Plausibility of Kosminski

[The Good Michael]

First of all, Dunham never stated it was a uterus collection: [I]One side of this room was entirely occupied with cases, outwardly resembling wardrobes. When the doors were opened quite a museum was revealed--tiers of shelves with glass jars and cases, some round and others square, filled with all sorts of antomical (sic) specimens. The 'doctor' placed on a table a dozen or more jars containing, as he said, the matrices of every class of women. .

Technically correct. Tumblety said they were uteri. Dunham here only says that Tumblety said the jars contained uteri. They may not have and apparently Dunham was too squeamish to look.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Won't let go...

How ridiculously untrue.
Visit your local library.
JM

You just won't let go will you?

I was made aware of the connection c. 1997. It did not appear on the boards until a few years after that. So what is 'ridiculously untrue'? Are you calling me a liar now?

[robhouse]

Stewart,

You think I have a bias toward Anderson. Actually, you state it as a fact. If that's what you want to believe, fine. I can live with that. However, as I have posted before, my book was intended to be an exploration of a "what if" question. "What if Anderson was right?" It seems that people cannot seem to get past this stumbling block to explore the other possibility, the other side of the coin... Which is, incidentally, why I wrote that sentence you quoted above. Frankly, it is a bit disheartening when anything I point I make is countered by simply saying "you are biased toward Anderson" ... the implication being that my views are therefore not valid. Do I do this with you? The specific posts I made, which have not been answered, had little if anything to do with Anderson.

I will admit I am biased to the extent that I do not see Anderson as a forgetful, confused old man, and/or a boastful liar. I think that if anyone took the trouble to scour through the pages of almost any memoir, they would find examples of boasting, or errors in memory. Anderson has been put through the ringer solely because of what he wrote about the Ripper. There is no other reason or motivation behind the attacks.

You say "Obviously the kitchen is too hot" for me, and that you want me to "be man enough to admit" that I am biased. This is about what I have come to expect as being par for the course for the type of discourse that goes on around here... the implication being apparently that I am too much of a wimp, or that I am unable to handle the high level of intellectual discourse on the boards. If you want to get personal, and be condescending, what can I do about it? But in my opinion, this sort of thing is not very constructive if the objective is having a productive and forward-moving discourse. And incidentally, you might likewise "be man enough" to admit that you have an anti Anderson bias. Perhaps we can leave it at that, and move on.

When I said that I conceded I should have written "may have been" instead of "was indeed," I was trying to concede that this was an error on my part, because in the book I was trying to be balanced. And I still think it was a valid point anyway.

RH

[jmenges]

You said "The Conover/Dunham connection did not emerge until a couple of years after the book was published"

If you meant emerged to you, then you probably are correct, but sadly, this information has been in the public domain since at least the 1930's, as I've said to you before.

JM

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
You think I have a bias toward Anderson. Actually, you state it as a fact. If that's what you want to believe, fine. I can live with that. However, as I have posted before, my book was intended to be an exploration of a "what if" question. "What if Anderson was right?" It seems that people cannot seem to get past this stumbling block to explore the other possibility, the other side of the coin... Which is, incidentally, why I wrote that sentence you quoted above. Frankly, it is a bit disheartening when anything I point I make is countered by simply saying "you are biased toward Anderson" ... the implication being that my views are therefore not valid. Do I do this with you? The specific posts I made, which have not been answered, had little if anything to do with Anderson.
...
RH

Yes, I think you have a bias toward Anderson. You have stated that you don't, so I guess others will have to judge by what they read. If I'm wrong it won't be the first time.

You really shouldn't be disheartened by a negative response, I'm sure that you get more positive ones than you do negative. If I was disheartened by negative comments I would have stopped taking part years ago. I have explained the reasons for my comments and I stand by them. Your views are as valid as anyone's on here, but like all views should be seen in proper context. For goodness sake, I've suffered enough attacks on here and now my work is relegated to 'a pile of mistakes and confusion'. Your book isn't as bad as that.

In fairness I explored the 'what if Anderson was right' angle years ago, probably before you even became interested in the subject, and the result was negative. Then I recognised a massive movement towards 'Anderson couldn't lie' and the heralding of 'Kosminski' as the best thing in the suspect line since sliced bread. All the research I carried out on Anderson revealed that the then current perception of him, in my opinion, was wrong.

Yes you do disagree with things I say, and write things in your books that imply that I am wrong. But fine, many people do disagree with me, there's enough on here to show that. By the way by far the most source material you cite in your book (apart from his own books) was discovered by Nick Connell and me so we can't be doing too badly on our Anderson work, can we?

