You yourself have said, opinion is worth diddly squat. I can think that Theakstons Old Peculier is the greatest beer ever produced. But that is opinion also. It means nothing.

I haven't said that opinion is worth diddly squat. On the contrary, I have said that informed opinion is extremely valuable and must be given serious consideration.

Yes. I am suggesting we dump Druitt in the waste bin. Likewise Kosminski. Likewise Ostrog.

Fine, then you are accepting the corollary that Macnaghten, Anderson et al were indeed total noodlebrains who threw out wild and baseless accusations without cause or reason. When people come asking for the proof you have for this serious accusation, I hope it doesn't prove to be wild and baseless!

The burden of proof is on those proving he had something to do with the East End, and the murders. People are presumed innocent until such burden of proof is shown. No evidence of being a potential murderer, no evidence of attempted murder. No evidence of woman-hating. No tangible evidence against any of the MM3. Ergo no proof. Waste bin.

Well, apart from this being history and not a court of law and the rules being a little different, the burden of proof does rest with the person making the accusation, and in this particular instance the person making the accusation is you; you are therefore the person who must supply the proof. Let's make this clear, you are saying that Macnaghten and Anderson and so on were so dim from the neck up that they would randomly plucke any old name out of the ether and for no reason at all declare he was Jack the Ripper. That claim needs a lot of supportive evidence. Where is it?

This is based on assumption that Macnaghten had a reason.

Yes it does, and frankly I think it is a far more probable assumption than your claim that Macnaghten was a thicko who accused people of being the Ripper without any reason for doing so.

As we cannot establish this as fact. it becomes speculation.

Yep. Except, of course, Macnaghten actually says that his conclusion was based on information privately received, so if we are to say that Macnaghten had no reason for suspecting Druitt then we'd be calling Macnaghten a liar as well as a thicko who threw out baseless accusations.

You want to present factual historical accuracy. That cannot be done using presumption and speculation based on unknown factors. Historians base their assessments on substantiated happenings. Macnaghten's comments are not substantiated by any known fact on any of these three people. It is his opinion...and that is not historically evidential fact. Ergo, it is, as opinion, as you said earlier, worthless. Waste bin.

Actually, historians do not always "base their assessments on substantiated happenings". In fact, quite often they do not, but that is by-the-by. What we have is an intelligent and informed source, contemporary with the events he describes, who was well able to evaluate material received. His conclusions are therefore an important and valuable source, albeit that we don't know the evidence upon which they were based.

Of course, you claim that Macnaghten threw out baseless accusations, that there was no evidence or reason for the conclusions he reached, and that therefore as a source we should bin him.

What I am saying Paul, is that these men were all without any known evidence, and their comments, and to use your words again here.."makes the most sense" in relation to covering their backsides about NOT catching the murderer(s) of these poor women that is probably still the greatest unsolved killing spree known to the police. THAT makes most sense to me. Its a covering excercise to show the police in a good light, and in Anderson and Swanson's case, their reputations. To me, and others, it is the most logical reasoning. Had they produced one iota of evidence against any of these men actually BEING a killer.. I, and others, would view it differently.

Well, of course, if these men threw out baseless accusations about men whose names they plucked out of the ether then you'd be right, and why they said what they said would be largely academic. However, if they did have reasons for the conclusions they reached, whether they were expressing those conclusions to cover their backsides or not doesn't impinge on the validity of the conclusion itself. And, of course, it still has to be demonstrated that either man felt he had to cover his backside. Anderson, despite the list of quotes kindly provided by Stewart a few posts back, specifically denied that he did.

So therefore evidencially, being unable to assess and evaluate the comments themselves makes them unworthy of consideration. Ergo.. this is NOT evidence. It is uncorroberated opinion, and should be treated as such. As you said. Opinion matters not, historically speaking.

As said, I haven't said "opinion matters not". Informed opinion from people who were there and were in a position to know is valuable and important. The fact that we can't assess and evaluate the reasons on which they based their opinion does not make it unworthy of consideration.

Stewart has in part answered this already regarding the evaluation of the sources. I can only add that the feeling I have is that because the sources provide no evidence of any person actually having killed anyone, we cannot call the sources factually reliable based on un-corroberated opinions.

Well, this is just a repetition of what you have already said.

The point here is that as an historian, and as a respected author, your views and interpretations regarding Anderson in particular, have not been left open. You have previously championed Anderson's words vehemently.

These views have been challenged, by others. Leaving the door open, regarding Macnaughten, avoids the fact that AT PRESENT, there is no basis of proof in what he says to name any of his three as a killer. So what are you leaving the door open for? That's all well and good if you know of other pieces of evidence yet to come into the public eye from this man. But at present? Waste bin, I personally surmise.

Good logical reasoning says that without any further additions from the source, based upon what he has given us, it is opinion only. That is how I approach this so-called "evidence".

Yes Paul. And it is here that I use some types of education as a barrier to expanded thought. I attended school in the 1960's and 1970's. In doing mathematical algebra, we were TOLD that one had a 5 line process to work out an equation. Some of us presented our work as a three line process. We were TOLD, by the maths "master", that was NOT how it was done, even though the result and answer was correct. We were TOLD that it had been done for centuries in this way.. and that was that. "Shut up and do as I say. I know best. How dare you question the methodology that has been used for many many years!!!"

To my complete astonishment, and just by chance, two years ago, the mathematical bods at Oxbridge had "decided" that the three line approach to solving such problems within algebra was now being "accepted". 40 years after we were told that if one used the approach, even though the answer was correct, we would receive no mark, it is now deemed "acceptable". The powers that be decided it. All hail the powers that be. Good for future pupils I say, poor sods.

Do forgive this little wander down memory lane. It tries to show a point. HOW we are taught to accept things, CAN be challenged, and it ISN'T always correct to follow the known accepted methods. In reference to YOUR way of approaching history, and mine, we use differing methodology. That doesn't make me an historian. It doesn't make your "taught" methods the ONLY way to see something either. Logical reasonance is, as I said before, based on two differing concepts.. small differences but important ones.

Positive logicalism and logical positivism. Two differing ways of approach.
The answers may end up different because of the difference in the approach. But here we enter the realms of philosophy.

And all this discussion about the methoidology does in any event, is keep the Merry-Go-Round turning. It gets the Plausibility of Kosminski, Druitt et al nowhere.. because the bottom line is...

After all the facts, sources and opinions are assessed.. there is no evidence against any of these men. Toast, waste bin, Dustmen picked it up, collected it, taken to processing plant, and dumped somewhere.. to be buried forever. NOT repackaged every once in a while. It is not bio-degradable either.

So logically... we move on.

I think the answer to all that has been given. In your world Macnaghten, Anderson et al reached conclusions without any reasons. But that to me is hugely unlikely and would demand such a major re-evaluation of those men as to require a lot of supportive evidence. AS yet, all you seem to be saying and reiterating is that the conclusions reached by Anderson, Macnaghten , or whoever, are uncorroborated. Well, of course they are. That's why we discuss them. Except you have already concluded that they don't have corroboration, that they are to be binned, buried, and left to rot away.

It'll remain to be seen how many will agree with you.

[Stephen Thomas]

Only Kosminski is known to have been local.. but his only known crime is for walking a dog without a leash!

Hi Phil

A slight correction here. He was arrested for walking an unmuzzled dog.

There was a rabies scare at the time.

The judge was the magnificently named Alderman Sir Polydore De Keyser.

Kozza was fined 10 bob.