Plausibility of Kosminski

[Phil H]

Physical impossibility. No, really. Cognitive neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has demonstrated with the fMRI what he calls the ‘somatic marker’, which means all information that humans become aware of are automatically attached to an emotion. Emotion is biologically indispensible to decisions.

What does this mean? We are all bias and we must constantly fight this in our minds in order to seek objectivity. It’s when we stop fighting this is when we get ourselves into trouble.

Ah! Is that so? Well, I'm also a devotee of "plain English".

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Give Up

Physical impossibility. No, really. Cognitive neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has demonstrated with the fMRI what he calls the ‘somatic marker’, which means all information that humans become aware of are automatically attached to an emotion. Emotion is biologically indispensible to decisions.
What does this mean? We are all bias and we must constantly fight this in our minds in order to seek objectivity. It’s when we stop fighting this is when we get ourselves into trouble.
Ah! Is that so? Well, I'm also a devotee of "plain English".
Phil

There is no reality, nothing is straightforward, there is no history, all is psycho babble, techno jargon and political correctness; there is no freedom of speech, there is no such thing as plain English, hidden meaning is rife, we are awash with agendas, memories are confused, I am confused..................I give up.

[Phil H]

I am confused..................I give up.

If you are, Stewart, then heaven help the rest of us.

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

I wish Stewart would get back to Tumblety and give us a hint......

[PaulB]

fMri is brain mapping; a brain scan measuring neural activity and stands for functional magnetic resonance imaging, which, I assume, shows that we are emotionally predisposed to interpreting data in certain ways, thus we cannot be a Vulcan coldly interpreting data. We must therefore be on our guard not to allow that emotional predisposition to colour our judgement. It's sort of proving what we've always known and which our professionalism guards against to a lesser or greater degree.

I think.

[Hunter]

Stewart.

Perfect timing!

You need to go on the road with this. You know exactly when to deliver the punch line....
LOL

[Stewart P Evans]

Thanks

fMri is brain mapping; a brain scan measuring neural activity and stands for functional magnetic resonance imaging, which, I assume, shows that we are emotionally predisposed to interpreting data in certain ways, thus we cannot be a Vulcan coldly interpreting data. We must therefore be on our guard not to allow that emotional predisposition to colour our judgement. It's sort of proving what we've always known and which our professionalism guards against to a lesser or greater degree.
I think.

Thanks for that Paul, I've read about that before, it's amazing what is on the 'net! But I always thought that my pointy ears meant I had Vulcan blood in me and that I had nothing to worry about...damn.

[PaulB]

Thanks for that Paul, I've read about that before, it's amazing what is on the 'net! But I always thought that my pointy ears meant I had Vulcan blood in me and that I had nothing to worry about...damn.

Yes, thank goodness for the net. It's not so much your pointed ears that I thought made you a Vulcan as your inclination to spread your middle fingers and say "Dif-tor heh smusma". Most people just say live long and prosper.

[Phil Carter]

But I always thought that my pointy ears meant I had Vulcan blood in me and that I had nothing to worry about...damn.

Illogical, Captain.


kindly

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Oh...

Yes, thank goodness for the net. It's not so much your pointed ears that I thought made you a Vulcan as your inclination to spread your middle fingers and say "Dif-tor heh smusma". Most people just say live long and prosper.

Oh, you saw me do that once? It's not Vulcan, it's just me babbling when I get confused.

[mklhawley]

fMri is brain mapping; a brain scan measuring neural activity and stands for functional magnetic resonance imaging, which, I assume, shows that we are emotionally predisposed to interpreting data in certain ways, thus we cannot be a Vulcan coldly interpreting data. We must therefore be on our guard not to allow that emotional predisposition to colour our judgement. It's sort of proving what we've always known and which our professionalism guards against to a lesser or greater degree.

I think.

What he said

[Stewart P Evans]

Klingons

Illogical, Captain.
kindly
Phil

Klingons on the starboard bow...starboard bow...starboard bow........................Star Trekkin' 'cross the Universe....

I'm gone......

[mklhawley]

Stewart,

I said, "No really", not "No reality".

[Garry Wroe]

There seem to two points being made here, one is Trevor's assertion that Macnaghten took the names from something such as a C.I.D. register or similar record …

My understanding of Trevor’s argument, Paul, is that any name which came to the attention of the authorities would have been entered in the files, but that this information included individuals who were named maliciously or fallaciously. In other words, the fact that a name was contained within the files is no guarantee that any serious suspicion was attached to it at the time of the murders. Later on, however, the files may have been reviewed and undue importance accorded to some of those names. At least, that’s my understanding of Trevor’s reasoning.

There is no reason to suppose that either Druitt or Kosminski emerged from a post-murders review of the available data. That's a theory, certainly, but we need evidence for it.

More a hypothesis than a theory, Paul. And nor do I consider that a review would have been restricted solely to the case files. There is the possibility that suicides were looked into, as well as prison and asylum intake records. But it is certainly interesting that the cessation of the murders features prominently in each of the arguments proposed by those officials who claimed to have established the killer’s identity. Macnaghten claimed that Kelly’s death and Druitt’s subsequent suicide were related events – ‘otherwise the murders would not have ceased.’ Swanson stated that, after Kosminski’s identification at the Seaside Home, ‘no other murder of this kind took place in London …’ And so on and so forth. But frankly, I would be astonished had an a posteriori review not occurred given the magnitude of the Ripper case and the determination of the authorities to bring the killer to justice. There again, as you say, it would be nice to have some evidence one way or the other.

I don't have any problem at all with the idea “that too much has been made of the contemporaneous suspects”, but it's Anderson and Macnaghten who elevated them to prime suspects in their respective memoirs. All people have been doing for the past 25-years is trying to figure out why.

Macnaghten’s case against Druitt is just about the most blatant example of speculation masquerading as fact that I have ever encountered. Kosminski is an entirely different issue, if only because Anderson’s claims are afforded a certain corroboration by Swanson. But then I refer you to a scenario I outlined earlier on this thread. If Kosminski really did fall under City suspicion, he must have been exonerated in order for Major Smith to have subsequently declared his ignorance regarding the murderer’s identity. So how is it that a short time later the Met managed to succeed where the City had failed? And why did this identification fail to convince any of the senior investigators other than Anderson and Swanson?

To my mind it is clear that Kosminski came to prominence only after the murders had ceased. The alternative is that the Met had specific evidence as to Kosminski’s dangerousness whilst the murders were in progress, yet failed to confront him with ‘the only witness who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Not only does this make no logical or operational sense, it casts those who led the investigation as having been utterly incompetent.

Personally, I don’t buy into that.

[Garry Wroe]

I always think that it is quite misleading to compare modern cases with the series of 1888, given the totally different historical context, contemporary influences and, not least of all, facts of the case.

Human psychology hasn't changed in thousands of years, Stewart. The modern serialist has precisely the same drives, emotions and motivations as those which influenced the behaviours of Jack the Ripper.