Plausibility of Kosminski

[Fleetwood Mac]

No, I'm not accusing Swanson of anything.

Great. Then you must agree that there's a very good chance that there was a positive ID. Unless, of course, you're saying that Swanson misinterpreted the suspect/witness encounter, i.e. he read into it something that wasn't there; which is an accusation of an inability to intrepret a simple interaction between two human beings.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, you didn't answer the question as you why you accuse the Police of the time of naiveity.

That was side stepped.

By all means, follow Cornwells technique and use modern methods. I'd be interested to see how that progresses the case. As far as I can tell it has not. Not one jot.

And no, you did not use modern techinques to promote a suspect. However you did to promote a pet theory which, frankly speaking, raises more questions than answers.

Monty

On a par with Kosminsky then although I dont think Kosminski ever murdered anyone did he ?

[Chris]

Great. Then you must agree that there's a very good chance that there was a positive ID. Unless, of course, you're saying...

I've already explained precisely what I'm saying, and you know perfectly well that I do not agree that there was a positive ID.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I've already explained precisely what I'm saying, and you know perfectly well that I do not agree that there was a positive ID.

Yes, and you claimed the 'embellishment' as the most likely scenario.

Which, contrary to your previous post, is an accusation against Swanson.

Anyway, time to finally knock it on the head as it's going nowhere.

[PaulB]

Chris and Mac,
A very small question, if you have a source which makes an unverifiable claim then the usual rule is “if in doubt, leave it out”, but when there is a paucity of relevant source material and one cannot afford to do that, the course of action is to assess the credibility of the source. If the source is credible, at what point do you think it becomes acceptable to alter what the source says, discount bits, accept bits, and otherwise “manipulate” what it says?

[Chris]

Yes, and you claimed the 'embellishment' as the most likely scenario.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. I have tried to choose my words carefully, and I have not suggested that Swanson "embellished" his account.

By all means let's end this dialogue. But for heaven's sake don't come back with one final misrepresentation of what I have said!

[Chris]

A very small question, if you have a source which makes an unverifiable claim then the usual rule is “if in doubt, leave it out”, but when there is a paucity of relevant source material and one cannot afford to do that, the course of action is to assess the credibility of the source. If the source is credible, at what point do you think it becomes acceptable to alter what the source says, discount bits, accept bits, and otherwise “manipulate” what it says?

I'm not really sure what you mean. What Swanson wrote obviously contains errors of fact, so it's not wholly credible. I think we just have to bear that in mind in trying to interpret it, and do the best we can.

[Monty]

On a par with Kosminsky then although I dont think Kosminski ever murdered anyone did he ?

We do not know Trevor, either way.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

Ah. I missed that. A spirited defence of Rob House, but I don't know what to say about the claim that your book is crap, except the claim clearly doesn't merit anything being said. Which is perhaps why nobody did. Every discussion of Anderson leads to nastiness. It's best to bow out of them.

Thanks for that Paul, as a 'spirited defence of Rob House' it's okay. I take it that you also missed him calling me a liar and a hypocrite on these threads?

[PaulB]

Thanks for that Paul, as a 'spirited defence of Rob House' it's okay. I take it that you also missed him calling me a liar and a hypocrite on these threads?

No, it most certainly isn't okay and I didn't say or mean to imply that it was. I merely observed that he made a spirited defence of Rob House and went on to make comments about your book that were indefensible. And yes, I did miss him calling you a liar and hypocrite on these boards, otherwise I'd have waded in in your defence. We've had our disagreements, but your honesty and sincerity has never at any time been remotely in question. I was only intermittently on the boards and only then for relatively short periods, so I didn't follow all the exchanges I'm afraid. That's why I was taken aback by the brief reference made earlier. I don't particularly like accusations of bias, as you know, but it doesn't in any sense justify calling your book crap, which it wasn't/isn't, especially when one can appreciate the difficulty of researching a name from a passing reference.

[PaulB]

I'm not really sure what you mean. What Swanson wrote obviously contains errors of fact, so it's not wholly credible. I think we just have to bear that in mind in trying to interpret it, and do the best we can.

Well, it contains a major error of fact insofar as Aaron Kosminski did not die soon after committal. What other errors do you have in mind?

[Chris]

Well, it contains a major error of fact insofar as Aaron Kosminski did not die soon after committal. What other errors do you have in mind?

The other one is Stepney Workhouse for Mile End Old Town Workhouse. Of course, I'm aware of the argument about MEOT Workhouse being in Stepney, which makes it an understandable error, but it's an error nonetheless.

[Chris]

I see the nonsense on jtrforums.com is still rumbling on. Really my patience with this has run out now.

Let me make this crystal clear. The Ripper research I've done has been done in my own time and at my own expense. I have no obligation to tell anyone what I find out, and no one has any right whatsoever to criticise me or complain about how much I reveal, or when or where I choose to reveal it.

So far I have been posting the results of that research on Casebook. Whether I shall continue to do that remains to be seen. At the moment I doubt it.

[The Good Michael]

I see the nonsense on jtrforums.com is still rumbling on. Really my patience with this has run out now.

Let me make this crystal clear. The Ripper research I've done has been done in my own time and at my own expense. I have no obligation to tell anyone what I find out, and no one has any right whatsoever to criticise me or complain about how much I reveal, or when or where I choose to reveal it.

So far I have been posting the results of that research on Casebook. Whether I shall continue to do that remains to be seen. At the moment I doubt it.

Chris,

In my 7 or 8 (or more?) years on this site, in the off and on manner in which I've attended these boards, I've never seen you post anything less than thoughtful. Neither have I seen you ask for credit for any articles you;ve brought forth. As a man in Tajikstan with no books and no libraries and no English (or German or Spanish) bookstores, let me say I appreciate what you bring to the table. This goes for everyone really who posts snippets, like Stewart always does. I am dependent upon you guys for anything new or anything just plain new to me. For we Tajiks, keep it coming.

Mike

[PaulB]

I see the nonsense on jtrforums.com is still rumbling on. Really my patience with this has run out now.

Let me make this crystal clear. The Ripper research I've done has been done in my own time and at my own expense. I have no obligation to tell anyone what I find out, and no one has any right whatsoever to criticise me or complain about how much I reveal, or when or where I choose to reveal it.

So far I have been posting the results of that research on Casebook. Whether I shall continue to do that remains to be seen. At the moment I doubt it.

My fear, alas.