Plausibility of Kosminski

[TomTomKent]

My scepticism is jangling a little now. I am unsure of the logistics of any evidence that claims not to increase plausibilty of A, but instead discard any multitude of alternatives. When mr M suggests his evidence will discount not just Kozminski but others it is hard to imagine a form of evidence that single handedly reduces the Possibility and Plausibility of multiple theories to zero. Which would only diminish their use in "solving" the case, which we should probably remember is entirely different from being an interesting and valid avenue of research and interest.

I will admit it does irk me when it is assumed that proving who held the knife is the only worthwhile avenue of study. Nonsense. The Kozminzki aspect is interesting enough regardless of if he was the Ripper or not. The amount of information shared on the victims, detectives, context and background should make it clear that there is a distinction between discounting a suspect as viable and discounting the "cottage industry". (See also the. AtoZ, Rippercast, almost everything Stewert Evans has written, and the very existence of these boards.)

Ripper (and no, I don't care if he gave himself the name or had anything to do with the letter, that is the most universally understood shorthand for "unknown killer or killers of prostitutes circa 1888") related evidence that can be considered conclusive is incredibly rare, and when it does emerge tends to be of a narrow focus; Prince Eddy being somewhere else for example.

I would dearly like to be proven wrong when the evidence is produced of course.

[The Good Michael]

What is ludicrous is that there isn't a single published author, nor anyone on this site that I know of, that is enamored of Kosminski as a suspect. Even Rob, who authored an excellent book, admits nothing can be proved. In fact, there are no Kosminski-ites except in Trevor's head as he stands there on the village green stroking his piece of velvet because it gives him comfort. Everytyhing I have ever read about Kosminski only serves to keep him in the loop as a suspect because no evidence as yet, has dismissed him. This gamesmanship and secret squirrel crap is a load of BS and earns no one any street credit.

Mike

[TomTomKent]

It would appear that perhaps instead of offering to meet on a village green for a bookburning (which would bugger the Cricket green) arranging to meet for coffee to discuss what the evidence IS, rather than simply stating it exists, would be more in the spirit of community that is normally fostered on these boards. Perhaps followed by a swift jolly to the bredgar light railway, and scones in Warren Wood.

But street credit? I lose that any time I go shopping. Gamesworkshop, incognitto comics and the upper floor of Waterstones make me immune to street credit.

[PaulB]

Mr Begg the facts speak for themselves.

As to the books I know that there is nothing in any of them to substantiate your claim or any of the other that Aaron Kosminski was involved in any of the murders let alone the suggestion that he was a homicidal serial killer.

Now its 8am and i am stood here on the village green and would you beleive not a sign of you or any of your other Kosminki`ites has the coach broke dowm ?

and you still didnt answer the question was it a yes or a no ?

The facts certainly do speak for themselves, and if anybody here cares sufficiently and has the stamina to go back to post 322 they will see my admittedly rhetorical but nonetheless important question, “Have you actually read The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, published in 1987...” If they then take a gander at posts, 323, 326, 331, 344, and 345, they will see you blowing hot air as you dodge the question and oh so naively try to make out that I am the one not answering your questions. And you persist in asking it and plodding on with your book burning on the village green like a bad red-nosed seaside comic selling an act nobody finds funny. Furthermore, you appear to read all the posts, yet ignore one in which I plainly told "Tom TomKent" that since neither Martin nor I "believes that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper and don't even agree with each other's conclusions..." That seems a plain enough reply to your question, but maybe it needs a jackhammer to drive home. Maybe you should try reading the books, instead of assuming their content. You don't though, do you?

[PaulB]

What is ludicrous is that there isn't a single published author, nor anyone on this site that I know of, that is enamored of Kosminski as a suspect. Even Rob, who authored an excellent book, admits nothing can be proved. In fact, there are no Kosminski-ites except in Trevor's head as he stands there on the village green stroking his piece of velvet because it gives him comfort. Everytyhing I have ever read about Kosminski only serves to keep him in the loop as a suspect because no evidence as yet, has dismissed him. This gamesmanship and secret squirrel crap is a load of BS and earns no one any street credit.

