Plausibility of Kosminski

[TomTomKent]

Oh and if Kozminski, Cohen, or anybody else who was "caged in an asylum" before the identification was the suspect they would hardly worry he might know he was rumbled.

Entering the realm of fantasy, I know mister Fido invested a lot of time checking workhouse, assylum and infirmary records for the London area, but could there have been any chance a suspect was sent to a mental hospital in another area? One which might be thought of a "seaside" home for example? Guessing the answer will be no.

[Phil Carter]

The 'evidence' couldn't have been up to much as no arrest was made. 'Moral certainty', Anderson's fallback, is purely subjective and was whatever Anderson himself defined it as in this case. We have an idea, from his writings, how he determined 'moral certainty' as he gives an example.

Hello Stewart,

Thank you for pointing out this about the moral certainty of Anderson. As I provided a classic example of such in a previous post (No. 387), I am not at all surprised it has been largely ignored, 'cept for your comment. (There must be a touch of Anderson's re-knowned deafness around..or perhaps Froest's blindness would be more appropriate.)

The H.L.Adam example of showing Anderson's "moral certainty" theory of guilt is in my view shockingly amateur in methodological surmise. If it is any indication of Anderson's attitude towards his infamous "Polish Jew" moral certainty....no wonder he was such a religious zealot.. because he didn't have a prayer catching criminals with it.

kindly

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

I think...

Just trying to work out the many views in my head, and some posts refer to Kozminski-ites as a single group who all back Kozzy as a suspect. But some of those (for example your self) seem to be discussing not why THEY thought Kozzy was a suspect, but why Anderson, Swanson or the MM point towards Kozzy. I just wondered if there is some reason that distinction is not made?
I am assuming some members self identify as Kozminski-ites, rather than the term being an insult applied to others. I don't want to misuse the term and step on toes.

I think that there is a clear distinction to be made between those who may be referred to as 'Kosminskiites' and those who may be referred to as 'Andersonites', albeit in some cases both descriptions might apply.

The term is sometimes used in a derogatory context, when it is used to indicate a closed mind, subjective thinking and a general dismissal of any other suspect consideration. But this may be true of those espousing some other single suspect too. It should not be assumed, in itself, to be a derogatory term. However, some of those referred to as such consider it a bit of an insult.

I consider 'Kosminski' to be a valid suspect and I consider Anderson and Swanson to be important historical sources. That said, I realise that there are some very important caveats to bear in mind regarding both this suspect and the source.

Thus I am often described as anti-Anderson, when I am actually not, I have always insisted on presenting the full facts (pro and con) about the man, given his importance and the necessity to assess him as a historical source.

[John Bennett]

It appears that when somebody does not entirely rule out a specific suspect, they get accused of being a somebody-"ite", regardless of whether they say they do not believe the suspect to have been the murderer.

This is probably why we often hear Sugden's name connected with Chapman, Paul's with Kosminski and Stewart's with Tumblety.

And yet none of these authors say that their 'associated' suspect is the Ripper.

It just seems to be easy compartmentalisation on the part of the 'accusers'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Example

Hello Stewart,
Thank you for pointing out this about the moral certainty of Anderson. As I provided a classic example of such in a previous post (No. 387), I am not at all surprised it has been largely ignored, 'cept for your comment. (There must be a touch of Anderson's re-knowned deafness around..or perhaps Froest's blindness would be more appropriate.)
The H.L.Adam example of showing Anderson's "moral certainty" theory of guilt is in my view shockingly amateur in methodological surmise. If it is any indication of Anderson's attitude towards his infamous "Polish Jew" moral certainty....no wonder he was such a religious zealot.. because he didn't have a prayer catching criminals with it.
kindly
Phil

It's not only Adam's example, Anderson himself cites it in his book.

[TomTomKent]

Cheers for those clarifications folks. Sorry to have sidetracked the conversation a little.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

It appears that when somebody does not entirely rule out a specific suspect, they get accused of being a somebody-"ite", regardless of whether they say they do not believe the suspect to have been the murderer.
This is probably why we often hear Sugden's name connected with Chapman, Paul's with Kosminski and Stewart's with Tumblety.
And yet none of these authors say that their 'associated' suspect is the Ripper.
It just seems to be easy compartmentalisation on the part of the 'accusers'.

Yes John, having 'discovered' the Littlechild letter, and having written the Tumblety-based book, I shall forever be saddled with the connection.

No sensible author can possibly say that any suspect was actually the Ripper. But you try and find a publisher willing to publish a book about a 'new suspect' who wants the author to present the case and then end up by saying 'but he wasn't Jack the Ripper' or 'there was no evidence that he was Jack the Ripper.'

As soon as suspect preference is espoused your objectivity is called into question and you have exposed a weakness to be attacked.

[fido]

I participated in the making of Geoff Pope's documentary. Paul had advised him historically, drawing attention to the huge historical importance of the then recent observations that Anderson's Polish Jew was evidently the man named as Kosminski by Macnaghten, and such a man had been identified in the asylum records.
Geoff Pope, like many others, was misled by Paul's enthusiasm for the new information into thinking it safe to go ahead with naming Kosminsky as the Ripper, and though Paul had urged him to talk with me before planning his programme, I simply didn't have the energy to mount a really rousing defence of the more complicated argument for Cohen when it wasn't apparent to him why this was a sensible explanation of the problems in the records.
In consequence, he was extremely surprised when Paul backed me in declining to say on camera "That's very significant" about Kosminsky threatening his sister with a knife, and was astonished when Paul firmly supported me in refusing to make any statement suggesting that Kosminsky was probably the Ripper.