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

You said "The Conover/Dunham connection did not emerge until a couple of years after the book was published"
If you meant emerged to you, then you probably are correct, but sadly, this information has been in the public domain since at least the 1930's, as I've said to you before.
JM

Yes, I made it clear that that was what I was saying. It was actually in the public domain in the 1860s. But Dunham was new to Ripperworld when we published our book, and no one had discovered Tumblety as a suspect, but there he was, all over the American press, available in many libraries, and no one had discovered him.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sources

...
I will admit I am biased to the extent that I do not see Anderson as a forgetful, confused old man, and/or a boastful liar. I think that if anyone took the trouble to scour through the pages of almost any memoir, they would find examples of boasting, or errors in memory. Anderson has been put through the ringer solely because of what he wrote about the Ripper. There is no other reason or motivation behind the attacks.
...
RH

But what about the sources that contradict the way that you see Anderson, are you simply ignoring them? Have you studied the sources? Please do not keep calling them attacks. Every time anything is written that does not paint Anderson in shining colours it is regarded as an attack. I can't imagine how anyone reading his two main secular books of 1906 and 1910 can say that he is not boastful. H. L. Adam, his contemporary who knew him personally described him as forgetful and his deception is evident in his 1906 book.

[jmenges]

Yes, I made it clear that that was what I was saying. It was actually in the public domain in the 1860s. But Dunham was new to Ripperworld when we published our book, and no one had discovered Tumblety as a suspect, but there he was, all over the American press, available in many libraries, and no one had discovered him.

And thats my point.
Conover/Dunham as one and the same person was revealed way back when, and in books, but yet you guys failed to make the connection between the guy who sent Tumblety to the Old Capitol Prison for the Lincoln assassination with the guy who was interviewed and spoke about the cabinet full of specimens.

Admit it, there was a lapse of research here and conclusions were drawn based on biased interviews published in your book as evidence.

JM

[Stewart P Evans]

Upset

...
You say "Obviously the kitchen is too hot" for me, and that you want me to "be man enough to admit" that I am biased. This is about what I have come to expect as being par for the course for the type of discourse that goes on around here... the implication being apparently that I am too much of a wimp, or that I am unable to handle the high level of intellectual discourse on the boards. If you want to get personal, and be condescending, what can I do about it? But in my opinion, this sort of thing is not very constructive if the objective is having a productive and forward-moving discourse. And incidentally, you might likewise "be man enough" to admit that you have an anti Anderson bias. Perhaps we can leave it at that, and move on.
...
RH

You seem to be very upset by what you read, if that is the case and you are genuinely feeling bad about it then, yes, I am a bit concerned for you as it seems to be becoming too personal and hurtful to you. In that sense the kitchen is too hot, and maybe you should ignore it.

I know that you are not a wimp, and I haven't said that you are. In the past both Paul and I have stopped posting when we have felt that things were upsetting us too much. I know Paul is most certainly not a wimp and I hope that I'm not. It's a pity that you think I am being condescending, in what way? Does giving an opposite opinion or suggesting you have a bias make me condescending? I hope not.

I am man enough to admit that I have a bias against Anderson based on valid historical sources and my interpretation of those sources. But I also recognise his good points too. I find him a very interesting and informative source on the Irish problem for instance.

I thought that this debate was going pretty well and was productive and forward-moving, others have said as much. And the pro-Anderson side have their say as well. It would be a fool who thought that you were not up to keeping up with the 'high level of intellectual discourse on the boards'. Is it really that high-level? Intellectually you are probably better than me and you are an excellent writer. Don't let things get you down.

[Stewart P Evans]

I thought...

And thats my point.
Conover/Dunham as one and the same person was revealed way back when, and in books, but yet you guys failed to make the connection between the guy who sent Tumblety to the Old Capitol Prison for the Lincoln assassination with the guy who was interviewed and spoke about the cabinet full of specimens.
Admit it, there was a lapse of research here and conclusions were drawn based on biased interviews published in your book as evidence.
JM

I thought that you were going away, permanently.

I'm afraid that our book was a pile of mistakes and confusion. There, does that satisfy you?

Now go away.

[jmenges]

If that's your response, then OK.

JM

[Stewart P Evans]

Still...

If that's your response, then OK.
JM

Still here?

[Chris]

Admit it, there was a lapse of research here and conclusions were drawn based on biased interviews published in your book as evidence.

Am I missing some hidden connection to Kozminski here, or is this completely off-topic?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Forgive my intrusion, but this thread is now ''Ego v Ego'', it is getting bitchy, and unpleasant, and to be honest ,all it can resolve is the highest rated amongst you coming out on top.. but that is not the solution to our long lasting mystery,
Books long ago written, books in the pipeline, we all know were ,and our focussed on commercial success, and fair play to all, however we all know that the possibility of naming the culprit is not likely.
Jack was never caught,
Its that simple, and we all know it.
So please forget the airs and graces , and the number of documentation ones holds, and remove the blinkers, something which we all all guilty of.
Regards Richard.

[Stewart P Evans]

I'm afraid...

Am I missing some hidden connection to Kozminski here, or is this completely off-topic?

I'm afraid that it's completely off-topic Chris. But he won't go away.