Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

Tom...

Stewart,
It's funny you mentioned Melvin Harris because last night as I read through some of this thread I was impressed at how many heavy hitters were contributing to it and my thought was "All it's missing is Melvin Harris...now wouldn't THAT make it one exciting thread!" And yes, you are the epitomy of encouragement, at least you were to me and no doubt to Rob House and others, which is why your words and criticisms perhaps carry more of a sting to them than you realize.
And thanks to the internet, modern authors can now experience all the criticism of a published author before they've even written a word!
...
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Tom, thank you for that, appreciated.

Bias simply means that someone has an inclination, predisposition, influence in favour of something. In this case it is Anderson (and/or Kosminski) and what he said. At worst it can mean prejudice, but even that amounts, in this case, only to a preconceived opinion in favour of the source and the theory. I think if we are all honest we will recognise a certain amount of bias in all of us. And if that is based on assessment of known facts and sources there shouldn't be too much wrong with that.

The more I think about it the more ridiculous the vehement, hateful, aggressive and over the top response I received appears to me.

I think that I have already said all that I need to on this topic and the current state of play seems a good indicator that little is likely to change and that opinions will remain polarized.

[Archaic]

I believe that Liz Stride was a JtR victim. But according to the poll, 36% of those who voted on here disagree. If they are right, then Schwartz as Anderson's and Swanson's witness is only any good for identifying Stride's killer - and NOT Jack the Ripper. Obvious, I know, but perhaps worth mentioning.

Best wishes,
Steve.

That's quite a good point Steve.

I happen to believe Stride was a Ripper victim. I didn't realize that the poll resulted in 36% of those replying saying that they didn't think she was a Ripper victim. Thanks for pointing that out.

Best regards,
Archaic

[The Good Michael]

I think that I have already said all that I need to on this topic and the current state of play seems a good indicator that little is likely to change and that opinions will remain polarized.

I disagree, Stewart. What I am beginning to see is nuance and subtlety interspersed amongst all the stubbornness.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria, you'll find it in Bromley's article. Damn near everything on the Batty Street Lodger except the Le Grand piece can be found in Bromley's article and it's follow up a couple issues later. And I think I'll start titling my essays 'Sex Wax'.

Stewart,

I just read the thread at the forums where Menges demanded that you admit your book was crap. I've never seen anything like that before. And Chris Phillips is being accused by someone else of fabricating material and/or holding information back from us. Suddenly I don't feel so beleagured. Maybe Menges is just having a bad week.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

They obviously should have relied upon CCTV. Inspector Clouseau Marriot obviously failing to realise the police were under extreme pressure. In these circumstances the positive ID of clothing would have been jumped upon by a grateful constabulary. But no, Trev insists its naievety.

I thought I was alone in the dark there Jason,

It seems my question is too much for Trevor.

Trevor is, and always has, applied a modern day perspective instead of understanding the process of thought for an 1888 Police Organisation.

Its like comparing a 1930 Buggatti to a F1 Ferrari of today.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Thanks

...
Stewart,
I just read the thread at the forums where Menges demanded that you admit your book was crap. I've never seen anything like that before. And Chris Phillips is being accused by someone else of fabricating material and/or holding information back from us. Suddenly I don't feel so beleagured. Maybe Menges is just having a bad week.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Thanks again Tom. Yes, I couldn't believe it either. And it was left there unaddressed, and without any comment by either the site administrators or anyone else. Quite amazing. Obviously they must agree with him.

[Trevor Marriott]

I thought I was alone in the dark there Jason,

It seems my question is too much for Trevor.

Trevor is, and always has, applied a modern day perspective instead of understanding the process of thought for an 1888 Police Organisation.

Its like comparing a 1930 Buggatti to a F1 Ferrari of today.

Monty

I think you wil find that I have answered your question and clearly as previoulsy stated. The trouble is some posters are trying to use the modern day police process to further their own arguments. I am merely seeking to use them in the opposite way and to look at all aspects of this mystery trying not use the cliches which are repeated on here every day such as "perhaps" "what if" and "maybe" and "I think" I appreciate everyone is entiled to make their views knowm to others but in doing so they surely have to be prepared to consider things from a real and proper perspsctive.

[PaulB]

I missed where Stewart's book was described as "crap". Can you direct my attention to it. As for the other comment, a post was deleted and voices were raised in protest.

[mariab]

waxing about

What I am beginning to see is nuance and subtlety interspersed amongst all the stubbornness.

I think I'm seing this too, from the majority of the posters. But maybe I'm an eternal optimist.

I just read the thread at the forums where Menges demanded that you admit your book was crap. I've never seen anything like that before. And Chris Phillips is being accused by someone else of fabricating material and/or holding information back from us.

Yep, it's been a weird day yesterday.

And it was left there unaddressed, and without any comment by either the site administrators or anyone else. Quite amazing. Obviously they must agree with him.

Possibly it's an oversight, as the other unwarranted accusations (to Phillips) were indeed deleted from the thread in question. Perhaps it's been deleted by now.

