Plausibility of Kosminski

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to mean that your undisclosed evidence proves that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the murderer, but doesn't rule out the surname. Yes? No?

Mike

Oh it certainly does but Phil H and other need to now accept that even at this stage and with what is now known about Aaron Kosminski as well as being a jew he is now a dead duck

[Phil H]

Originally Posted by The Good Michael
Trevor,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to mean that your undisclosed evidence proves that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the murderer, but doesn't rule out the surname. Yes? No?

Mike

Oh it certainly does

So why did you write [my emphasis]: "I didnt ask you to rule out the name Kosminski merly the name Aaaron Kosminski who according to some was scotland Yards prime suspect."

That seems plain enough.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I have been called many things in my past but charlatan is a new one one on me I wil add it to the list with the others.

But read my post again - I specifically did NOT call you by any name! It questioned the HOW not the WHO as you might expect I would.

As far as the three officers are concerned who you refer to you are correct but closer scrutiny of their comments shows that they and everything connected to their statements is unreliable.

You might say that, but I could not possibly comment!

The three were distinquished public servants of a generation with a high sense of duty. Scepticism and and wish for their statements to be wrong do not wash with me. Victorian gentlemen, indeed senior British civil servants might be (to quote a recent example of one) deliberately and knowingly "economical with the truth" - but that would be achieved by use of wording and "slight of hand(ommission etc) not by lying. Especially on an official file. Lies can be caught out and if proven have consequences to carrerrs - Ministers and top madarins, so they rarely do it, if ever. National security would be the one possible exception.

On that basis, I am prepared to consider three possibilities:

a) a genuine mistake or confusion (given age when some comments were written);

b) a desire to hide "dirty linen" (such as Cutbush's connection to the Met) - and the wording of the memorandum could be read that way;

c) a wider "political"/national security issue - such as a Fenian angle to the JtR case. But that would be by agreement with the wider organisation at top level.

So I reject your sweeping and far too general statement that "they and everything connected to their statements is unreliable".

Phil

For an educated man at times you talk utter rubbish

i take no offence at being called a charlatan and i will not be reporting you to admin and ask that yo be suspended.

[Phil H]

You were NOT called a charlatan and do as you will (As the great Duke said, "Publish and be damned!")

Why are you getting so irate at a simple query, you wrote something that two of us evidently misinterpreted that implied that you had evidence to reject Aaron Kosminski but implied the surname was unaffected. We simply sought clarification.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

You were NOT called a charlatan and do as you will (As the great Duke said, "Publish and be damned!")

Why are you getting so irate at a simple query, you wrote something that two of us evidently misinterpreted that implied that you had evidence to reject Aaron Kosminski but implied the surname was unaffected. We simply sought clarification.

Phil

No that was your perception

The facts are that no one has been able to put another christian name to Kosminski other than Aaron who could fit all that has been written.

[Phil H]

For an educated man at times you talk utter rubbish

Trevor, I take it that that was your way of saying you don't agree with my assessment of the Victorian establishment.

I have spent nearly 40 years as a civil servant, so do know something of the ways of mandarins, and they haven't changed that much. I know you WISH it were no so, but there we have it...

As for your evidence, well, we cannot discuss (nor attach credibility to) what we have not seen...

Phil

[PaulB]

But do you now accept that Aaron Kosminski could not have been the ripper a simple answer will suffice. Yes or no ?

because those who have championed him for many years cant keep changing the goalposts everytime his viabilty is brought into question.

To that end i refer to your statement on the video that the police were mistaken and the got Cohen confused with Kosminski. Come on Martin please dont insult our intelligence. i know the police werent very bright in 1888 but they were bright enough to know the difference between Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen after all they werent exactly pulling Ripper suspects in by the cart load on a daily basis were they.

Part of my ongoing investigation is not only to try to identify the killer but to prove who was "not" the killer.

The Ripper mystery has become a cottage industry to some and in particular to Kosminki`ites and if something comes out that is likley to damage that industry then what would happen hmmmmmmmmm would see a gathering of the ripper cartel members and others at 6am on the village green to witness the ceremonial burning of all book articles and references to Kosminski. I doubt it but what a wonderful picture to conjure up.

Trevor,
Have you actually read The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, published in 1987 - I repeat, 1987; that's very nearly a quarter of a century ago - wherein Martin laid out his David Cohen argument. That's the same argument that he makes in the video you are so excited about?

