Plausibility of Kosminski

[GregBaron]

Mental Illness or Personality Disorder?

Hi all,

I have no business in this thread but I’m throwing caution to the wind. The following point is directed mainly go Garry Wroe who I believe is a professional in this field (Psychology). His opinion (and others) would be most welcome.

Rob House’s book makes a compelling case for the schizophrenic serial killer. He discusses something called co-morbidity (I think) which indicates that a person could be both a psychopath and a schizophrenic. He mentions lust murderers who are prone to mutilation and he names individuals who fall into these categories. The implication, I believe, is that someone like Koz may have been a psychopath who was relatively lucid at the young age of 23 and was able to plan and commit the crimes but shortly thereafter the schizophrenia kicked in full force rendering him less and less capable of anything really. Lucid periods would then come and go (like when he was walking the dog maybe?) until eventually the degeneration we see evidenced at Colney Hatch would come to the fore.

I may not have explained this very well and if Rob was around I’m sure he could do a better job but hopefully you somewhat get the point.

I’m wondering what you, Garry, and others think of this idea. My personal belief is that Jack (if he existed) was probably a psychopath more in the Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy mold but I may be dead wrong.

Even though this may appear a thread derailment I think it pertinent to the idea of the ‘Plausibility of Kozminski’.

Greg

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

"The fact that the report ended up archived at Scotland Yard, and is on official embossed stock, indicates its nature and that it was information asked for by the Commissioner."

If Bradford had requested the "confidential" Macnaghten Report, it is reasonable to suggest that four years later he would have been more than a little dismayed to learn that part of its content had been leaked to Major Griffiths.

Unless they had some sort of death wish, neither Macnaghten or [if Littlechild was right] Anderson would have been sufficiently foolhardy to risk leaking "confidential" material from a known source which had previously been read by the Commissioner. Griffiths' material had to remain unattributable, which is why I believe the Macnaghten Report was never seen by Bradford, nor even commissioned by him.

Forget conspiracy theories. How do you explain the document's survival in such a bureaucratically-unmarked condition?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Years ago, Paul, whilst studying scientific research methods, I was given the following as an example of hypo-inductive reasoning:-

John is a boy; John wears trousers.
Susan wears trousers, so must also be a boy.

Whereas I genuinely marvel at the depth of Anderson-related research undertaken by yourself, Stewart and others, I doubt that it will ever prove that Anderson exaggerated (or worse) the circumstances surrounding the Seaside Home identification.

To my mind, insufficient consideration has been given to an alternate approach. It is fairly obvious, for example, that Anderson believed that he knew the type of man the Ripper was likely to have been (an insane sexual deviant), and that he and Swanson regarded the end of the Ripper scare as providing a clue as to the killer’s identity.

It is also fairly obvious that that investigators had little, if any, tangible evidence against Kosminski, which is why almost total reliance was placed on the Seaside Home identification. The fact that Swanson bothered to state that ‘no other murder of this kind took place in London after the suspect had been identified’ would appear to reinforce this conclusion.

As I contended earlier on this thread, I think the likeliest explanation for Kosminski’s ‘identification’ may be attributed to the fact that he was diagnosed as insane and removed from the streets at a time which roughly coincided with the cessation of the murders. As such, this was less of a rigorous detective process than an exercise in hypo-inductive reasoning. Thus I have difficulty in sharing your conclusion that ‘Anderson would have known about all the serious suspects and that if he thought "Kosminski" was at worst the best of the bunch then he has to be given credence.’

To my way of thinking, Paul, there were no serious suspects, not least because the investigation was fatally flawed by Anderson’s assumption that the wanted man must have been insane and obviously homicidal. Our latter-day understanding of such offenders is sufficient to effectively exonerate Kosminski and similar such ‘suspects’. Even if we assume that Kosminski was a paranoid schizophrenic (and I long ago asserted that Kosminski’s psychopathology was indicative of hebephrenia rather then paranoia), such men are incapable of exerting the degree of victim and crime scene control that is apparent through even the most casual evaluation of the Ripper murders. From the psychological perspective alone, Kosminski could not have been Jack the Ripper. Anderson was therefore wrong, irrespective of his documented certainty regarding the issue, and no amount Anderson-related textual analysis will change that.

