Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

Paul,

I think it's because they are confronting what they'd thought was impossible, rather like meeting Bigfoot at the bacon counter in Tesco.

As opposed to any other counter in the market or is Bigfoot Jewish?

Don.

No, not Jewish, but he was looking at the offers while the assistant was taking his usual order of fifteen chickens from the rotisserie and his wife was checking out the selection of facial wipes in the cosmetics aisle.

[robhouse]

Hey Paul,

Isn't it 4:53 AM there in England? What are you doing a) awake, and b) posting on casebook.

Rob

[PaulB]

Trevor,
A few things first.
(1) You have been asked not to write your comments within the text of a person's message. Please comply with this request in future.

(2) We do not “have to ask what suddenly made [Macnaghten] compile the memo”, as you claim, because it was written in response to a series of articles in the Star newspaper. Now, not wishing to be rude, but writing that we "“have to ask what suddenly made..." suggests that you don't know why it was written, which given the fuss you've made over it, is a shocking admission and demonstration of ignorance. So please explain why you wrote it.

(3) You seem to doubt that there was a suspect's file that has gone missing, but I assume you are in fact aware that there was a suspect's file in existence before the Scotland Yard Files were transferred to the National Archives in the 1970s, that a number of files were seen and transcribed by Paul Bonner, Stephen Knight and Donald Rumbelow, and that these have since gone missing. They include material on the suspects Theophil Mary, Charles Ludwig, Dick Austen or Austin, Antoni Pricha, Edwin Burrows, Douglas Cow, James Connell, Alfred Parent, Joseph Denny, John Avery, John Murphy, and W. Van Burst . All of whom you know about, of course. You will also be aware that another important file seen by several researchers before it also went missing contained a long letter from Dr Roslyn Donston Stephenson, a statement about Stephenson taken by Inspector Roots from George Marsh, and Roots’s report on Marsh, Stephenson and Dr Davies (transcripts can be seen in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook), a well-thumbed copy of which is no doubt on your desk within easy reach as you read this, just like it is with every Ripperologist in the world. So, whilst I agree with you that anyone in possession of these files today would likely have made them known, the fact is that they did once exist and are now missing, presumably destroyed, or otherwise in the possession of someone who does not appreciate their value. It is also worth observing that some related documents and photos of the victims did not emerge until the 1980s, so it is entirely possible that material is "out there" awaiting discovery.

(4) Don't get me started on the Holy Grail. That's just a friendly warning.

(5) It is questionable whether Macnaghten would have found it necessary to refer to the Ripper file as he is believed to have had a personal interest in the case and is known to have had photographs f the victims to hand, so it's probable that he had all the necessary basic facts already.

(6) I agree wholeheartedly that “Kosminski” came to the attention of the police by reason of “incidents involving a knife and females”, but as a suspect a case which kind of involved knives and females that's not a staggering thought. If, however, you are referring specifically to the incident in which he threatened the life of his or Cohen's sister with a knife, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the police knew of this episode. Further, it is highly unlikely that they'd have seriously suspected a man of being the Ripper because of a simple East End domestic involving a knife, particularly not as long after the murders as late 1890/91.

(7) I do know what the C.I.D. register and what the commissioner's letters register are, and I went through one of the latter a few years ago at Scotland Yard with the late and lamented Maggie Bird.

(8) I happily subscribe to plausible explanations, in so far as by "subscribe" one means give them a hearing.

Now, arguing in the context in which I used the word means presenting or laying forth one's argument, not disputing with someone, but we'll let that pass. Your argument, though, is not clear as you seem to switch between the names coming from a C.I.D. register or coming from a file.

So...

...You say the names of “suspects”would have been recorded on a C.I.D. register and would have been investigated even though the allegations against most of the names would have had little or no foundation, and that a file, perhaps containing no more than a few sheets of paper, would have been opened.

So far, so good.

In 1894, for no discernable reason according to you, Macnaghten settles down to write a review of the crimes, has the files brought to him, opens them, and on top, by dint “of date order”, are the files of “Kosminski and Cutbush and Ostrog”.

So, what you are saying is that Macnaghten took his information from a file, not from the C.I.D. register, and that the suspects he named were named simply because they happened to be on top because they were the most recent?

Fine. No problem with that.

