Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
It's an escalating trajectory from 1895 to 1910 of both certainty and critical detail, eg. the so-called slam dunk witness 'confrontation'.
Macanghten, by contrast, is a tantalizing zig zag if you start with the MP story. But if you remove the 'Drowned Doctor' element it snaps into a rigid horizontal line from Farquharson to the Mac memoirs. Not a 'How Bill Adams won Waterloo' escalation, like Anderson.

Yes, it is indeed a jolly wheeze to read all sorts of things into these tales. After all, suspect-wise there is precious little valid material to work with anyway. We do, after all, have to try and make some sense out of these conflicting sources. But let's not get too carried away with our reasoning.

[Jonathan H]

I think Macnaghten knew of what he spoke and wrote.

That's as close as we get, and, hey, that's not bad.

I respect those who think this professional certainty is more likely to be true of Anderson (and Swanson) than Macnaghten -- though I no not believe that the Polish suspect was confronted with and identified by a witness.

We will, as usual, agree to disagree.

[Stewart P Evans]

You see...

...
Major Griffiths opened the door again on the 1891 surgeon's son tale out of Dorset -- not that the Tory Major knew this of course -- and then, once the coast was clear in 1902, Macnagten, via his Liberal proxy Sims, went hard for the 'Drowned Doctor' as not a suspect but a solution.
'Said to be a doctor ...' (1894) means, well he might be a doctor, but then again he might not be? Whereas, with Sims he is definitely a doctor, then he becomes an ex-doctor who no longer practices medicine both before and during the murders, and then in the memoirs this concept of the Dr. Jekyllish recluse is dropped altogether.
...

You see, this is where, I think, that you stray from the path of reality. To you they have a fixed agenda with a reason and purpose for everything they say. Mistakes are not mistakes, they are deliberate remarks loaded with hidden meaning. Carelessness in writing is no such thing, it is carefully orchestrated word-play. Actually, they are probably merely none-too-deeply thought out popular crime pieces intended to entertain their readers.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Historical argument'

...
But, an historical argument can be mounted for Anderson to be probably correct, and I also believe that an historical argument can be mounted that Macnaghten, rather than Anderson, was probably correct.
...

An 'historical argument' can be mounted for many things. The point is both Anderson and Macnaghten were probably incorrect.

'Historical arguments' are based, largely, on historical interpretation and quality of historical sources. But what we must guard against, very carefully, is straying from valid historical interpretation into the realms of fantasy and invention.

At the end of the day it is little more than speculation based on personal interpretation of sources.

[Stewart P Evans]

Theory

...
I just think the strongest theories are the ones which try and explain all the available sources, and why they disagree, eg. I think Paul does this with elegant precision in 'The Facts', turning the sources over this way and then that way, and I think you (and Gainey) did this too, with 'The Lodger', obviously about a completely different and contemporaneous suspect.
...

The strength, or otherwise, of any theory has to be judged on the quality of the historical sources used to propose and support that theory.

Obviously, that brings in a host of considerations such as the quality of the sources, corroborative facts that might be found, and the simple likelihood of such a theory.

Any author proposing a theory is in an invidious position and cannot be without bias, although he should strive for objectivity.

[Stewart P Evans]

The fact...

Yes, Stewart, that is one interpretation; that the case was not solved at the time, as two police chiefs preferring different suspects, ipso facto, cancel each other out.
...

The fact is that the case was, and is, unsolved. Whether you like that or not. Furthermore it is incapable of being solved.

It wasn't just those two senior police officers 'preferring different suspects', there were others too. There was no consensus. There was no hard evidence. There is no answer.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, Stewart, that is one interpretation; that the case was not solved at the time, as two police chiefs preferring different suspects, ipso facto, cancel each other out.

But, an historical argument can be mounted for Anderson to be probably correct, and I also believe that an historical argument can be mounted that Macnaghten, rather than Anderson, was probably correct.