Returning to my opening paragraph, I will provide another example of hypo-inductive reasoning:-

Jack the Ripper’s crimes had about them a touch of insanity.
Kosminski was insane and so must have been Jack the Ripper.

That, I believe, more or less encapsulates Anderson’s case against Kosminski. And whilst I wish you well in your Anderson researches, I really do think that the time has come to consider an alternate approach – one that places greater emphasis on what he did rather than what he said.

Or even what he said he did.

Excellent post Garry

[Garry Wroe]

I attach priority to him [Anderson] simply because (a) he said the Ripper's identity was established fact, whereas Macnaghten admitted that he conjectured, and (b) I assume Anderson would have known about all the serious suspects and that if he thought "Kosminski" was at worst the best of the bunch then he has to be given credence.

Years ago, Paul, whilst studying scientific research methods, I was given the following as an example of hypo-inductive reasoning:-

John is a boy; John wears trousers.
Susan wears trousers, so must also be a boy.

Whereas I genuinely marvel at the depth of Anderson-related research undertaken by yourself, Stewart and others, I doubt that it will ever prove that Anderson exaggerated (or worse) the circumstances surrounding the Seaside Home identification.

To my mind, insufficient consideration has been given to an alternate approach. It is fairly obvious, for example, that Anderson believed that he knew the type of man the Ripper was likely to have been (an insane sexual deviant), and that he and Swanson regarded the end of the Ripper scare as providing a clue as to the killer’s identity.

It is also fairly obvious that that investigators had little, if any, tangible evidence against Kosminski, which is why almost total reliance was placed on the Seaside Home identification. The fact that Swanson bothered to state that ‘no other murder of this kind took place in London after the suspect had been identified’ would appear to reinforce this conclusion.

As I contended earlier on this thread, I think the likeliest explanation for Kosminski’s ‘identification’ may be attributed to the fact that he was diagnosed as insane and removed from the streets at a time which roughly coincided with the cessation of the murders. As such, this was less of a rigorous detective process than an exercise in hypo-inductive reasoning. Thus I have difficulty in sharing your conclusion that ‘Anderson would have known about all the serious suspects and that if he thought "Kosminski" was at worst the best of the bunch then he has to be given credence.’

To my way of thinking, Paul, there were no serious suspects, not least because the investigation was fatally flawed by Anderson’s assumption that the wanted man must have been insane and obviously homicidal. Our latter-day understanding of such offenders is sufficient to effectively exonerate Kosminski and similar such ‘suspects’. Even if we assume that Kosminski was a paranoid schizophrenic (and I long ago asserted that Kosminski’s psychopathology was indicative of hebephrenia rather then paranoia), such men are incapable of exerting the degree of victim and crime scene control that is apparent through even the most casual evaluation of the Ripper murders. From the psychological perspective alone, Kosminski could not have been Jack the Ripper. Anderson was therefore wrong, irrespective of his documented certainty regarding the issue, and no amount Anderson-related textual analysis will change that.

Returning to my opening paragraph, I will provide another example of hypo-inductive reasoning:-

Jack the Ripper’s crimes had about them a touch of insanity.
Kosminski was insane and so must have been Jack the Ripper.

That, I believe, more or less encapsulates Anderson’s case against Kosminski. And whilst I wish you well in your Anderson researches, I really do think that the time has come to consider an alternate approach – one that places greater emphasis on what he did rather than what he said.

Or even what he said he did.

[Trevor Marriott]

You know what the source says, you have seen illustrations of it, you know the opinions of people who have seen it and examined it, you know what some didn't see and what some did, you know about the provenance, you know about the other marginal comments, you have the substance of the Davies report. Anything further you may have wanted might have been forthcoming, but you have alienated all the people who could have helped. I'm not sure how you can place responsibility on the shoulders of anyone but your own.

