Plausibility of Kosminski

[Chris]

I'll be back in a while, I'm just off to send some encrypted messages to some rather close friends of mine whose names I am unable to divulge.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier .... Ripperologist?

[TomTomKent]

Conspiracy your words not mine I have never suggested a conspiracy. I may well have thought it

No, I don't mind admitting it was my concern. I would rather make sure I wasn't about to grasp the wrong end of the stick and risk looking an idiot than not bother to check and ensure I look an idiot.

[TomTomKent]

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier .... Ripperologist?

[ATTACH]12582[/ATTACH]

Will that picture change to Gary Oldman on friday when the new film is released?

[Stewart P Evans]

Reassuring

Hi Stewart,
Disagreement over the interpretation of a source is why historians often appear to be argumentative, but that's really not a problem because both interpretations are probably valid and can be openly acknowledged as such. It's the perception of being pro- or anti-, with the implication of bias, that causes the trouble as it questions the individual's professionalism. But I think we have established now that we are not biased, not pushing for a particular interpretation of the evidence, but are just interested in establishing the facts or making clear the possible interpretations. So I think our being at loggerheads is a thing that we can both comfortably assign to the past. Having said that, we know how we both think, so there is no point in our going over the well-trodden ground again and again, but others may like the alternative perspective so we can state it in the comfort of knowing that we don't have to debate it with each other! That's how it should be. It's great.

Thanks for that Paul, most reassuring. Life is too short to be at each other's throats all the time, albeit in the pursuit of personal beliefs and interpretation. I am sure that others enjoy us having a friendly exchange rather than bitching at each other.

[Stewart P Evans]

Ripperologist?

Will that picture change to Gary Oldman on friday when the new film is released?

Ripperologist, who said Ripperologist? Go wash your mouth out.

Incidentally, as an aside, I initially typed it as 'Ripperologits', Freudian slip maybe?

[Chris]

Will that picture change to Gary Oldman on friday when the new film is released?

I very much doubt it.

[curious]

This presupposes that it was the intention of the police to present the identification in court (not unreasonable given Swanson's statement that the the witness didn't want to be responsible for a man being hanged) and decidedly odd if the suspect was manifestly insane. All I can suppose is that the police hoped to bring the suspect before the magistrate and outline the charges against him, whereupon the suspect would have been examined by a doctor, certified insane and declared unfit to plead. No trial would have taken place, no verdict given, but some of the evidence would have been heard and the suspect's guilt implied. That's all supposition, of course.

Perhaps the witness was an immigrant and did not know how the law worked. Today, we do. Back then, the witness might not have known. He could have thought that his identification of the person would send him to the gallows and the witness had qualms about sending not just a fellow Jew, but a mentally deranged man, to his death.

And perhaps, the authorities thought they knew who the killer was but wanted confirmation from an eye-witness even though legally there was no way to use the information. Peace of mind perhaps? Just dotting all their "I"s?

curious

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps the witness was an immigrant and did not know how the law worked. Today, we do. Back then, the witness might not have known. He could have thought that his identification of the person would send him to the gallows and the witness had qualms about sending not just a fellow Jew, but a mentally deranged man, to his death.

And perhaps, the authorities thought they knew who the killer was but wanted confirmation from an eye-witness even though legally there was no way to use the information. Peace of mind perhaps? Just dotting all their "I"s?

curious

Perhaps one day a man will land on the sun or Admiral Nelson will get his eye back.

[PaulB]

Perhaps the witness was an immigrant and did not know how the law worked. Today, we do. Back then, the witness might not have known. He could have thought that his identification of the person would send him to the gallows and the witness had qualms about sending not just a fellow Jew, but a mentally deranged man, to his death.

And perhaps, the authorities thought they knew who the killer was but wanted confirmation from an eye-witness even though legally there was no way to use the information. Peace of mind perhaps? Just dotting all their "I"s?

curious

That's true. But then presumably the police would have reassured him that the suspect would not be executed and he'd have given evidence.
Paul

[Malcolm X]

Perhaps one day a man will land on the sun or Admiral Nelson will get his eye back.

more likely this, than Kosminski being the Ripper that's for sure

[PaulB]

Well in 1895 Aaron Kosminski was alive and kicking swanson said he was dead then.

Ah but the cartel wont let us see the full version of The Aberconway Version so we only have your word as a cartel member on that.

More Marriott's Make Believe. It's never ending.

[PaulB]

Cartel, what cartel???

If you take a look at the A To Z you will find reproduced, verbatim, all the references to the Ripper murders and suspects. There is nothing relevant missing, there is no 'cartel', there is no conspiracy, and nothing is being deliberately 'hidden'.

I just said that. No need to have bothered if I'd only just scrolled down to your post. Mind you, Trevor has been told there is no cartel, but as a conspiracy fantasist it suites his, er, fantasy.

[PaulB]

more likely this, than Kosminski being the Ripper that's for sure

Which actually raises the point that this isn't about whether "Kosminski" was the Ripper or not, it's about why three extant, tangible sources name him as a Ripper suspect (making the assumption that "Kosminski" was indeed Anderson's Polish Jew) and why at least one and perhaps two believed he was the Ripper. Belief or disbelief in Kosminski as the Ripper just confuses our assessment of the evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which actually raises the point that this isn't about whether "Kosminski" was the Ripper or not, it's about why three extant, tangible sources name him as a Ripper suspect (making the assumption that "Kosminski" was indeed Anderson's Polish Jew) and why at least one and perhaps two believed he was the Ripper. Belief or disbelief in Kosminski as the Ripper just confuses our assessment of the evidence.

There is a big difference between suspecting or getting anywhere near to being in a positon to prove it. You keep banging on about the police officials relative to Kosminski who thought he was a suspect clearly they are all at sea with the facts and you have Martin Fido one of the looked upon demi gods of ripperolgy stating that Kosminski wasnt the ripper. So why when anyone pours water on your fire do you keep coming out with perhaps this and perhaps that you are clearly clutching at straws let the fire burn out you could finish up getting your fingers burnt. Remeber the old saying "A wink is as good as a nod to a blind man"

If you want to talk about police officials and suspects in the same context look at Tumblety and Littlechild in the SB registers he has clearly written "Obrien suspect for the whitechapel murders" yet he goes onto talk about another suspect. When are you going to accept the fact that none of these police officials who you hold in such high esteem knew who the killer was so what they didnt know they made up to appease whoever they were talking to or whatever book of memoirs they were involved with to avoid the embarrasment of being called failures

This whole Kosminski issue is being blow up out of all proportion. all the flaws in it have been highlighted many times. Perhaps we should look more closely at the names (surnames only) of the other police suspects named in the regsiters we could then go down the same route as everyone has gone with Kosminski and no doubt find oursleves where we are today

There is a big difference bewteen historians, reserachers and investigators as Stewart as previoulsy mentioned. That being said there is no reason why they should not all pool their resources but would overinflated egos allow for that. Its all about one upmanship trying to get one over on the other side and that how it comes across and that why so many people have come and gone from Casebook and what is left a handful of people chewing the cud on the same issues over and over again.

This Kosminski thread has been running for over a week now the issue was in the first place was Aaron Kosminski the ripper the answer is no so why is that same issue being flogged to death.

[Steven Russell]

To my mind, the answer is not "no" but "possibly although probably not". This is the most that can be sensibly said of any known suspect. But Kosminski must remain in the premier league of suspects we know about.

Best wishes,
Steve.