Well, it is obvious that you haven't, otherwise you would not be asking such asinine questions as 'But do you now accept that Aaron Kosminski could not have been the ripper a simple answer will suffice. Yes or no?' You'd know what the answer is, just as everyone does who's interest in this subject is sufficient for them to actually read and digest the arguments of past writers and theorists.

Your last paragraph is a nonsense of course. 'Cartel members..."! What a fantasy.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
Have you actually read The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, published in 1987 - I repeat, 1987; that's very nearly a quarter of a century ago - wherein Martin laid out his David Cohen argument. That's the same argument that he makes in the video you are so excited about?

Well, it is obvious that you haven't, otherwise you would not be asking such asinine questions as 'But do you now accept that Aaron Kosminski could not have been the ripper a simple answer will suffice. Yes or no?' You'd know what the answer is, just as everyone does who's interest in this subject is sufficient for them to actually read and digest the arguments of past writers and theorists.

Your last paragraph is a nonsense of course. 'Cartel members..."! What a fantasy.

Well Paul you have been one of those who have championed Aaron Kosminski where do you now stand with regards to his viablilty having regard to what is now known then ?

[TomTomKent]

Trevor,
Have you actually read The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, published in 1987 - I repeat, 1987; that's very nearly a quarter of a century ago - wherein Martin laid out his David Cohen argument. That's the same argument that he makes in the video you are so excited about?

Well, it is obvious that you haven't, otherwise you would not be asking such asinine questions as 'But do you now accept that Aaron Kosminski could not have been the ripper a simple answer will suffice. Yes or no?' You'd know what the answer is, just as everyone does who's interest in this subject is sufficient for them to actually read and digest the arguments of past writers and theorists.

Your last paragraph is a nonsense of course. 'Cartel members..."! What a fantasy.

Mister Begg, not wanting to detract from your own argument but I would suggest that much of the criticism of "Kosminski-ites" (assuming I have not misunderstood Mister Marriots posts, and if I have I appologise) can be answered by tracing the changing and adapting paths of Martin Fidos own output. Now I will admit, I was a bit young to have picked up, or understood any Ripper book in '87. I was at primary school. Nearly a decade later however I used to wile away my paper round listening to audio books on double cassette bought from Woolworths. (Yes, my corner of Kent is THAT dull). Martin Fido had released several, including one on Jack the Ripper, that not only covered in 3hrs (two days of delivering papers) the key points of the case and the investigation, but surmised his work producing his book, the identity of Cohen, and some of the other works that came after.

By the time I am able to afford an Ipod a more recent edition of those tapes, seriously updated and amended, seemes to have made it's way on to itunes, which discusses more of the theories and publications since, concentrating on the Cohen/Kosminski theories. Now not only is it suggested that in some cases "Kosminski" has become the name attached to a general "Jewish Suspect" umbrella, (which I would say is not entirely unreasonable given that it seems to be the name, if incorrectly applied, that at least one officer gave to the suspect) but also seems to suggest that far from changing the goal posts people have been re-assessing their hypothosis to fit the growing evidence base.

Mister Fido made it quite clear that in his book (which does seem to follow the same lines as the dvd) that "Kosminski" may just have been the name that the Police new a suspect by, but it could have variably been Kosminski, Kaminski, Cohen, or a person as yet unknown. A distinction should be made between the championing of "The guy we know was in a mental hospital called Kosminski" and "The guy who was described in significant details by at least one reliable source who called him Kosminski, but the description does not fit the only known patient of that name,".

The accusation of cottage industry bolstering the case of a suspect, and of clinks with in the community could be made for anybody who seems to rabbidly support a particular suspect, which would mean that Mister Marriott is in his own cabal, even if he was the only member. By his own statement he seems to be trying to disprove other suspects as a part of building the case for his own suspect.

I would (and again, I am very sorry Mister Marriott if that was a misunderstanding on my part) suggest that as a bit of a sceptic that is the wrong way to go about solving the case. If you form the mentality that the only good reason to disprove other suspects is to prove your own, then you are prejudising your work from the off. You have selected the person you think is guilty and are trying to interpret any new information to suit that path, exactly as you accuse others of doing.

