Plausibility of Kosminski

[Fleetwood Mac]

Obviously we'll have to agree to differ about whether there was a positive identification, but I think the suggestion that there was a secret witness to one of the murders - and a police officer at that - really is untenable.

You really need to explain why this would not be referred to in internal police reports. And if you are suggesting it was Macnaghten's City PC, you need to consider why Macnaghten would have written "No one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square) ..." If a City PC had actually witnessed the Ripper committing a murder, it would have been blindingly obvious that he had seen the murderer!

The issue here Chris is that what you're saying requires a leap of faith, i.e. what he said happened didn't actually happen.

So, you're bringing into question the man's competence, i.e. an inability to intrerpret the witness's words/actions, and of course the man's personal ethics, i.e. choosing to intrepret the witness's actions/words in a manner that wasn't supported by what actually happened.

I think the onus is on you to show that Swanson was incompletent/lacked solid personal ethics, otherwise the man has to be taken as read, i.e. there was a positive ID with a definitive answer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

From an outsiders point of view, it's just drama really and doesn't reflect well on anyone.

Anyway, just a point about the blond hair and blue eyes.

Blue eyes - yes.

This is purely anecdotal.

I have been out with two Jewish girls in the past, and lived in a part of Manchester colonised by the Jewish community. We're talking thousands of people. I'm scratching my head here because I don't remember seeing one Jewish person with blond hair. 99% dark hair and I did know a ginger Jewish fella.

Also, I spent 3 weeks in Israel/Palestine last summer, and don't recall much in the way of blond hair.

[Chris]

The issue here Chris is that what you're saying requires a leap of faith, i.e. what he said happened didn't actually happen.

I think you have it back to front. But probably the best thing will be for us to agree to differ.

[Chris]

From an outsiders point of view, it's just drama really and doesn't reflect well on anyone.

If you're suggesting it doesn't reflect well on me, you'd better explain what you mean.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you're suggesting it doesn't reflect well on me, you'd better explain what you mean.

The suggestion is this: a wise man would take it as water off a duck's back. As it's a message board, I'll post my opinion. As it's something that's not close to my heart, it'll be my last comment on the matter.

Back to the discussion:

A significant minority of Jewish people with blond hair?!

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think you have it back to front. But probably the best thing will be for us to agree to differ.

Clearly not Chris:

You're suggesting that Swanson was, in fact, incorrect. In other words, what he said happened, didn't actually happen; that when he said there was a positive ID, you're saying he misinterpreted what actually took place.

As said, that requires a leap of faith on your part, i.e. dismissing Swanson and positing your version; whereas I am taking Swanson at his word.

[Robert]

I can think of at least two Jewish women with blond hair whom I have met. However it's difficult to tell with women, since they muck around so much with their hair, dyeing it and so forth.

[Chris]

Fleetwood Mac

No. Scepticism about the literal accuracy of recollections decades after the event - recollections which contain other demonstrable errors - is not a "leap of faith." It's simple common sense.

I really do not see the point of pursuing this discussion further - particularly as you have simply ignored the questions I've asked you about your suggestion about a secret police witness to one of the murders.

[harry]

Swanson's,"and he knew he had been identified'.Anderson,"the only person who had a good view of the murderer',appears to me to suggest,that both suspect and witness had a good look at each other.How else would the suspect know he had been identified,unless he recognised the witness,and remembered from where.So in assessing where that might have been,reverse the procedure,look through the eyes of the killer.To me it would appear that the Berner Street killing offered the killer a better chance of observing the witness.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac

No. Scepticism about the literal accuracy of recollections decades after the event - recollections which contain other demonstrable errors - is not a "leap of faith." It's simple common sense.

I really do not see the point of pursuing this discussion further - particularly as you have simply ignored the questions I've asked you about your suggestion about a secret police witness to one of the murders.

I haven't ignored them, Chris.

I suppose this is the way I see it:

1) There was a positive ID along the lines of: "that's the man".

2) Swanson believed it would have been enough to convict the man.

Point 1 is a recollection of the event.

Point 2 is Swanson's opinion based on the event; after all, Swanson is not judge and jury in these matters.

There is more room for debate with point 2: did he have something else that would support the ID?, was it a witness of whom we are not aware (possibly the City PC witness)?, was the witness Lawende and Swanson believed his testimony would have been enough to convict the suspect? The number of options means we're left guessing as to the foundations for Swanson's opinion.

With point 1, there are fewer options assuming no one is accusing Swanson of lying. With point 1, either he does hold the ability to intrepret a witness's actions/words or he doesn't.

With point 1, you're questioning the man's competence; with point 2, I'm questioning his opinion based on the event (his opinion being on something that he was not an expert, i.e. a court of law).

In sum: I'm suggesting that he is far morely likey to have erred with an opinion based on an event than the recollection of a major event in his life's work.

And, ultimately, you should know that your scepticism, on the grounds that it does happen, would never be enough in a court of law as a decent case against Swanson. If you put this in front of a court of law, charged with looking at the objective facts, I'm 99% certain that they would conclude that there was a positive ID to the effect: "that's the man". And the point of this comment is that an objective intrepretation of Swanson's notes can only lead to one conclusion: there was a positive ID. Where you go from there in terms of why Swanson believed it would secure a conviction, is open to debate/opinions/subjectivity.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Swanson's,"and he knew he had been identified'.Anderson,"the only person who had a good view of the murderer',appears to me to suggest,that both suspect and witness had a good look at each other.How else would the suspect know he had been identified,unless he recognised the witness,and remembered from where.So in assessing where that might have been,reverse the procedure,look through the eyes of the killer.To me it would appear that the Berner Street killing offered the killer a better chance of observing the witness.

Harry,

I'm not convinced that Schwartz would have had a better view. I think it can be argued either way - both putting forth decent cases.

In my view, however, it's irrelevant because there's no use in getting a good look at a man who wasn't JTR; what it boils down to is which of the two men was more likely to have seen JTR.

In my view, the man is Lawende due to circumstances surrounding the events.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Chris,

To put some meat on the bones of the scepticism comment:

Judge Judy wouldn't have it and that's good enough for me!

In response she'd say:

So, basically, your case is that some other people recollect events inaccurately. Well, some other people murder people, doesn't mean I do. And, just remember that this case is against Swanson, not the 'other people'. So, either come up with something against Swanson, or refile your lawsuit against these 'other people' of whom you speak.

[Chris]

Fleetwood Mac

Essentially, you're arguing that unless we can prove - to a standard that would convince a criminal court - that what Swanson wrote is inaccurate, then we must assume it is literally and exactly accurate.

It's a ludicrous argument, and I am not going to waste any more time discussing it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac

Essentially, you're arguing that unless we can prove - to a standard that would convince a criminal court - that what Swanson wrote is inaccurate, then we must assume it is literally and exactly accurate.

It's a ludicrous argument, and I am not going to waste any more time discussing it.

But, far less ludicrous than your argument which goes something like: "Swanson wasn't lying, but he did misintrepret the witness/suspect encounter. Why do I believe that? Because some people somewhere have done likewise".

And, the burden of proof rests with the accuser. You're accusing Swanson of being unable to accurately interpret a suspect/witness encounter. And, yes, in the event you can't come up with something other than your current argument, then you don't have much of an argument.

The point about a court of law is that it is bound up with objectivity, and presumably that is a noble concept when analysing the available information relating to JTR?

As you say, let's knock it on the head and call it a draw.

[Chris]

You're accusing Swanson of being unable to accurately interpret a suspect/witness encounter.

No, I'm not accusing Swanson of anything.