Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

To Paul B

Thanks for engaging me in debate.

You're quite right, of course.

In the 'Aberconway' version of his 'Home Office Report', projected onto the public via Griffiths and later Sims, Macnaghten does write that 'Kosminski' was a strong 'suspect'.

Major Griffiths in 1898 dutifully propagated this idea in 'Mysteries of Police and Crime', almost word for word (though the already semi-fictionalised Druitt had to be further fictionalised with the 'family' becoming 'friends').

Mac also asserts, via Sims in 1907, that whilst the Polish Jew and the Russian doctor might have been the fiend, the mitigating circumstance which got both 'off the hook' was that they were alive long after the Kelly murder. Of course, by Mac's standard Druitt is a lousy suspect too, as only a killer who kills himself immediately , a 'shrieking, raving fiend', is the key incriminating factor -- which is completely untrue of the historical Druitt.

On the other hand, Mac as a source -- taken in totality -- arguably and decisively rejects 'Kosminski', rightly or wrongly, as the Ripper.

His memoirs are the only document he wrote with his name attached for public consumption, eg. no hiding behind cronies this time.

Despite what he claims about relying on memory, and aplogising for errors of memory, Macnaghten actually had 'Aberconway' right at his elbow -- with those very words about 'Kosminski' being a 'strong "suspect"' in front of him --and yet he rejected his inclusion. This omission, buried in weak suspects arrested in the East and West Ends, is arguably his real opinion.

It is an opinion which also matches the official version of his 'Report', albeit one in which all three suspect are unlikely -- just more likely than Cutbush.

Furthermore, in those 1914 memoirs Macnaghten debunks the idea of the Ripper as a Jew, and of the police having any idea about the real chief suspect for 'some years', and that there was no Super-witness, and that the real Ripper had ever seen the inside of an asylum.

The 1914 memoirs are backed by his 1913 comments on the eve of his retirement in which he did not confirm the Dr. Jekyllish (or Tumbletyesque) features about the un-named Druitt. A cricket fanatic, Mac spoke of Druitt chummily, if tastelessly, as a 'remarkable man' -- about whom he claimed he knew the full details -- and, by implication, refuted the Polish Jew as a 'definitely, ascertained fact'.

Are alternate interpretations possible of these sources possible?

For sure.

I am making the point that one legit interpretation is that Anderson and Swanson -- two quite different men -- were there, so they should know. They went with the Polish Jew and so this is probably the Ripper.

But I think it is also a legit interpretation that Macnaghten was also there, and that he knew too, and that, overall, he rejected the Polish Jew solution, and therefore this is a weak suspect.

After all, Macnaghten had a better sense of 'Kosminski' still being alive in the madhouse, and of being out and about for some time before being sectioned.

Of course, I think that it is Macnaghten who told Anderson and/or Swanson about 'Kosminski', and that he had died in the asylum, just as he allegedly told Tom Divall that the best suspect died in an asylum -- in the States.

Jonathan,
You claimed that Macnaghten “implicitly denies that 'Kosminski' was much of a suspect” but Macnaghten doesn't implicitly deny that at all. He clearly believed that Druitt was the murderer and he may have been right to do so, but that doesn't mean he thought that Kosminski wasn't “much of a suspect”, especially when he explicitly stated elsewhere that he was “a strong suspect”.

Also, you say that Macnaghten debunked a number of things, including the idea that the Ripper had been confined in an asylum, but Macnaghten doesn't debunk anything at all, he simply says “nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum”. Furthermore, he says this in the context of comparison with Belloc Lowndes The Lodger in which the protagonist had escaped from an asylum. And Macnaghten follows his reference to the asylum by saying that he didn't believe the murderer lived in lodgings, but that he lived at home. Druitt didn't live in rooms such as those let by Mrs Bunting, but he didn't live at home either. So to what extent was he actually responding to the theory in the book, not in a wider context? Macnaghten didn't say why he dismissed the idea that the Ripper had been confined in an asylum, he didn't strip that claim bare and show it to be fallacious, which is what debunking means, he simply stated that he didn't believe it. Also, if we want to get really picky, he said he did not believe that the murderer had been detained in a lunatic asylum, which is slightly different from being committed to one forever and ever amen and again fits better with the idea expressed in The Lodger. Macnaghten also had his own favoured suspect in mind, and that person hadn't been confined in an asylum, so Macnaghten wouldn't have believed that the murderer had been confined in one. Although your assertion that Griffiths and Sims were Macnaghten-driven therefore demands an explanation of Sims' 1902 claim that Macnaghten's suspect “had been once ‑ I am not sure that it was not twice ‑ in a lunatic asylum.”