Not just down to me some of the people concerned were from outside the cartel. People who I had very liitle to do with, all taking their orders from the inner sanctum of the cartel as to what to do.

I know what some of it says but to satisfy my mind I would like to see and read it in full. After all over the years i have commisoned mnay foresnsic tests and reda as many again report so for that reason i would like to asses and evaluate the report in full. Its the same with the Aberconway version I now gather you are going to conside publishing it in full in the A_Z that all well and good if you are going to publish it as it is and not write the contents up.

[PaulB]

I am not going to explain again my comments and posts relative to the authenticity of the marginalia. If your beady eyes missed it before go back and read the posts. I said what I said then and the persons concerned read and digested my comments and replied accordingly, and then made their decsions. Fine end of story but that still doesnt stop me or anyone else from casting a doubt,

My doubt about this and other issues will never be allayed but thats a good thing it comes with years of having to deal with people who are inclined to be less than liberal with the truth and in many cases people who deliberatly lie to suit their own agenda. So I have retained that drive and enthusiasm to seek the truth and to prove or disprove the facts. But one thing is for sure I will not be silenced or intimidated

You know what the source says, you have seen illustrations of it, you know the opinions of people who have seen it and examined it, you know what some didn't see and what some did, you know about the provenance, you know about the other marginal comments, you have the substance of the Davies report. Anything further you may have wanted might have been forthcoming, but you have alienated all the people who could have helped. I'm not sure how you can place responsibility on the shoulders of anyone but your own.

[PaulB]

It's not 'loaded', its straight -- to which there could be multiple interpretations.

What's wrong with that?

I would ask: if they were mistakes by, say, Griffiths ('family' became 'friends') why didn't Macnaghten correct his close pal Sims (frantic 'friends'; never 'detained' in an asylum; only learned about 'some years after') in his subsequent writings?

Because, I think, they served Macnaghten's interest.

Or he just couldn't be bothered to correct them?

The assumption is that Macnaghten leaked this information to Griffiths and Sims with an ulterior purpose; perhaps he didn't, perhaps he was just telling it anecdotally, maybe Griffiths saw some papers he wasn't meant to see, maybe he was consulted, maybe...

[Trevor Marriott]

Really, and how else am I to read what you have said, i.e. 'It is their actions that have raised the doubt'? Please explain.

I do not think that you ever will 'allay your doubt'. Indeed, I think it suits you to have that doubt. I have seen a good deal more than you have and I have no serious doubts about it.

I am not going to explain again my comments and posts relative to the authenticity of the marginalia. If your beady eyes missed it before go back and read the posts. I said what I said then and the persons concerned read and digested my comments and replied accordingly, and then made their decsions. Fine end of story but that still doesnt stop me or anyone else from casting a doubt,

My doubt about this and other issues will never be allayed but thats a good thing it comes with years of having to deal with people who are inclined to be less than liberal with the truth and in many cases people who deliberatly lie to suit their own agenda. So I have retained that drive and enthusiasm to seek the truth and to prove or disprove the facts. But one thing is for sure I will not be silenced or intimidated

[Jonathan H]

It's not 'loaded', its straight -- to which there could be multiple interpretations.

What's wrong with that?

I would ask: if they were mistakes by, say, Griffiths ('family' became 'friends') why didn't Macnaghten correct his close pal Sims (frantic 'friends'; never 'detained' in an asylum; only learned about 'some years after') in his subsequent writings?

Because, I think, they served Macnaghten's interest.

Far from being 'convoluted' it is a straight line, a strong, main circuit cable linking the 'West of England' MP tale of 1891 to 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' of 1914.

The sources can be lined up, side-by-side, as if they were Eton boys in a cricket team.

