Plausibility of Kosminski

[tji]

And if I've never patronized you, Tracy, I hope that hasn't made you feel left out.

Lol, I'll live


tj

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Here I am.

What would you like to know?

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Simon,

Phil mentioned that the article you posted has repercussions on the Macnaghten 3, and I was wondering if you felt the same and what those repercussions are.

On a side note, I'm curious if you've read parts one and two of "Melville Macnaghten Revisited' by Jonathan Hainsworth in a couple of the past Casebook Examiners.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Regarding the Macnaghten Three, the repercussions from the 26th February 1892 Western Mail article are manifestly obvious.

Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog are toast. They're a lost cause.

Yes, I've read JH's Macnaghten articles. I have to say that for a history teacher he is worryingly imaginative.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

I apologise for the delay in replying.

The Member of Parliament for Oldham was being given to believe "on the authority of a Scotland Yard detective" that "The suspected criminal, till within a month at any rate, has been shadowed night and day, awake and asleep, by Scotland Yard detectives." This from February 1892.

By January 1892 Kosminski had been in Colney Hatch for almost a year. Druitt was dead and Ostrog, as we know, cannot have been the Ripper. Sadler, as is known, is also out of the picture.

Now, I may be totally stupid.. probably am.. but what has this got to do with the Mac3 you ask?

It's obvious. If the three named "more likely suspects" wrote about in 1894 are out of the picture, according to the word of an informed Member of Parliament... what price the Macnaughten Memoranda?

It becomes a curioso. By dint of that, so does the Swanson Marginalia, and by dint of his pencilled curioso, the naming of Kosminski. What price Anderson's thoughts without any back up from Swanson's annotations to confirm when the MM, the FIRST of the wayward three pieces, when that is made to look pointless? And the name that Swanson provides is shown to be a non-runner as well?

You see, it doesn't actually matter whom the police were following.. but the fact they were following someone rules out all the known names accounted for before February 1892.

Goodnight Kosminski. Goodnight Druitt. Goodnight Ostrog.

No doubt, says this old fart and cynic, someone is going to try "the MP must have been mis-quoted and or was lying" line? Because if anyone does that... Farquaharson slots into that frame too. Or was it the "detective at Scotland Yard" that was misquoted, or lying? Enter stage right all thoughts on detectives/ policemen at Scotland Yard and their comments. Same bucket.

Like I said Tom, this merry-go-round has to stop sometime. It is time now, I believe, to draw a line under the Macnaughten trio. Goodnight, goodbye and rest in peace, Messrs Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog.
(and anyone else under lock and key or detention before February 1892)

It is, as Simon states, strikingly obvious. Toast. Long past the sell-by date.


kindly

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

I guess it wasn't "strikingly obvious" to me, as the reporter got his dates completely wrong. And yes it does matter which suspect this refers to, because since Le Grand was already languishing in prison by 1892, the reporter obviously misunderstood the detective and is referring to the time prior to Le Grand's conviction in 1891.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Well.. there are plenty of comments from Senior police officers at the time to rule out the Mac 3 as well.. like I posted ages ago. This is just another example of the situation at the time.

Comments from Anderson, Monro, Arnold, Reid, Smith, Abberline, Griffiths, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all infact...that all conclude at some time or another that the police had no idea whom the killer was. Now, are we going to start discussing that the police were not in agreement on that point too? It's from the collective horse's mouth.

The reporter misunderstood the detective? What about the MP.. Did he?

The line must be drawn. Until someone comes up with something far more tangible, anyone known to have been suspected but locked away or dead by Feb 1892 must simply be ruled out.. because the police were still saying the Ripper wasn't caught after that. There is simply no argument to it.

Toast. Especially in 1894 and the MM three. That includes Kosminski. The title of the thread is about the plausibility of Kosminski. Toast.


kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Tom,

I apologise for the delay in replying.

The Member of Parliament for Oldham was being given to believe "on the authority of a Scotland Yard detective" that "The suspected criminal, till within a month at any rate, has been shadowed night and day, awake and asleep, by Scotland Yard detectives." This from February 1892.