[Trevor Marriott]

To Paul B

Thanks for engaging me in debate.

You're quite right, of course.

In the 'Aberconway' version of his 'Home Office Report', projected onto the public via Griffiths and later Sims, Macnaghten does write that 'Kosminski' was a strong 'suspect'.

Major Griffiths in 1898 dutifully propagated this idea in 'Mysteries of Police and Crime', almost word for word (though the already semi-fictionalised Druitt had to be further fictionalised with the 'family' becoming 'friends').

Mac also asserts, via Sims in 1907, that whilst the Polish Jew and the Russian doctor might have been the fiend, the mitigating circumstance which got both 'off the hook' was that they were alive long after the Kelly murder. Of course, by Mac's standard Druitt is a lousy suspect too, as only a killer who kills himself immediately , a 'shrieking, raving fiend', is the key incriminating factor -- which is completely untrue of the historical Druitt.

On the other hand, Mac as a source -- taken in totality -- arguably and decisively rejects 'Kosminski', rightly or wrongly, as the Ripper.

His memoirs are the only document he wrote with his name attached for public consumption, eg. no hiding behind cronies this time.

Despite what he claims about relying on memory, and aplogising for errors of memory, Macnaghten actually had 'Aberconway' right at his elbow -- with those very words about 'Kosminski' being a 'strong "suspect"' in front of him --and yet he rejected his inclusion. This omission, buried in weak suspects arrested in the East and West Ends, is arguably his real opinion.

It is an opinion which also matches the official version of his 'Report', albeit one in which all three suspect are unlikely -- just more likely than Cutbush.

Furthermore, in those 1914 memoirs Macnaghten debunks the idea of the Ripper as a Jew, and of the police having any idea about the real chief suspect for 'some years', and that there was no Super-witness, and that the real Ripper had ever seen the inside of an asylum.

The 1914 memoirs are backed by his 1913 comments on the eve of his retirement in which he did not confirm the Dr. Jekyllish (or Tumbletyesque) features about the un-named Druitt. A cricket fanatic, Mac spoke of Druitt chummily, if tastelessly, as a 'remarkable man' -- about whom he claimed he knew the full details -- and, by implication, refuted the Polish Jew as a 'definitely, ascertained fact'.

Are alternate interpretations possible of these sources possible?

For sure.

I am making the point that one legit interpretation is that Anderson and Swanson -- two quite different men -- were there, so they should know. They went with the Polish Jew and so this is probably the Ripper.

But I think it is also a legit interpretation that Macnaghten was also there, and that he knew too, and that, overall, he rejected the Polish Jew solution, and therefore this is a weak suspect.

This sounds like the " Jolly Boys Outing" to the seaside I wonder if the brought any candy floss back ?

After all, Macnaghten had a better sense of 'Kosminski' still being alive in the madhouse, and of being out and about for some time before being sectioned.

Of course, I think that it is Macnaghten who told Anderson and/or Swanson about 'Kosminski', and that he had died in the asylum, just as he allegedly told Tom Divall that the best suspect died in an asylum -- in the States.

To quote the legendary Sioux Indian Chief Sitting Bull "White man speak with forked tongue"

[PaulB]

To quote the legendary Sioux Indian Chief Sitting Bull "White man speak with forked tongue"

Is it even remotely possible that one day you will have something sensible to say.

[Trevor Marriott]

Is it even remotely possible that one day you will have something sensible to say.

You first !

[PaulB]

I have, Trevor. You're the one with a track record for utter nonsense.

[Jonathan H]

Tp Paul B

Thank-you for engaging me in this debate.

I think you make excellent counter-points, as always.

We will have to agree to disagree about our differing interpretations of 'Laying the Ghost ...', as I see it as the definitive Mac document, and in it 'Kosminski' does not appear, at all.

I believe that this implies what he had communicated via Sims ober sveral years; yes, a police suspect, but an unlikely one. There were 'two theories' at the Yard and the Polish Jew was neither of them, just a footnote to theory number one (Sims, 1907).

Yet I agree that Mac also implies in 'Aberconway', and his memoirs, that Druitt lived with an idiot family (only 'fairly good' -- at Blackheath, Sims 1915). They were so dim that they only 'suspected' that they lived with the fiend, but ... he is careful not to state this for a fact.

'Cutting the knot' Mac writes in 1914 that the un-named Druitt 'resided with his own people' which, of course, he did in the sense that he lodged -- though not with landlords -- at his secondary place of work with his clients, the students.

