Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

There is a big difference between suspecting or getting anywhere near to being in a positon to prove it. You keep banging on about the police officials relative to Kosminski who thought he was a suspect clearly they are all at sea with the facts and you have Martin Fido one of the looked upon demi gods of ripperolgy stating that Kosminski wasnt the ripper. So why when anyone pours water on your fire do you keep coming out with perhaps this and perhaps that you are clearly clutching at straws let the fire burn out you could finish up getting your fingers burnt. Remeber the old saying "A wink is as good as a nod to a blind man"

If you want to talk about police officials and suspects in the same context look at Tumblety and Littlechild in the SB registers he has clearly written "Obrien suspect for the whitechapel murders" yet he goes onto talk about another suspect. When are you going to accept the fact that none of these police officials who you hold in such high esteem knew who the killer was so what they didnt know they made up to appease whoever they were talking to or whatever book of memoirs they were involved with to avoid the embarrasment of being called failures

This whole Kosminski issue is being blow up out of all proportion. all the flaws in it have been highlighted many times. Perhaps we should look more closely at the names (surnames only) of the other police suspects named in the regsiters we could then go down the same route as everyone has gone with Kosminski and no doubt find oursleves where we are today

There is a big difference bewteen historians, reserachers and investigators as Stewart as previoulsy mentioned. That being said there is no reason why they should not all pool their resources but would overinflated egos allow for that. Its all about one upmanship trying to get one over on the other side and that how it comes across and that why so many people have come and gone from Casebook and what is left a handful of people chewing the cud on the same issues over and over again.

This Kosminski thread has been running for over a week now the issue was in the first place was Aaron Kosminski the ripper the answer is no so why is that same issue being flogged to death.

You clearly haven't mastered punctuation yet, but have you heard of it?

[TomTomKent]

Which actually raises the point that this isn't about whether "Kosminski" was the Ripper or not, it's about why three extant, tangible sources name him as a Ripper suspect (making the assumption that "Kosminski" was indeed Anderson's Polish Jew) and why at least one and perhaps two believed he was the Ripper. Belief or disbelief in Kosminski as the Ripper just confuses our assessment of the evidence.

I wouldn't say it confused anything as it is a completely seperate issue. If Kosminski, or which ever suspect Swanson called Kozminski were the Ripper is a completely different strand. That this thread has been running for a week shows most people are moreinterested in why he was a suspect than if he were guilty.

Mr M asks why not do the same for other suspects? Why make it sound like a bad thing? When did "solving" the Ripper murders become the only use of these discussions? When was any topic of discussion deemed unworthy, other than as a matter of taste?

[Stewart P Evans]

All we have

There is a big difference between suspecting or getting anywhere near to being in a positon to prove it. You keep banging on about the police officials relative to Kosminski who thought he was a suspect clearly they are all at sea with the facts and you have Martin Fido one of the looked upon demi gods of ripperolgy stating that Kosminski wasnt the ripper. So why when anyone pours water on your fire do you keep coming out with perhaps this and perhaps that you are clearly clutching at straws let the fire burn out you could finish up getting your fingers burnt. Remeber the old saying "A wink is as good as a nod to a blind man"
...

I'm afraid that all we have, indeed all we will ever have, are suspects. And anyone interested enough to bother will decide upon his own particular suspect preference based on his own opinion.

We are not, and never will be, 'getting anywhere near to being in a position to prove it.' So it's pointless to tell anyone that they are in that position, for we all are. People should take that fact on board. The sooner anyone realises that the identity of the Ripper can never be established the sooner they will improve their objectivity.

It's a bit unfair to pick on Martin and say that he 'one of the looked upon demi gods of Ripperology', although he might find that description flattering. He is, actually, a very talented writer and has done some excellent pioneering work in the field, which is why he is admired.

Paul has a similar status based on his books, the first one being one of the best centenary books (if not the best). He does not claim that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper. My main disagreement with both Martin and Paul, as they well know, is on the veracity and reliability of Anderson as a source.

[Stewart P Evans]

Patently obvious

...
If you want to talk about police officials and suspects in the same context look at Tumblety and Littlechild in the SB registers he has clearly written "Obrien suspect for the whitechapel murders" yet he goes onto talk about another suspect. When are you going to accept the fact that none of these police officials who you hold in such high esteem knew who the killer was so what they didnt know they made up to appease whoever they were talking to or whatever book of memoirs they were involved with to avoid the embarrasment of being called failures
...

It is patently obvious that there were many suspects with regard to the Whitechapel murders, some more serious than others.

A name in a register, or a mention, does not make someone a good suspect and, in fairness to Littlechild, he did not claim that Tumblety was the Ripper, nor that he believed him to be. What he did say was that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and 'to my mind a very likely one.' That is a long way from Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' or Macnaghten's 'incline to the belief'. Also, as he wasn't part of the ordinary CID and was not leading the hunt for the Ripper I doubt that the fact the Ripper wasn't caught would reflect upon him personally.

[TomTomKent]

It is also worth pointing out that few of us who ask "what if" try to present speculation and discussion as evidence, proof or "the truth". There is little risk of fingers being burnt by talking about which log to throw onto the fire.

[Stewart P Evans]

Valid suspect

...
This whole Kosminski issue is being blow up out of all proportion. all the flaws in it have been highlighted many times. Perhaps we should look more closely at the names (surnames only) of the other police suspects named in the regsiters we could then go down the same route as everyone has gone with Kosminski and no doubt find oursleves where we are today
...

The 'whole Kosminski issue' will always be with us. For his is a valid suspect named by senior police (CID) officers involved in the investigation.

Names in registers, Special Branch or not, will always be just that - names in registers. (I do hope that is not the sum total of your 'new evidence' Trevor). From the one or two entries I have seen in the registers it is not at all clear as to whether the names are of the suspects or the informant or letter writer.

