Plausibility of Kosminski

[Trevor Marriott]

Great to see Martin taking part in the debate. The reason that I used the Sugden quote, that I did, is that it sums up, I feel, pretty well the problems with memory and writing reminiscences many years after the events. I do not totally agree with what Sugden extrapolated from that premise.

What has always struck me as an incredible coincidence is the fact that over a year after any Ripper type scare we have the detention of Kosminski on 4 February 1891, and his discharge to Colney Hatch on 7 February 1891. Then, within a week, we have the Ripper type murder of Frances Coles (which was initially thought by the police to possibly be another Ripper murder, and quoted by the press as such). On or around 17 February, just ten days after Kosminski's admission into Colney Hatch, we have an attempted identification of a suspect, Sadler, as the Ripper by a Jewish witness. It all happened within a couple of weeks in February 1891.

That is truly very coincidental, especially as Anderson's unidentified claimed identification of his suspect (almost certainly Aaron Kosminski if Swanson is correct) by a Jewish witness failed as the witness 'refused to swear' to it. So Kosminski is detained, never to be released, on the 4th and within a couple of weeks a Jewish witness attempts to identify a suspect as Jack the Ripper.

This, of course, does not mean (or prove) that there was not a second identification of a suspect (Kosminski) by a Jewish witness but that does not alter the fact of the incredible coincidence. Nor does it alter the fact that if the identification claimed by Anderson took place, as described, there has never been any independent confirmation of that identification, official or otherwise, beyond the 1910 Anderson book, owned by Swanson, with its annotations.

Nice to see you agreeing with me Stewart

[robhouse]

Hi Stewart,
I would just like to add to what Martin has said that whilst the quoted extract from Phil is clearly true, it is also widely accepted that the core of a story, it's raison detre if you like, doesn't generally change. In other words, whilst memory can be bad about chronology and details of what a person saw and heard in Dallas at 12:30pm on 22 November 1963 as President Kennedy's car rolled through the street, President Kennedy's car did roll through the Dallas streets and he was assassinated. The same applies to Anderson: the identification of the Polish Jew may not have been positive as Anderson remembered, the Polish Jew's guilt by no means as certain as he says, the probability is that there was a Polish Jew and he was identified. I think Phil's brother's second volume on Nelson is out this month from Michael Joseph. Another book for the already groaning shelf. And I must drop Don an email to let him know.

I agree with this statement 100%, and indeed this aspect of how memory works has frequently been glossed over or not discussed much at all. In my opinion, people tend to forget details that are not very important. They do not tend to forget big things that are very important, especially events that are important in the life of a person who experienced it. You are not likely to forget that you went to your brother's wedding, or that you were in a car accident. I will not ever forget that the ball went through Bill Buckner's legs in the 1986 world Series, although I do not remember any of the less important details of that fateful inning.

RH

[Phil Carter]

Yes, silly me, I thought a cartel was a small cart.

Hello Stewart,

I thought a cartel (as in the English form of the French "elle") was a singular female cart. The plural being cartelles....

I could use the line "Paint your wagon" and bring in Lee Marvin somehow, but instead see a similarity with

"locking the stable door after the horse had bolted"...


kindly

Phil

[GregBaron]

I know he's the one!

It seems we humans are not great recorders of information and what ability we do have decreases with age. I believe our imaginations, perhaps our greatest attribute as a species, are a drawback when it comes to remembering things accurately.

I recently heard a piece on public radio which demonstrated that in eyewitness identifications, if for example we only caught a glimpse of a face, given a lapse of a short period of time, our minds will perform a fill in the blanks for the missing details. In other words, we may craft a nose from the endless array of noses in our memory banks and most telling of all, we believe in the veracity of the face we have now reconstructed (as the one witnessed). Put before an identity parade or police lineup as we say in the States, if someone has that fat smashed nose we pulled from our heads and the other features tend to agree with what we do remember (which may or may not be accurate), we may falsely but confidently point to a person and say “he’s the one.” This has been demonstrated scientifically. Scary huh? And we wonder why we get conflicting descriptions from the Autumn of Terror…………

I wouldn’t be surprised if this same fill in the blanks process not only occurs with eyewitness identifications but with past events. We have so much in our heads from seeing, thinking, dreaming and reading that things can become fused; we may fuse them subconsciously but the resulting story – now more complete – is something we wholeheartedly believe in. I could give examples from my own mind but at this point I don’t think it’s necessary.