And, apparently, he was 'absented' from that place to murder Whitechapel harlots. Well, of course?! They did not make house calls in Blackheath. What on earth does he mean? It's such a redundant thing to write?

Perhaps he meant that the Ripper was a reclusive invalid, being watched over by his anxious 'people', eg. family?

Certainly that is exactly the profile he had fed Sims in the Edwardian Era: the unemployed physician -- unemployed for years no less -- who idled about on public transport, who was very affluent, and who did not thus need an income, and who had been 'twice' in a lunatic asylum (Sims 1902, plus the incarceration reference: 1903, 1907, 1917). A deranged gentlleman with concerned, hovering pals, eg. family members.

But the memoir strips away much of this ficitional cocoon, replacing it with, well, almost nothing. Just the barest glimpses, but only if you compare it to all the other sources.

For example, my theory is that the 'serious trouble' of the inquest article of 1889, which got him fired, refers to being caught 'absent' from his night-warden duties at the Valentine School (on the night, or nights of the murders, though this hideous connection was only made later by the family who did not libe with him and who 'believed').

I think Mac used 'The Lodger' to debunk Anderson's 'safely caged' Ripper, but this meant admitting what he had known all along: that Druitt had not been sectioned.

If the man had not been sectioned then perhaps he did work after all?

If he worked -- what is it he did?

Presumably he was a physician, right?

Yet Macnaghten steers well clear of the un-named Druitt's job(s), and even that he drowned himself in the Thames?! The most colorful, and memorable detail about this suspect and he excludes it.

I think because he knew that the tale of the 'shrieking, raving fiend' cannot hold if you try and have him doing it the same morning as the Kelly murder as is it so ludicrous (and with access to P.C. Moulson's Report, at the very least, Mac knew the suicide locale was all the way over at Chicwick). It was one thing to have a crony relate such a yarn (by 1907, sims has the fiend kill himself the same morning and the body turning up in early Dec. 1888) in his 'succicnt and picturesque style' (Mac 1914). Quite another to put your own knighted name to such a silly if convenient fiction.

Of course it was Druitt's father who had been a doctor and it was his mother who had been sectioned. To hide Montie ('for the dead cannot defend themselves', Sims 1917) Mac subsumbed the 'Protean' son into his own parents, then discreetly untangled this knot for his memoirs.

Since nobody at that time knew (or cared) that he was Sims' only 'Drowned Doctor' source Macnaghten could get away with it.

Now, arguably, we know ...

[Trevor Marriott]

I have, Trevor. You're the one with a track record for utter nonsense.

Havent see any sign of it and I have just had a re run of the definitive or should it be re titled "Amateur night at Dixie"

Now Mr Leahy has crossed the "rubicon" on his crusade against me will you be joining forces.

I quake with fear. To the victor the spoils

[PaulB]

Havent see any sign of it and I have just had a re run of the definitive or should it be re titled "Amateur night at Dixie"

Now Mr Leahy has crossed the "rubicon" on his crusade against me will you be joining forces.

I quake with fear. To the victor the spoils

No, you won't see me at Jeff Leahy's side as you don't merit the concern he inexplicably seems to have about you. And this is history, Trevor, not a football match; there are no victors and no spoils. One day you will realise that.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, you won't see me at Jeff Leahy's side as you don't merit the concern he inexplicably seems to have about you. And this is history, Trevor, not a football match; there are no victors and no spoils. One day you will realise that.

Well you have certainly been trying to score a few goals. You first had Macnaghten who was scoring for fun in the first instance, then he had to retire with a brain injury and had to retire from the game.

You then made Anderson you star player then to top it all you sign on Swanson. Both have not come up to expectations. I can see your team soon being relegated !

[PaulB]

Well you have certainly been trying to score a few goals. You first had Macnaghten who was scoring for fun in the first instance, then he had to retire with a brain injury and had to retire from the game.

You then made Anderson you star player then to top it all you sign on Swanson. Both have not come up to expectations. I can see your team soon being relegated !

You know, for someone who is demonstrably profoundly ignorant about this subject your opinion on any aspect of it is utterly worthless, yet you keep on opening your mouth. I have never known such a sucker for punishment. Time and again you say something stupid and somebody, often several somebody's slap you down about it. But up you get and off you go again, utterly unashamed. It's amazing.

[Trevor Marriott]

You know, for someone who is demonstrably profoundly ignorant about this subject your opinion on any aspect of it is utterly worthless, yet you keep on opening your mouth. I have never known such a sucker for punishment. Time and again you say something stupid and somebody, often several somebody's slap you down about it. But up you get and off you go again, utterly unashamed. It's amazing.