I just think the strongest theories are the ones which try and explain all the available sources, and why they disagree, eg. I think Paul does this with elegant precision in 'The Facts', turning the sources over this way and then that way, and I think you (and Gainey) did this too, with 'The Lodger', obviously about a completely different and contemporaneous suspect.

Major Griffiths opened the door again on the 1891 surgeon's son tale out of Dorset -- not that the Tory Major knew this of course -- and then, once the coast was clear in 1902, Macnagten, via his Liberal proxy Sims, went hard for the 'Drowned Doctor' as not a suspect but a solution.

'Said to be a doctor ...' (1894) means, well he might be a doctor, but then again he might not be? Whereas, with Sims he is definitely a doctor, then he becomes an ex-doctor who no longer practices medicine both before and during the murders, and then in the memoirs this concept of the Dr. Jekyllish recluse is dropped altogether.

I completely agree that Anderson in 1895 only had a 'perfectly, plausible theory' -- and no treacherous Jewish witness yet -- and that this evolved into the 'definitely ascertained fact' by 1910, with the witness who 'unhesitatingly identified' the killer.

It's an escalating trajectory from 1895 to 1910 of both certainty and critical detail, eg. the so-called slam dunk witness 'confrontation'.

Macanghten, by contrast, is a tantalizing zig zag if you start with the MP story. But if you remove the 'Drowned Doctor' element it snaps into a rigid horizontal line from Farquharson to the Mac memoirs. Not a 'How Bill Adams won Waterloo' escalation, like Anderson.

[Stewart P Evans]

Special Branch

...
You say about me banging on The Special Branch door well someone had to do it didnt they.Crimes are not solved sitting behind a desk. And there is still new material out there but to find it you have to get off your backside and do the leg work.
As far as The SB quest was concerned, the end result was not what was expected, However all was not in vain because we got the names of new suspects from the registers. Names which no one seems to want to mention,despite being all being on a par with other suspect names also from police records. You have the "Machangten three" I have the "Forgotten four"
In the course of gathering evidence for the tribunal other new evidence from official files was uncovered which in my opinion now eliminates many of the suspects.
At this time I do not propose to disclose that. However It will be made public in due course unlike others I am happy to share with the community the results of new research.

To my knowledge you are not the first to attempt to access the Special Branch files. Professor Bernard Porter was doing that way back in the 1980s.

If you extract a suspect's name from a register, as opposed to seeing any file or letter etc. to which that register entry refers, I simply cannot understand how you can assess the standing of that suspect or dismiss other suspects as a result of a mere leger entry.

You claim to have new information and 'new evidence from official files' which is great, especially for you. And I note that when you say that information 'eliminates many of the suspects' it is 'in your opinion' only.

You obviously see now why some people find it necessary to keep their finds to themselves until they are ready to use them.

[Stewart P Evans]

Ah...

...
Its now Autumn when the leaves fall from the trees. What will we be left with a handful of Ripperologists clinging onfor dear life at the top for fear of falling and damaging their egos.
Ripperology is now an even playing field you have to accept that everyone elses views and theories are just as worthy of consideration as yours and the rest of you cartel members and followers.
...

Ah, but that 'handful of Ripperologists' have a world of experience and knowledge in the field that only many, many, years of research in the field can impart to an individual. I have amassed a huge collection which contains much unpublished (and some unpublishable) material.

I have never considered myself 'at the top', nor at the bottom for that matter. I am merely an informed enthusiast, with many years police experience to temper my views, who enjoys this sort of debate and repartee - as long as it remains civil. I have much to give, as well as much to learn, and I consider it a productive way to work, as I still learn from such 'new' researchers as the gifted Debs, Rob Clack, Neil, Philip, Chris, Simon, etc, etc. - even you!

Everyone's views, if sensible, should be considered and judged according to merit. There is no cartel.

Egos, well everyone has an ego, and mine is not in too good a shape at present. But I am working at it and keep taking the pills. However, it is too bruised already to worry about it too much.