Mike

Thank God for a voice of sanity.

[Stewart P Evans]

Just goes to show...

...
I will admit it does irk me when it is assumed that proving who held the knife is the only worthwhile avenue of study. Nonsense. The Kozminzki aspect is interesting enough regardless of if he was the Ripper or not. The amount of information shared on the victims, detectives, context and background should make it clear that there is a distinction between discounting a suspect as viable and discounting the "cottage industry". (See also the. AtoZ, Rippercast, almost everything Stewert Evans has written, and the very existence of these boards.)
...

And there was me thinking I had written numerous articles on WWII aviation and the biography of James Berry the executioner.

Just goes to show, the majority of people seem to be interested in Jack the Ripper. Perhaps that is why so many books have been published on the subject, so many TV documentaries have been made, and are still being made (I was filmed for two last week!), and many movies have been made based on the story too.

By the way, I would appreciate it if you could, at least, spell my name correctly.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nothing

Mr Begg the facts speak for themselves.
As to the books I know that there is nothing in any of them to substantiate your claim or any of the other that Aaron Kosminski was involved in any of the murders let alone the suggestion that he was a homicidal serial killer.
...

There is nothing in any book to substantiate that anyone named 'was involved in any of the murders'. Have you forgotten the definitions of evidence Trevor?

[Stewart P Evans]

Any chance of a lift?

...
Now its 8am and i am stood here on the village green and would you beleive not a sign of you or any of your other Kosminki`ites has the coach broke dowm ?
...

Bloody useless coach! Any chance of a lift Trevor?

[PaulB]

It would appear that perhaps instead of offering to meet on a village green for a bookburning (which would bugger the Cricket green) arranging to meet for coffee to discuss what the evidence IS, rather than simply stating it exists, would be more in the spirit of community that is normally fostered on these boards. Perhaps followed by a swift jolly to the bredgar light railway, and scones in Warren Wood.

But street credit? I lose that any time I go shopping. Gamesworkshop, incognitto comics and the upper floor of Waterstones make me immune to street credit.

The thing is that this is supposed to be the equivalent of scones in Warren Wood or a ride on the Bredgar Light Railway - I gather that the Bredgar farm shop has closed; another loss! - but it rarely ever is.

[TomTomKent]

And there was me thinking I had written numerous articles on WWII aviation and the biography of James Berry the executioner.

Just goes to show, the majority of people seem to be interested in Jack the Ripper. Perhaps that is why so many books have been published on the subject, so many TV documentaries have been made, and are still being made (I was filmed for two last week!), and many movies have been made based on the story too.

By the way, I would appreciate it if you could, at least, spell my name correctly.

My mistake, in both spelling and not specifying i meant your considerable output on the Ripper. No offence intended.

[Trevor Marriott]

The facts certainly do speak for themselves, and if anybody here cares sufficiently and has the stamina to go back to post 322 they will see my admittedly rhetorical but nonetheless important question, “Have you actually read The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, published in 1987...” If they then take a gander at posts, 323, 326, 331, 344, and 345, they will see you blowing hot air as you dodge the question and oh so naively try to make out that I am the one not answering your questions. And you persist in asking it and plodding on with your book burning on the village green like a bad red-nosed seaside comic selling an act nobody finds funny. Furthermore, you appear to read all the posts, yet ignore one in which I plainly told "Tom TomKent" that since neither Martin nor I "believes that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper and don't even agree with each other's conclusions..." That seems a plain enough reply to your question, but maybe it needs a jackhammer to drive home. Maybe you should try reading the books, instead of assuming their content. You don't though, do you?

Well if you dont now belive Kosminski was JTR why did you get involved with the making of The definitive JTR or whatever it was called telling the world that Kosminski was the ripper

[Trevor Marriott]

Bloody useless coach! Any chance of a lift Trevor?