And because I do it really pisses you off well long may it continue.

I think all you say and belive about Anderson is stupid but do i keep telling you so hmmmmmmmmm perhaps I should consider starting, but do i need to because so many others have told you. They have lost faith in him and swanson and this ID which clearly in my humble opinion did not take place with regards to Kosminski, Cohen or Kaminsky so perhaps you should let them all rest peacefully in their graves.

That of course unless you can produce anything to the contrary.

[PaulB]

And because I do it really pisses you off well long may it continue.

I think all you say and belive about Anderson is stupid but do i keep telling you so hmmmmmmmmm perhaps I should consider starting, but do i need to because so many others have told you. They have lost faith in him and swanson and this ID which clearly in my humble opinion did not take place with regards to Kosminski, Cohen or Kaminsky so perhaps you should let them all rest peacefully in their graves.

That of course unless you can produce anything to the contrary.

Nothing you do pisses me off, Trevor, and you can think what you like about what I say and believe, although it is abundantly clear that you don't know anything about either, and you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance of this subject, be it denying that Eddowes wore an apron or having to ask if there was evidence that Sadler stayed in a seaman’s hostel. For a supposed leading expert on this subject, you seem to have the knowledge of the greenest neophyte, yet you still think it's clever to knock other theories. All hot air.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nothing you do pisses me off, Trevor, and you can think what you like about what I say and believe, although it is abundantly clear that you don't know anything about either, and you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance of this subject, be it denying that Eddowes wore an apron or having to ask if there was evidence that Sadler stayed in a seaman’s hostel. For a supposed leading expert on this subject, you seem to have the knowledge of the greenest neophyte, yet you still think it's clever to knock other theories. All hot air.

And I do know the answers I merely word the questions in a way to encourage posters to take part in order to create much more of a doubt surrounding the Id parade.

As far as the apron of Eddowes is concerned the wording of The apron she was wearing could refer to the apron which was on the floor which they presumed she had been wearing play on words you know all about that.

1. “Piece of old white apron” (Jack the Ripper A-Z)
2. “Piece of old white apron with repair” ( Casebook lists this under possessions and not clothing worn.)
3. “Piece of White apron (As described by Inspector Collard who listed her clothes and possessions at the mortuary when the body was stripped shortly after 3am on arrival at the mortuary)

If you want to keep arguing feel free I can take all day your abusive sarcastic comments but rest assured I wil respond to each and every one I think so far i have been quite laid back about them. But now i think I will treat them with the contempt they deserve.

[The Good Michael]

And I do know the answers I merely word the questions in a way to encourage posters to take part in order to create much more of a doubt surrounding the Id parade.

You don't do this. You post clues that will, if we take the bait, lead people to YOUR conclusions, and your conclusions are just as flawed as anyone else's, if not more so. You do this to try and raise yourself above others, hoping to gain some kind of higher position in the Ripper world that you, for some inexplicable reason, believe you are entitled to. This isn't about helping to find some sort of truth and answers to this 120 year-old mystery for you. It is like you are a treasure seeker looking for Blackbeard's lost loot, so that you can lord it over others and claim kingship of all Ripperdom. It is a load of hogwash and makes you rather unbearable company on these boards and makes me, and perhaps others, wonder what brought you to this level of a feeling of entitlement. It is a character flaw and you are to be pitied for it, but pity only goes so far. You need to pull yourself out of this morass of nonsense.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

You don't do this. You post clues that will, if we take the bait, lead people to YOUR conclusions, and your conclusions are just as flawed as anyone else's, if not more so. You do this to try and raise yourself above others, hoping to gain some kind of higher position in the Ripper world that you, for some inexplicable reason, believe you are entitled to. This isn't about helping to find some sort of truth and answers to this 120 year-old mystery for you. It is like you are a treasure seeker looking for Blackbeard's lost loot, so that you can lord it over others and claim kingship of all Ripperdom. It is a load of hogwash and makes you rather unbearable company on these boards and makes me, and perhaps others, wonder what brought you to this level of a feeling of entitlement. It is a character flaw and you are to be pitied for it, but pity only goes so far. You need to pull yourself out of this morass of nonsense.

Mike

Yes you are right I do need to pull myself out of this I need to get away from you and the rest of your muppet fraternity. You have your head so far up your arse that you have to bend over when you visit the dentsit.

Catch a killer you couldnt catch a cold !