I myself am astonished to learn that Mr Marriott believes the sister and knife incident can be firmly proposed as the definite reason why Kosminski was ever a suspect. It is one known detail that MIGHT have created interest in Kosminski. But as we don't even know the date at which it occurred, or how widely known the incident was we really cannot offer this speculative hypothesis as demonstrating anything at all.
Martin Fido

[Phil Carter]

It's not only Adam's example, Anderson himself cites it in his book.

Hello Stewart,

I cited it from Adams' work to use the comments Adam's gave with it.

kindly

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
I myself am astonished to learn that Mr Marriott believes the sister and knife incident can be firmly proposed as the definite reason why Kosminski was ever a suspect. It is one known detail that MIGHT have created interest in Kosminski. But as we don't even know the date at which it occurred, or how widely known the incident was we really cannot offer this speculative hypothesis as demonstrating anything at all.
Martin Fido

Yes, it rather surprises me too, especially as Trevor is an ex-police officer.

Police officers deal with dozens and dozens of domestic disputes during their careers and the threatening of another family member with a knife is certainly not unusual, especially where siblings are concerned. And to take that as an indicator that someone is a knife-wealding series killer is, frankly, rather ridiculous.

[Phil Carter]

...But as we don't even know the date at which it occurred, or how widely known the incident was we really cannot offer this speculative hypothesis as demonstrating anything at all.
Martin Fido

Hello Martin,

Thank you for this comment.
I conclude from this that as it is "speculative hypothesis" it would be wrong for anyone to use it as an example of Kosminski being violent towards women with any degree of certainty, no?

For if this is the example of any indication that could put Kosminski into the frame as a mutilator of women...it really isn't acceptable as it is indeed hypothetical speculation as it stands.
Again, thank you.

kindly

Phil

[TomTomKent]

Yes, it rather surprises me too, especially as Trevor is an ex-police officer.

Police officers deal with dozens and dozens of domestic disputes during their careers and the threatening of another family member with a knife is certainly not unusual, especially where siblings are concerned. And to take that as an indicator that someone is a knife-wealding series killer is, frankly, rather ridiculous.

Not being in any way an experienced as a Police Officer, I have no idea how useful it would be to work backwards from an identified killer to trace back through their history to key turning points, presumably like the threatening of the sister. I know some writers havd done something like this for Fred West for example, suggesting (to a greater or lesser extent depending on the writer) that falling off a motorbike or being b-slapped by a girl insisting no most definately means no may have been "turning points".

However, Kozminski is NOT the identified killer, and it would appear far too selective to simply look at the mans past and choose moments we think seem like the Ripper. With that method we could no doubt build a case for anybody. It should be considered carefully how many people screamed "I could kill you!" Or waved a knife around in a spurt of anger who were not the Ripper.

That was all a very long way of agreeing that no, we can't put too much weight on it with out evidence of context or significance. If that makes a jot of sense.

[Phil Carter]

....it would appear far too selective to simply look at the mans past and choose moments we think seem like the Ripper. With that method we could no doubt build a case for anybody....

Hello Tom,

Indeed, one again is reminded of the Michael Caine line "Do you want the killer or will anybody do".

In my honest opinion, there just isn't enough evidence against Kosminski as a murderer.

kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Just trying to work out the many views in my head, and some posts refer to Kozminski-ites as a single group who all back Kozzy as a suspect. But some of those (for example your self) seem to be discussing not why THEY thought Kozzy was a suspect, but why Anderson, Swanson or the MM point towards Kozzy. I just wondered if there is some reason that distinction is not made?

I am assuming some members self identify as Kozminski-ites, rather than the term being an insult applied to others. I don't want to misuse the term and step on toes.

Ah! Okay. Basically, "Kosminski-ite" is an insult, although that may a little too strong, but along with the sibling "Anderson-ite", it implies a closed-minded acceptance of what Anderson wrote and of "Kosminski" as the Ripper. In my case, as Anderson was head of the C.I.D. then I assume he must have known the evidence against all the serious suspects, that from the evidence available that he was as informed and reliable a historical source as many that we have, and that we should therefore take seriously what he says and that "Kosminski" is the prime suspect for research. What I have italicised is often overlooked. Others, however, have concluded that Anderson was anything from and out-and-out liar through anti-Semite to geriatrically confused. Obviously those who think Anderson was a liar or confused or mistaken attach little or no credence to what he says, whilst those who don't accepted the those arguments but feel, as I do, that Anderson voiced genuine suspicions, do give him credence, albeit not necessarily believing that Anderson was right. The conflict therefore makes it look as if one is anti-Anderson whilst the other is pro-Anderson, one vehemently biased against and the other equally vehemently biased for. I am in the difficult position of not having made up my mind - as I once observed in another context, I'm on the fence and have been there so long I'm developing piles - and am still studying the evidence or, rather, waiting for evidence to emerge.

[Garry Wroe]

It is clear that Paul's critique does nothing to explain Swanson's errors: it is as blankly hoping for some simpler explanation as Don's, though he strengthens his position with another argument that I don't accept, that Schwartz was as likely to have been Anderson's witness as Lawende

Given the quality and duration of the respective Schwartz and Lawende sightings, Martin, I never fail to be amazed at the ease with which Schwartz is dismissed as Anderson's mystery witness. If Anderson really did believe Lawende to have been the only person who ever got a good view of the killer, his judgement and thus his credibility must be called into question.

But there again, Anderson stated no such thing. It is the majority of modern observers that has arrived at such a conclusion.

Nice to see you back, anyway.