And I can quite understand and respect detractors of the Macnaghten-Druitt [provisional] solution who argue that, yes, so tight are Farquharson and Macnaghten -- the apotheosis of the Old Boy Net -- that these sources share a telling, even damning error:the killer killing himself on the same night as the 'proof' that he was overcome by his own guilt, and glut of horror.

Which is dead wrong.

[Stewart P Evans]

Occam's razor

To Stewart
Yes but if a source is deliberately "convoluted", or rather contradictory, in its machinations, about the same subject, then that's not my fault.
Do you disagree that Macnaghten -- to some extent -- fictionalised Druitt for public consumption, via Griffiths and Sims?

A loaded question if ever there was one. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?

I cannot agree that Macnaghten 'fictionalised Druitt for public consumption, via Griffiths and Sims.' Not least of all because I simply don't know how much the latter two might have 'fictionalised', gilded, misunderstood or otherwise embroidered the information they had been given themselves. Or indeed that the mistakes in the information were not just that, simple mistakes.

To me such musings and suppositions move into a realm of fiction all of their own. All I do know is that Macnaghten wrote an official report, filed at Scotland Yard, and not intended for public consumption (it's marked 'Confidential').

[Jonathan H]

To Stewart

Yes but if a source is deliberately "convoluted", or rather contradictory, in its machinations, about the same subject, then that's not my fault.

Do you disagree that Macnaghten -- to some extent -- fictionalised Druitt for public consumption, via Griffiths and Sims?

[Stewart P Evans]

Really...

Now those are your words not mine.!

Just searching for evidence to allay my doubt. I have at length referred to in the past the issues and actions of others which could do just that. I am not going to repeat them again for there is enough repetition on here as it is.

Really, and how else am I to read what you have said, i.e. 'It is their actions that have raised the doubt'? Please explain.

I do not think that you ever will 'allay your doubt'. Indeed, I think it suits you to have that doubt. I have seen a good deal more than you have and I have no serious doubts about it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, I thought that you did theorise, silly me.

I am not sure what else can be done with regard to the 'marginalia'. You are entitled to have your 'own personal perspective' on the authenticity. Which is, I guess, another way of saying your own personal opinion. But I really don't see how the doubt 'could be removed by the co-operation and help of those directly connected to the marginalia.'

In fact who exactly are 'those'? As I see it there is only one relevant person and that is the owner of the book, no one else. Who else is 'directly connected to the marginalia'? It is private property, not public property.

What do you see as 'actions that have raised the doubt'? This hints of what you perceive as skullduggery by someone. A dangerous area to stray into.

Now those are your words not mine.!

Just searching for evidence to allay my doubt. I have at length referred to in the past the issues and actions of others which could do just that. I am not going to repeat them again for there is enough repetition on here as it is.

[PaulB]

Bugger, I'm enjoying this. Paul and I can debate with each other in a civil way without getting all precious or prima donna-ish. And no one screws (sorry, bad word I know) better responses out of me than Paul, he is so knowledgeable.

Many thanks, Stewart. Those kind words are appreciated and, at risk of sounding like a mutual appreciation society, they are reciprocated.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oh...

...
I am not theorising and I have no agenda and I am not going to become embroiled in the same arguments over the authenticity yet again but all I will say is that from my own personal perspective having regards to everything and everyone involved with this marginalia both past and present in my mind there is a doubt. I am sure there are others who share the same doubt. That doubt could be removed by the co-operation and help of those directly connected to the marginalia. It is their actions that have raised the doubt.

Oh, I thought that you did theorise, silly me.

I am not sure what else can be done with regard to the 'marginalia'. You are entitled to have your 'own personal perspective' on the authenticity. Which is, I guess, another way of saying your own personal opinion. But I really don't see how the doubt 'could be removed by the co-operation and help of those directly connected to the marginalia.'

In fact who exactly are 'those'? As I see it there is only one relevant person and that is the owner of the book, no one else. Who else is 'directly connected to the marginalia'? It is private property, not public property.

What do you see as 'actions that have raised the doubt'? This hints of what you perceive as skullduggery by someone. A dangerous area to stray into.