By January 1892 Kosminski had been in Colney Hatch for almost a year. Druitt was dead and Ostrog, as we know, cannot have been the Ripper. Sadler, as is known, is also out of the picture.

Now, I may be totally stupid.. probably am.. but what has this got to do with the Mac3 you ask?

It's obvious. If the three named "more likely suspects" wrote about in 1894 are out of the picture, according to the word of an informed Member of Parliament... what price the Macnaughten Memoranda?

It becomes a curioso. By dint of that, so does the Swanson Marginalia, and by dint of his pencilled curioso, the naming of Kosminski. What price Anderson's thoughts without any back up from Swanson's annotations to confirm when the MM, the FIRST of the wayward three pieces, when that is made to look pointless? And the name that Swanson provides is shown to be a non-runner as well?

You see, it doesn't actually matter whom the police were following.. but the fact they were following someone rules out all the known names accounted for before February 1892.

Goodnight Kosminski. Goodnight Druitt. Goodnight Ostrog.

No doubt, says this old fart and cynic, someone is going to try "the MP must have been mis-quoted and or was lying" line? Because if anyone does that... Farquaharson slots into that frame too. Or was it the "detective at Scotland Yard" that was misquoted, or lying? Enter stage right all thoughts on detectives/ policemen at Scotland Yard and their comments. Same bucket.

Like I said Tom, this merry-go-round has to stop sometime. It is time now, I believe, to draw a line under the Macnaughten trio. Goodnight, goodbye and rest in peace, Messrs Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog.
(and anyone else under lock and key or detention before February 1892)

It is, as Simon states, strikingly obvious. Toast. Long past the sell-by date.


kindly

Phil

How nice it would be if this optimism touched on reality, but alas we are dealing with suspects, a fact which is so frequently overlooked. Melville Macnaghten wrote about suspects. Swanson wrote about a suspect. Only Anderson, typically, wrote of a suspect with certainty. And they wrote in 1913, 1910, and at uncertain post-1910 date, and any suspect who emerged during their time in office would have been known to and been considered by them, and they would, presumably, have revised their opinions according to whatever new arguments and evidence presented themselves.

The sad reality is that as much as I would love my one-time employer to be providing the clue that ends the speculation, it doesn't. It just adds another suspect to the list, and once again we haven't the remotest idea what the evidence was on which the suspicion was based and can't even begin to assess it's worth and the probability of the conclusion being correct.

It shouldn't be necessary to point this out, but this is not and never has been about one of the Macnaghten Three being Jack the Ripper - even allowing that one of them was, two of them can't have been - nor has it been whether Chapman or Tumblety or Cutbush or anyone else was, it's about why they were suspected. That, for the most part, is what we don't know.

So, sorry, the Western Mail article doesn't turn these suspects into toast. It just means that the police weren't certain, weren't agreed, and continued to entertain suspicions and pursue suspects. But we knew that already, didn't we?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

No.. the Western Mail clip may not do it alone, but the comments from many Senior policemen at the time back up the Western Mail, as do other newspaper clips from the time.

You have written your opinion. I have written mine. Others can do the same. I respect yours. I do not agree with it. Others can make their own minds up about this.

I just honestly believe that Ripperology is no longer served by keeping the validity of the MM going any longer. Therefore it is time, again in my honest opinion, to stop the merry-go-round.

Kosminski is a no-evidence suspect, and unless anyone can produce anything different, will forever remain so. The comments of many policemen put the MM to bed. Other suspects, Cohen and Le Grande, included. But that is for another thread.

For me personally, there is no further point in discussing it. Flogging a dead horse, is the terminology I would use. Kosminski? Toast. Once burning hot.. now cold and hard and all crust.

kindly

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Consider the identity of the reporter.

Hi Paul,

You're too trusting, too uncritical of the cops. Try moving out of your comfort zone.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Hi Tom,

Consider the identity of the reporter.

Hi Paul,

You're too trusting, too uncritical of the cops. Try moving out of your comfort zone.

Regards,

Simon

I knew somebody would say that. Where do these trite little phrases like "comfort zone" come from when applied to historical investigation? And what on earth does it have to do with you and Phil thinking an 1892 newspaper report turns into toast police theories expressed in 1910 and 1913? Moreover, I'm far from uncritical or the sources. Anyway, the point still remains: we ain't got toast yet; the bread's not even faintly browned.