Hi Maria, you'll find it in Bromley's article. Damn near everything on the Batty Street Lodger except the Le Grand piece can be found in Bromley's article and it's follow up a couple issues later.

Damn, need to re-read both Bromley articles, it's been a while. They are #1 on my reading list, but it'll have to wait a couple days, until I take care of this darn Italian paper on deadline. (Item #2 on my reading list is Monty's Defenseless Whitechapel, plus a bunch of materials on the WVC, just for starters.)

And I think I'll start titling my essays 'Sex Wax'.

Quick Humps Sex Wax. The closest to gold to purchase at a surf shop for around a buck. For cold, warm, and tropical water. (Aren't we surfers totally gross?)
With apologies for the silly parenthesis.

[Stewart P Evans]

Still there...

I missed where Stewart's book was described as "crap". Can you direct my attention to it. As for the other comment, a post was deleted and voices were raised in protest.

Hi Paul, it was still there 10 minutes ago, and it can stay for all I care. It was post #98 on the 'Who are the True Kosminski-ites' thread timed at 5.30 PM on the 9th.

For those who haven't read it, it ran as follows, 'I was questioning SPE's criticism of Rob House's bias given that he has left (and still leaves) many unanswered questions to his readers of his Tumblety book. If he would participate in threads spawned from his research, accept what has come later as truth, and admit his folly, I would respect the man greatly. Blaming Gainey and blaming his publishers does not cut it IMO, but is SPE's MO. I think that Rob should not be accused of anything by Stewart until Stewart admits that his own suspect book was crap.'

And that is it. Anyone who is interested enough to bother can read, both here and on JTRForums, my reponses to his several posts. He thinks my book was crap and, of course, he is entitled to his opinion. But I don't think that shall be bothered to respond to this man any further in any way.

[PaulB]

Ah. I missed that. A spirited defence of Rob House, but I don't know what to say about the claim that your book is crap, except the claim clearly doesn't merit anything being said. Which is perhaps why nobody did. Every discussion of Anderson leads to nastiness. It's best to bow out of them.

[Rob Clack]

Schwartz was right on top of the couple when BS Man pulled Stride out from the gateway and onto the pavement, started pulling her across the street, then turned her around and threw her down.

That's what I mean by exaggerating. The part I highlighted is not in Swanson's notes.

I don’t see how I’m exaggerating when I’m merely reiterating what is in Swanson’s notes, taken from Schwartz’s statement. He did not cross the street until after witnessing the incident in which Stride finds herself on the ground. During this time he got a good look at both people and was subsequently able to describe Stride and identify her at the morgue, something he could not have done if he only viewed her from across a dark street while she was on the ground and his attention would have been focused on the two men. How is it you feel he could have witnessed their talking quietly as well as the assault without actually seeing their faces? In any event, all I said at the beginning is Schwartz saw more than Lawende, which is a matter of fact, not opinion, in that Lawende could not say he saw Eddowes, whereas Schwartz could identify Stride. But apparently this only means something to myself, Garry, and one or two others.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

What I am saying for the third time is Schwartz mainly saw BS from behind. The only time he probably saw his face is when he was on the other side of the road. And I say probably because Schwartz didn't no who BS was shouted 'Lipski' at, so he may not even have got a good enough look at him.
Whether he could describe Stride or not isn't really relevant. It's whether he got a good look at BS man that is, and I don't think he did.

Rob

[Monty]

I think you wil find that I have answered your question and clearly as previoulsy stated. The trouble is some posters are trying to use the modern day police process to further their own arguments. I am merely seeking to use them in the opposite way and to look at all aspects of this mystery trying not use the cliches which are repeated on here every day such as "perhaps" "what if" and "maybe" and "I think" I appreciate everyone is entiled to make their views knowm to others but in doing so they surely have to be prepared to consider things from a real and proper perspsctive.

No, you didn't answer the question as you why you accuse the Police of the time of naiveity.

That was side stepped.

By all means, follow Cornwells technique and use modern methods. I'd be interested to see how that progresses the case. As far as I can tell it has not. Not one jot.

And no, you did not use modern techinques to promote a suspect. However you did to promote a pet theory which, frankly speaking, raises more questions than answers.

Monty

[Chris]

And Chris Phillips is being accused by someone else of fabricating material and/or holding information back from us.

Sadly, I'm coming to the conclusion that such accusations are the inevitable result of posting information on these boards (at least among the kind of people who are incapable of working out that "Olivia Rossetti Agresti, "David Lubin: a study in practical idealism," p. 339 (1922)" is a bibliographical reference).

If there was ever an incentive for people to keep information to themselves, this kind of "nutsoid" behaviour (to quote Paul Begg) is it.

[PaulB]

I can only think of a couple of occasions when posting new information has produced such a response. Likewise when information isn't posted. Mostly it gets swept aside without due consideration. The message boards, however, aren't really representative of the majority who don't post or don't post regularly.