We are now at a point where far from forming cabals pushing for any given suspect the vast majority of members of the community seem to be moving away from claiming anybody is the prime suspect. I will admit my experience of the community is limited, but just from reading this forum it would suggest that the trend now seems to be gathering all evidence available and testing it against all known suspects. I have seen many people talk of Kosminski as being one of, or even the, most likely suspect in their eyes, but that is far from describing him as the man they wish to prove to be the Ripper. There is, it seems, a sliding scale of plausibility that various suspects move up and down in the eyes of different people, but the expectation of total proof and definitive claims has long since past. There have been too many final solutions.

At best we can expect to one day find a key document, say the identification at the "sea side home" which may allow us to describe one suspect or another as the most viable. But attempting to discredit other theories should not be a consideration of your own case. It suggests that all evidence is considered only as a means of achieving one of two outcomes: Discarding theory A, or Proving theory B, when it may well be blinding us to the much more important theory C.

Er, sorry, I will step aside and let people who know what they are talking about back in now...

[GregBaron]

Ready made name...

By the time I am able to afford an Ipod a more recent edition of those tapes, seriously updated and amended, seemes to have made it's way on to itunes, which discusses more of the theories and publications since, concentrating on the Cohen/Kosminski theories. Now not only is it suggested that in some cases "Kosminski" has become the name attached to a general "Jewish Suspect" umbrella, (which I would say is not entirely unreasonable given that it seems to be the name, if incorrectly applied, that at least one officer gave to the suspect) but also seems to suggest that far from changing the goal posts people have been re-assessing their hypothosis to fit the growing evidence base.

I found your post to be rather well stated TomTomKent.......

One wonders if Kozminski was just a generic name for a murderous Jew why they didn't just use the name Lipski?


Greg

[PaulB]

Well Paul you have been one of those who have championed Aaron Kosminski where do you now stand with regards to his viablilty having regard to what is now known then ?

I see, so you're one of those who avoids answering a question by asking a question. Well, for the moment let's stick with why you are wetting your pants with excitement over a video expressing a theory that is twenty-five years old. Count 'em, twenty-five years. And you've only just found out what Martin's theory is! Extraordinary. Absolutely extraordinary.

[TomTomKent]

I found your post to be rather well stated TomTomKent.......

One wonders if Kozminski was just a generic name for a murderous Jew why they didn't just use the name Lipski?


Greg

I have thought about that, and with out any kind of evidence I have two ideas I find possible, but not perhaps plausible:
1) The name Lipsky was out because either to avoid confusion with the use of it in a witness statement (Erm, Israel Schwartz?) or to avoid sparking anymore anti-semitic hostilities. So for the same reason "Foreign" was used in some statements in place of "Polish" or "Jewish".
2) The local gossip around the area was that Kozminski was the "Leather Apron" or "Whitechappel Jew", with stories of "that Jewish guy" getting muddled together and rehashed in gossip. The Police may well have believed that Cohen, Levy, Klosowski, or some other Polish Jew was known to atleast some locals as "Kosminski", or given how many "mad" jews seem to have identified as suspects since, thought that any and all gossip about "Leather Apron", Jews who were violent, mad, or abusive, but not specifically named, was "their man".

I know neither of those are anywhere near convincing, and don't expect anybody to be clicking their fingers and reaching for the batphone as they read that. I'm not afraid to admit I don't have the foggiest.

A third, even less likely scenario might be that the name was adopted as a genuine codeword for the documents once "Leather Apron" had been dropped like a hot brick. I would not be surprised if Thick did produce a "Leather Apron" at the coroner and make himself look a fool under orders to quash the rumours before vigilence comitees performed a pogrom in Whitechapel. We have to remember that the threat of anti-semitic uprisings must have been a very real one back in the day, with a rash of them across Russia and other states in the decades leading up to 1888. With the papers fanning the flames of fear, it may well have been thought that "Lipski" was being used by at least one person as some kind of insult (that witness statement again) where as Kozminski was unusual enough to be recognised as a codeword and already attached to the case.

Where that clearly fails is that we don't have it in a Police document as a codeword, we have it as "his name" in outside notes. So my inane ramblings are nto worth a single jot.

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

I appreciate your creativity and maybe you have something there, but with Kosminski's name given so many years after the fact, I don't see it working out as some sort of consistent code word or a nickname for the killer else we may have seen other police reports with that name. Neither Thick nor Dew used that name in print, and I think print is all we have to go on.