[Phil Carter]

... we ain't got toast yet; the bread's not even faintly browned.

Hello ,Paul,

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

In my opinion, the "bread" of the MM got browned off long ago.


kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

No.. the Western Mail clip may not do it alone, but the comments from many Senior policemen at the time back up the Western Mail, as do other newspaper clips from the time.

You have written your opinion. I have written mine. Others can do the same. I respect yours. I do not agree with it. Others can make their own minds up about this.

I just honestly believe that Ripperology is no longer served by keeping the validity of the MM going any longer. Therefore it is time, again in my honest opinion, to stop the merry-go-round.

Kosminski is a no-evidence suspect, and unless anyone can produce anything different, will forever remain so. The comments of many policemen put the MM to bed. Other suspects, Cohen and Le Grande, included. But that is for another thread.

For me personally, there is no further point in discussing it. Flogging a dead horse, is the terminology I would use. Kosminski? Toast. Once burning hot.. now cold and hard and all crust.

kindly

Phil

Phil,
People can indeed make up their own minds, but they deserve to do so on the basis of accurate information and a proper understanding of the questions. What we know that in 1910 and 1913 respectively two informed and intelligent policemen expressed their opinion about the identity of Jack the Ripper. We have absolutely no idea which of them or if either of them was right because we have no idea of the evidence on which their opinions were based and therefore can't begin to assess it. You, however, are saying that these 20th-century expressed suspicions/beliefs are toast because of an 1892 newspaper article supported by the opinion of other policemen we've always known about and some unspecified newspaper reports. You are saying this makes the post-1910 notes of Swanson a mere curiosity.

Fine. Except it doesn't. Nobody was charged, nobody stood trial, nobody was convicted. The crime was unsolved. No matter what Anderson believed, no matter what Macnaghten believed, no matter what anybody believed, it was an unsolved crime and therefore the police would have continued to investigate. They investigated Sadler to the full-extent of their abilities. And Grainger. And the man in the 1892 newspaper report. And anyone else who came within their ken, because they knew beliefs could be wrong. But that wouldn't have altered the what they believed and continued to believe, apparently until they died.

[PaulB]

Hello ,Paul,

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

In my opinion, the "bread" of the MM got browned off long ago.


kindly

Phil

Opinion doesn't count for much, I'm afraid.

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

I agree with Paul

I think that you are over-inflating the significance of a single source, which is not a police source after all.

The 'West of England' MP is differtent because it meatches other sources, in fact explains other sources. This one, arguably, does not.

Of course, why pay attention to me when I have just now -- this afternoon no less -- yet again poisined the critical faculties of another bunch of young people by misleading them about history and its methodolgies.

At least that is what I do according to a previous, bitchy poster (predictably no specifics are mentioned, whatsoever, as to what is flawed about my theory). And I'm being attacked for over-reaching with very little?

Lets us say, Phil, that this source is correct; that the police were realy watching this guy night and day, and so on in 1891 or 1892.

I would argue, as I have before, that since Macnaghten did not tell anybody about Druitt, and must have worried about an innocent being mistaken for a murderer he knew was deceased, that he held the tale of the mad masturbator in readiness -- in case he needed to give his loathed superior something to keep his ego happy.

The agitation over Grainger in 1895, who was allegedly positively identified by Lawende, was that moment. Sure enough, later that year -- and for the first time -- we see a confident Anderson forthrightly proclaiming that the Ripper was a locked-up lunatic, with Swasnon claiming it was a man who was dead.

Both of them do not really describe Aaron Kosminski, then or later, but rather a figure who appars to be a fictitious variant of that real person, eg. he wasn't on the prowl for a brief time and he certainly wasn't dead.

We know that Macnaghten was capable of deliberately fictionalising his preferred suspect because Griffiths changed 'family' into 'friends', and so did Sims without Mac stopping him. Mac via sims further spun the druitt story towards fiction in the Edwardian Era. I see no similar, conscious behavior on the part of Swanson and/or Anderson.