We will always be 'where we are today', you'd better learn to live with it Trev, that is if you wish to stay in the happy world of Ripper studies.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is patently obvious that there were many suspects with regard to the Whitechapel murders, some more serious than others.

A name in a register, or a mention, does not make someone a good suspect and, in fairness to Littlechild, he did not claim that Tumblety was the Ripper, nor that he believed him to be. What he did say was that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and 'to my mind a very likely one.' That is a long way from Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' or Macnaghten's 'incline to the belief'. Also, as he wasn't part of the ordinary CID and was not leading the hunt for the Ripper I doubt that the fact the Ripper wasn't caught would reflect upon him personally.

But those entries must be viewed in the same light as Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

Great

...
There is a big difference bewteen historians, reserachers and investigators as Stewart as previoulsy mentioned. That being said there is no reason why they should not all pool their resources but would overinflated egos allow for that. Its all about one upmanship trying to get one over on the other side and that how it comes across and that why so many people have come and gone from Casebook and what is left a handful of people chewing the cud on the same issues over and over again.
This Kosminski thread has been running for over a week now the issue was in the first place was Aaron Kosminski the ripper the answer is no so why is that same issue being flogged to death.

It's great that there are various people with different skills, experience and disciplines involved in the research and the debates. Paul consistently drives me to further research and the questioning of my own ideas and opinion from which I can only benefit.

I'd like to think that there are not too many 'over-inflated egos' around and I am sure that the reason for not making public all information is not misplaced egotism. There are a few people posting who have an over-inflated idea of their own importance, and intelligence for that matter. I like to call them 'intellectual bullies'. They are often recognised by using unnecessary long or obscure words, instead of plain English, and excessive use of 'techno-jargon' or 'psycho-babble'. What they don't realise is that people see right through them and what they see isn't very pleasant.

Personally, I think that many find these threads entertaining and informative, as well as thought-provoking. And if that is the case, then long may they last.

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

But those entries must be viewed in the same light as Kosminski

No, for how can a mere one or two line entry equate with what Macnaghten says in his February 1894 memorandum or what Anderson claims in his book or, indeed, what Swanson wrote in his copy of the Anderson book, no matter what the reasons are, for they are not established.

[Trevor Marriott]

The 'whole Kosminski issue' will always be with us. For his is a valid suspect named by senior police (CID) officers involved in the investigation.

Names in registers, Special Branch or not, will always be just that - names in registers. (I do hope that is not the sum total of your 'new evidence' Trevor). From the one or two entries I have seen in the registers it is not at all clear as to whether the names are of the suspects or the informant or letter writer.

Oh no its not the sum total .The registers clearly show that not only did the names appear in the regsiter but that those names were of sufficient interest to open individual files on each one

But the names are there in official police records just as Kosminski is named In The MM. and I can assure you they are suspect names. Its is a shame that the CID equivelant register has long since gone. To use one of Mr Beggs favourite words "Perhaps" it might have told us more.

We will always be 'where we are today', you'd better learn to live with it Trev, that is if you wish to stay in the happy world of Ripper studies.

Is this whats called being happy then I would hate to be here on miserable day

[Stewart P Evans]

Well...

Is this whats called being happy then I would hate to be here on miserable day

Well, the obvious answer to that is, 'What the hell are you doing here then?'

Personally, and especially when you are being amicable, I think that you are good and entertaining company.

[ChrisGeorge]

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier .... Ripperologist?

Well, after reading this thread, I could do with a nice cool Guinness!

[Trevor Marriott]

No, for how can a mere one or two line entry equate with what Macnaghten says in his February 1894 memorandum or what Anderson claims in his book or, indeed, what Swanson wrote in his copy of the Anderson book, no matter what the reasons are, for they are not established.

But all of those are highy questionable and The MM has proved to be inacurate. That makes a big difference. Tips the scales I would say but hey who I am I to say after all you yourself along side Martin and other members of the cartel are regarded a demi gods by some all I can say is that I hope I dont go to heaven

[robhouse]

Just an honest question. What exactly is meant by saying that the witness identification would be worthless in a legal sense. Stewart has said this a few times, and it is now being repeated like the gospel word by various people. But I honestly do not understand what you mean by this Stewart.

I do not disagree that it is highly unlikely that the witness would be able to positively ID Kozminski after say almost 2 years after the Mitre Square murder. And Lawende (who I also presume was probably the witness) said he doubted he could ID the man.

However, as you yourself stated (I think)... sometimes witnesses have stated that they could not recognize a person again, and then at the ID they actually are quite certain of the identification. Also, you said that a lawyer would make mincemeat of such an identification (I am paraphrasing).

This does not quite get to the point. If the witness had positively IDed the suspect, and been positive about it, then his identification would not be legally worthless. Yes, the defense lawyer would argue that a lot of time had passed, the witness did not get a good look, it was dark, etc. But still... that does not render the witness's testimony legally worthless. It is legally what it is. If the witness was indeed convinced, and stated emphatically that he was convinced, then this would carry a certain amount of authority.

Unless you are referring to some actual law that disqualifies the evidence of eyewitnesses after a certain amount of time has passed.

I am not saying here anything about the accuracy of witness identifications, which as we all know, are notoriously inaccurate generally, especially after time has passed.

Rob H

[Scott Nelson]

Rob, I think it all hinges on when the ID took place, before incarceration, or afterwards. Logically, for the scenario to take place as described, the suspect-witness confrontation had to occur before the suspect was certified insane. It's the only way he could have "hung."

But, of course, I believe in multiple identification attempts -- both before and after incarceration. Three, four...six...ten. The police just wouldn't give up, so they also used more than one witness.