[PaulB]

Certainly nothing is going to discourage others from cooperating with researchers, than people like Christopher McLaren and Nevill Swanson being dragged into public arguments of this kind.

Never has a truer word been spoken.

[Stewart P Evans]

I did...

I knew you wouldnt be able to resit

Oh but I did 'resit', I had to sit down again at the computer.

[PaulB]

Now I am a fearless champion now thank you for the compliment.

Now unless I have missed it I havent seen any correspondence between Swanson and the News of The World which contained the actual name Kosminski

Isnt it the case that you and others who to be fair do have expert knowledge of much surrounding the mystery and have led the cause from the 1960`s and are highly respected,all of you all have been sitting at the top of the ripperology tree since then, suddenly find that in the ensuing years there have been major advances in the world of technology with the internet opening up many more
research options than there were in the 1960`s.

Ripperology has also seen many more researchers who are equally as qualified and as knowledgable as you and others activeley participate in trying to solve the mystery. By trying to prove or disprove facts which you and the other old guard have sought to rely on all these years

As a result the theories and writings of you and those other early researchers are now being serioulsy questioned and the fact is you dont like it and cant handle it. As a result you duck and dive when questions are put to you about major issues which impinge of your views. You continuosly answer a question with a question thus avoiding the original question.

In addittion Martin Fido another one of the old guard as knowledgeable as he is has beenleft floudering in the water with Kosminski and Cohen.

Its now Autumn when the leaves fall from the trees. What will we be left with a handful of Ripperologists clinging onfor dear life at the top for fear of falling and damaging their egos.

Ripperology is now an even playing field you have to accept that everyone elses views and theories are just as worthy of consideration as yours and the rest of you cartel members and followers.

You say about me banging on The Special Branch door well someone had to do it didnt they.Crimes are not solved sitting behind a desk. And there is still new material out there but to find it you have to get off your backside and do the leg work.

As far as The SB quest was concerned, the end result was not what was expected, However all was not in vain because we got the names of new suspects from the registers. Names which no one seems to want to mention,despite being all being on a par with other suspect names also from police records. You have the "Machangten three" I have the "Forgotten four"

In the course of gathering evidence for the tribunal other new evidence from official files was uncovered which in my opinion now eliminates many of the suspects.

At this time I do not propose to disclose that. However It will be made public in due course unlike others I am happy to share with the community the results of new research.

Trevor, sadly that is the cheap and tawdry response you always seem to give when challenged - it's nothing to do with you, it's all down to a bunch of people protecting their egos and theories.

[Stewart P Evans]

Martin

...
In addittion Martin Fido another one of the old guard as knowledgeable as he is has beenleft floudering in the water with Kosminski and Cohen.
...

I am not qualified to answer for Martin, but I am sure that he would disagree with the assessment that he 'has been left flou[n]dering in the water with Kosminski and Cohen. Especially as his unique pioneering research gave us all the identity of Kosminski anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevinator, although your post is directed to Paul, I assume, with the reference to the 1960s, that you are including me as having been 'sitting at the top of the Ripperology tree' since then Although maybe not. But I shall address some of your points anyway.

I knew you wouldnt be able to resit

[Stewart P Evans]

I am sure...

...
As a result the theories and writings of you and those other early researchers are now being serioulsy questioned and the fact is you dont like it and cant handle it. As a result you duck and dive when questions are put to you about major issues which impinge of your views. You continuosly answer a question with a question thus avoiding the original question.
...

I am sure that any serious theorist and writer welcomes their work being questioned, if those questions are constructive and sensible. So many of them are silly and posed by others with their own contrary theories to build.

I don't notice many of the 'legends' of the field such as Whittington-Egan, Wilson, Odell, Rumbelow and Sugden taking part in these debates. I shouldn't think that it is because they 'couldn't handle it' but rather they are not interested in endless debate and have other things to get on with.

If you have any direct questions for me, ask them. I shan't 'duck or dive' or evade the issue.