Now this offering is not meant to excuse Anderson or Swanson or cast doubt on their truthfulness. I just found this radio piece to be very intriguing and I believe the evidence is piling up from the world of science that people are generally terrible witnesses. There are exceptions of course and everyone remembers differently depending on what intrigues them and what mindset they bring to the table but that’s another discussion for another time.

Hope this isn’t hijacking the thread but I just wanted to throw something out there (in cahoots with Mr. Stewart and Mr. Fido’s discussion of memory) that might help explain why this case is such a confounding drama of smoke and mirrors………..

P.S. If you want to record an event or a face, use your Iphone……….!

Greg

[Chris]

I fail to see the relevance of this, nor indeed how it contradicts anything I have stated.

You fail to see how Levy's statement "I cannot give any description of either of them" contradicts your claim that Levy "provided a description" of the couple?

[Phil Carter]

Anderson: Doing anything special today Swanson?

Swanson: No sir.

Anderson: Why don't we try another identification?

or...


Swanson?

Yes Sir?

Doing anything special today?

No sir

Right.. well carry on then. It's in the traditions of the old department you know. That'll confuse 'em. And by the way, try and get Melville Mac to dream up something.. should keep the historians happy in a few years time... but tell him to keep our informants out of it.. we don't want anybody thinking we have a cartel do we now.

No sir

Right.. I'm off to write my memoirs. Got any juicy stories I can use?

I heard a good one at the Seaside home sir....

Which one?

Can't remember sir.. could be "Bloody Bognor"..



kindly

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Appreciate

Hi Stewart,
I would just like to add to what Martin has said that whilst the quoted extract from Phil is clearly true, it is also widely accepted that the core of a story, it's raison detre if you like, doesn't generally change. In other words, whilst memory can be bad about chronology and details of what a person saw and heard in Dallas at 12:30pm on 22 November 1963 as President Kennedy's car rolled through the street, President Kennedy's car did roll through the Dallas streets and he was assassinated. The same applies to Anderson: the identification of the Polish Jew may not have been positive as Anderson remembered, the Polish Jew's guilt by no means as certain as he says, the probability is that there was a Polish Jew and he was identified. I think Phil's brother's second volume on Nelson is out this month from Michael Joseph. Another book for the already groaning shelf. And I must drop Don an email to let him know.

Hi Paul, I appreciate what you are saying, and, obviously, there was a Polish Jew suspect named 'Kosminski', it's the alleged identification that I am not at all happy about. I have the first volume of the Sugden Nelson biography, must get the second thanks for the tip.

[Stewart P Evans]

Irrelevant

A rear view, Stewart, that would have allowed Schwartz to better judge crucial investigative factors such as Broad Shoulders’ height, physique, gait and degree of sobriety.

'Crucial investigative factors' or not, they would be irrelevant to any identification two years later which would rely solely on facial recognition to be positive. And there is no reason to think that Lawende's sighting was remarkably different to that of Schwartz.

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

...
And neither do you. But since Schwartz crossed the road to avoid Stride and her attacker, he was likely less than the width of the street away. He was certainly close enough to note Broad Shoulders’ full face and dark moustache. Close enough, too, for Broad Shoulders to recognize him as a Jew, hence the cry of ‘Lipski!’

No I don't, but then I'm not claiming that Lawende had a much better sighting than Schwartz.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not read...

...
I have no problem whatsoever with you disagreeing with me. But the argument that I must be wrong purely because I fail to concur with Mr Sugden’s conclusions is wholly lacking in intellectual legitimacy. To my mind, it is the stuff of the kindergarten.
...

You have obviously not read and understood what I said. The problem is that you come across as such a know it all that you attract such comparisons in order to show you that someone better qualified than you, in my opinion, reaches an opposite conclusion. It's pointless me stating it as you believe that I have not attained your intellectual level, and you also believe that my arguments lack 'intellectual legitimacy'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not at all

...
Oh, I see, Stewart. So we arrive at a conclusion and then reshape the evidence such that it conforms with that conclusion. This being the case, you might care to familiarize yourself with ‘confirmation bias.’ I fail to see the relevance of this, nor indeed how it contradicts anything I have stated.
As far as I’m aware, Stewart, you entered into this debate of your own free will. If you wish to turn your back on it, that’s your choice. For my part, I do not consider a re-examination of opinions to be ‘pointless’, particularly when the evidence which underpins those opinions is far from conclusive.