Stewart with all your stuff we would need a 10 ton lorry

As far as the definitions of, and the interpration of the different types of evidence you know them I know them but it seems we are in the minority

[PaulB]

Well if you dont now belive Kosminski was JTR why did you get involved with the making of The definitive JTR or whatever it was called telling the world that Kosminski was the ripper

"Well if you dont now belive Kosminski was JTR..."

I have never believed that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. Never.

But since you don't read what people write, you can't be expected to know that.

And since you refuse to acknowledge that you've never read Martin Fido's book published 25-years ago, and have no idea what his thinking was and is, and have made yourself look an absolute prat, there is no need discuss anything with you. Mind you, there probably never was.

[fido]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;189172]No no other refernce to another Kosminski.

My point in relation to all of this and i cant see why the Kosminki`ites wont accept it is that clearly "Aaron Kosminski" was not the Kosminski named in the dubious questionable MM and the marginalia there is not one scrap of evidence to connect Aaron Kosminki with any of this.

His malignment stems from the fact that he came onto the police radar simply because he threatened his sister with a knife and was later deemed to be mad and he lived in Whitechapel. The same scenario applies to Cutbush and how he came to the notice of the police.



If the marginalia is genuine then Swanson would have already known the name of Kosminski from the MM. It should be noted heonly refers to the name Kosminski notice no christian name if he was involved as the head of the investigation I would have expected hom to remeber the full name of a prime suspect.

There has been no trace found by anyone of another Kosminski who could fit with the content of the aforementioned documents.




I don't know how to put all the above in one of the shaded boxes that usually identify quotations, but they all come from Mr Marriott's posting.


A handful of observations on this: in the marginalia it is said that Kosminski had a brother in Whitechapel - fact, and was taken to the infirmary and thence to the asylum - fact. Two scraps of evidence linking the Kosminski of the marginalia with the Aaron Kosminski of history.

What is meant by calling the Macnaghten memoranda dubious and questionable? They contain demonstrable error - but so do almost all the other documents naming suspects that have been traced back to contemporary police officers. Erroneous conclusions arising from misunderstood, misreported or misremembered evidence are common to such police enquiries - consider the false trails followed in the Yorkshire Ripper and Cannock Chase murders. Imagine where we should be if those cases had never been solved, and we relied on police memoranda and public statements.

The notion that Kosminski came under suspicion because of the incident with his sister is pure speculation on Mr Marriott's part. We have no idea why he came under suspicion - it could have been suspicion passed on by an informant, observation of bizarre behaviour on the street, physical similarity to one of the witness descriptions of a suspect: one could go on inventing hypotheses for a long time without any of them coming near the status of fact.

What is meant by "If the marginalia is genuine"? Is Mr Marriott suggesting that any member of the Swanson family (out of whose possession the book had never passed until sent to the Police Museum) has tampered with them? What makes Mr Marriott certain that Swanson would have read the Macnaghten marginalia? Do we have any evidence that he was still involved in the case in 1894? The last document from him in the Sourcebook is dated 1891. Press reporting on the Grainger case of 1894 suggests that Swanson had settled his mind with a theory that satisfied him, and this suggests that he was no longer actively receiving and assessing information.

Since there is no trace of any other Kosminski who fits (and I have searched records for Kominskies and Kaminskies as well), Mr Marriott's conclusion that Aaron was possibly not the character referred to by Macnaghten and Swanson must imply that they were fools, liars or hallucinators. Where does he imagine the name came from - their imagination? I don't ask him to accept my suggestion that the erroneous data come from confusion with another similar character. But I do ask him to stop suggesting that errors in police knowledge and records completely vitiate their historical value.

Martin Fido

[Chris]

Why not? What if Cohen's European name was Kosminski, or another immigrant named Kosminski was incarcerated under an anglicized name?

Yes - I think that is the one way in which Macnaghten's and Swanson's "Kosminski" could be referring to someone other than Aaron.

But the difficulty is that if someone was recorded in both the workhouse and the asylum records under another surname, and also had his death registered under another surname, it would seem strange for the police to be referring to him by his original surname. To my mind that makes it an outside chance, even if we can't say it's impossible.