Mike

[TomTomKent]

Tom,

I appreciate your creativity and maybe you have something there, but with Kosminski's name given so many years after the fact, I don't see it working out as some sort of consistent code word or a nickname for the killer else we may have seen other police reports with that name. Neither Thick nor Dew used that name in print, and I think print is all we have to go on.

Mike

Hence my not finding the ideas plausible. Those are pretty much my own issues with the ideas.

[PaulB]

Mister Begg, not wanting to detract from your own argument but I would suggest that much of the criticism of "Kosminski-ites" (assuming I have not misunderstood Mister Marriots posts, and if I have I appologise) can be answered by tracing the changing and adapting paths of Martin Fidos own output. Now I will admit, I was a bit young to have picked up, or understood any Ripper book in '87. I was at primary school. Nearly a decade later however I used to wile away my paper round listening to audio books on double cassette bought from Woolworths. (Yes, my corner of Kent is THAT dull). Martin Fido had released several, including one on Jack the Ripper, that not only covered in 3hrs (two days of delivering papers) the key points of the case and the investigation, but surmised his work producing his book, the identity of Cohen, and some of the other works that came after.

By the time I am able to afford an Ipod a more recent edition of those tapes, seriously updated and amended, seemes to have made it's way on to itunes, which discusses more of the theories and publications since, concentrating on the Cohen/Kosminski theories. Now not only is it suggested that in some cases "Kosminski" has become the name attached to a general "Jewish Suspect" umbrella, (which I would say is not entirely unreasonable given that it seems to be the name, if incorrectly applied, that at least one officer gave to the suspect) but also seems to suggest that far from changing the goal posts people have been re-assessing their hypothosis to fit the growing evidence base.

Mister Fido made it quite clear that in his book (which does seem to follow the same lines as the dvd) that "Kosminski" may just have been the name that the Police new a suspect by, but it could have variably been Kosminski, Kaminski, Cohen, or a person as yet unknown. A distinction should be made between the championing of "The guy we know was in a mental hospital called Kosminski" and "The guy who was described in significant details by at least one reliable source who called him Kosminski, but the description does not fit the only known patient of that name,".

The accusation of cottage industry bolstering the case of a suspect, and of clinks with in the community could be made for anybody who seems to rabbidly support a particular suspect, which would mean that Mister Marriott is in his own cabal, even if he was the only member. By his own statement he seems to be trying to disprove other suspects as a part of building the case for his own suspect.

I would (and again, I am very sorry Mister Marriott if that was a misunderstanding on my part) suggest that as a bit of a sceptic that is the wrong way to go about solving the case. If you form the mentality that the only good reason to disprove other suspects is to prove your own, then you are prejudising your work from the off. You have selected the person you think is guilty and are trying to interpret any new information to suit that path, exactly as you accuse others of doing.

We are now at a point where far from forming cabals pushing for any given suspect the vast majority of members of the community seem to be moving away from claiming anybody is the prime suspect. I will admit my experience of the community is limited, but just from reading this forum it would suggest that the trend now seems to be gathering all evidence available and testing it against all known suspects. I have seen many people talk of Kosminski as being one of, or even the, most likely suspect in their eyes, but that is far from describing him as the man they wish to prove to be the Ripper. There is, it seems, a sliding scale of plausibility that various suspects move up and down in the eyes of different people, but the expectation of total proof and definitive claims has long since past. There have been too many final solutions.

At best we can expect to one day find a key document, say the identification at the "sea side home" which may allow us to describe one suspect or another as the most viable. But attempting to discredit other theories should not be a consideration of your own case. It suggests that all evidence is considered only as a means of achieving one of two outcomes: Discarding theory A, or Proving theory B, when it may well be blinding us to the much more important theory C.

Er, sorry, I will step aside and let people who know what they are talking about back in now...

Hi,
I'm not having an argument, I'm just astonished by the depths of Trevor's ignorance. Anyway, I don't know who these “Kosminski-ites” are that you are talking about, unless you mean Martin and myself, and since neither of us believes that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper and don't even agree with each other's conclusions, lumping us together as some sort of pro-Kosminski faction is ridiculous. Furthermore, Martin's core argument, what I dubbed the “confusion hypothesis”, hasn't changed significantly since he first aired it in 1987. I also think you've skewed his argument somewhat.
Paul