Not at all. We obviously don't agree and that's fine with me. But it would be much better if you stated your conclusions as your opinion rather than given facts.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Martin,

Fair points about delusional geriatrics and the pranks memory can play.

However, we are prisoners of our own beliefs in the mystery of JtR. Unconsciously, perhaps, we want the mystery to remain just so, and to this end have ingeniously wrung dry every argument in the Anderson v Macnaghten v Littlechild v Swanson v Abberline saga - variations on the premise that they were all telling the truth as they understood it, but that misremembering, confusion and the conflation of facts were contributory factors in their opinions, recollections and memoirs being recorded in later life.

Irrespective of which police officer is to be believed, none of them bothered to reveal the solution to the others . . .

Such tiresome nonsense gets us absolutely nowhere. Given much more we'll all soon end up drooling over our basket-weaving in the "Kosminski Suite" at Colney Hatch.

There is, however, one question which is studiously avoided. This is because, for a variety of reasons, it is considered antithetical to our understanding of the subject, if not downright taboo.

Were the SY5 actually telling the truth as they understood it?

Despite our best efforts we still only think we know what the Whitechapel murders were all about, so it is perfectly feasible that, for reasons we cannot yet possibly comprehend, in leaving history with this insoluble mystery the SY5 were collaboratively misleading.

The Whitechapel murders mystery may be short on recorded facts, but it is not wholly impervious to cool, impartial examination plus the application of logic and good common sense. And so if we're really serious about playing fair by history in solving this mystery, now might be a good moment to free ourselves from the ball and chain of our unwavering trust in the SY5 and see what revelations emerge.

The alternative is a safe worry-free padded cell in Colney Hatch.

Kind regards,

Simon

[GregBaron]

The Ripper Nuthouse...

Given much more we'll all soon end up drooling over our basket-weaving in the "Kosminski Suite" at Colney Hatch.

I must say this is perhaps the funniest thing I’ve ever read on Casebook. It tore me up.


Simon is probably right. I can see one day having our own Ripperogist wing at Colney Hatch from which money generating tours are given.

“And over here ladies and gentlemen, we have the Kozminsky wing, notice how they grovel on the floor searching for crumbs while simultaneously masturbating…”

“To the West we have the Druittists, they enjoy playing cricket and diving in the pool at midnight”

“Down the hall and to our left you’ll find the Hutchinsonians – they are fond of standing in the rain staring at the wall”

“In the East Wing we have the Cross/Lechmere cartel, they all own wheelbarrows and like to guide them aimlessly about the yard”

On and on and on…..

It’s very amusing but the point is well taken. If people keep trying to squeeze juice from a withered lemon we’ll get no lemonade……………..what is that definition of insanity……doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result…..Hmmmm…

But thanks very much for the laugh Simon….

Greg

[PaulB]

Hi Paul, I appreciate what you are saying, and, obviously, there was a Polish Jew suspect named 'Kosminski', it's the alleged identification that I am not at all happy about. I have the first volume of the Sugden Nelson biography, must get the second thanks for the tip.

Yes, it's a major problem and one perhaps underestimated, yet I have no real difficulty in supposing that there was an identification and that Anderson blew it way out of proportion. That's like somebody being in the crowd just after the Kennedy car had passed by, who didn't see any part of the assassination, but later is convinced and tells everyone that they did. That's essentially what Phil Sugden is saying memory does; it exaggerates things. But to invent an identification that never took place or to confuse the non-identification of a Gentile sailor by a Jewish witness, with a positive eye-witness identification of a Jewish hairdresser by a Jewish witness, seems to me to be pushing the edges of the bubble too far. Especially in a case of this significance.

Don very generously sent me a copy of the first mammoth part. Talk about deeply researched! No wonder Pt.2 has been so long coming.
Paul

[PaulB]

There is, however, one question which is studiously avoided. This is because, for a variety of reasons, it is considered antithetical to our understanding of the subject, if not downright taboo.
Were the SY5 actually telling the truth as they understood it?

Simon,
You should know better than most that it's far from taboo; the very first thing asked of any source is whether it is reliable, and one seeks the answer in whatever ways that are open to one. Nobody just plucked one of those sources from the shelf and accepted that what was said was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. On the contrary, advancing knowledge and understanding comes from the process of constantly questioning and testing sources like these.

Paul