Except that Macnaghten didn't get Cutbush's name from a police file and quite likely would not have found it on the top of the suspect's files anyway and probably wouldn't have found it among the Ripper papers at all. It would probably have been a different case file. The same might be said for Ostrog, who must at one time have had quite an extensive file all of his own too.

I'll defer to your greater knowledge as to whether the police file things by date or, the more customary way, alphabetically, but it would be useful to have evidence one way or the other.

But, Trevor, the problem is that this isn't in any sense a new idea.

It has long been argued that those named by Macnaghten were simply chosen at random to illustrate the type of suspect more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and that Macnaghten may have just taken them from a list or a file... And this argument held sway for a long time, especially when it was not realised that Anderson's suspect was one of those named. Because, as I assume you are fully aware, a very good case had been made that Anderson's suspect was John Pizer. However, when Martin Fido made the connection between Anderson's Polish Jew and “Kosminski”, and when this identification was apparently confirmed by the Swanson marginalia, it breathed new fire into the Macnaghten 3 because it could be seen that one was believed by Macnaghten to have been Jack the Ripper and another was believed by Anderson to have been Jack the Ripper and from this is wasn't too great a stretch to postulate that Ostrog c.1894 was believed by someone else to have been Jack the Ripper.

However, and it is becoming tiresome having to say this all the time, nobody knows (beyond what Macnaghten says) what the evidence against these three men was, so we have no way of assessing it, no way of gauging the probability of one or the other or of neither actually being the murderer. Anderson and Macnaghten could have been talking out of their backsides for all we know, and because we don't know what the evidence was, the argument, as Stewart Evans tirelessly tries to make clear, has come to revolve around the character of the men.

So, Trevor, we have three men named as suspects, two of whom were believed by senior policemen to have been Jack the Ripper. We are therefore looking at three suspects who are of greater importance than the run of the mill suspects of whom you speak, like Douglas Cow.

[PaulB]

Hey Paul,

Isn't it 4:53 AM there in England? What are you doing a) awake, and b) posting on casebook.

Rob

God knows. What else is there t do at 4:53 a.m.? Actually, family members have to go to work early.

[Trevor Marriott]

Round 2.

Trevor,

A few things first.
(1) You have been asked not to write your comments within the text of a person's message. Please comply with this request in future.

(2) We do not “have to ask what suddenly made [Macnaghten] compile the memo”, as you claim, because it was written in response to a series of articles in the Star newspaper. Now, not wishing to be rude, but writing that we "“have to ask what suddenly made..." suggests that you don't know why it was written, which given the fuss you've made over it, is a shocking admission and demonstration of ignorance. So please explain why you wrote it.

The response may have been to The Sun newspaper article and not The Star get your facts correct please. "And that is not an ascertained fact"

(3) You seem to doubt that there was a suspect's file that has gone missing, but I assume you are in fact aware that there was a suspect's file in existence before the Scotland Yard Files were transferred to the National Archives in the 1970s, that a number of files were seen and transcribed by Paul Bonner, Stephen Knight and Donald Rumbelow, and that these have since gone missing. They include material on the suspects Theophil Mary, Charles Ludwig, Dick Austen or Austin, Antoni Pricha, Edwin Burrows, Douglas Cow, James Connell, Alfred Parent, Joseph Denny, John Avery, John Murphy, and W. Van Burst . All of whom you know about, of course. You will also be aware that another important file seen by several researchers before it also went missing contained a long letter from Dr Roslyn Donston Stephenson, a statement about Stephenson taken by Inspector Roots from George Marsh, and Roots’s report on Marsh, Stephenson and Dr Davies (transcripts can be seen in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook), a well-thumbed copy of which is no doubt on your desk within easy reach as you read this, just like it is with every Ripperologist in the world. So, whilst I agree with you that anyone in possession of these files today would likely have made them known, the fact is that they did once exist and are now missing, presumably destroyed, or otherwise in the possession of someone who does not appreciate their value. It is also worth observing that some related documents and photos of the victims did not emerge until the 1980s, so it is entirely possible that material is "out there" awaiting discovery.


I dont doubt there was a suspect file which you elude to which I am sure contained the names you refer to those names came to notice I would suggest in 1888 at the time of the murders. They all probably came to notice through one of the many reasons i have previoulsy stated. I would have been very surprised if there were not a list of names as long as your arm.

But there is big difference bewteen a file containing the names of suspects and a specific named suspect file. My point is that there was never a prime suspect to warrant a specific file on any such person being opened so therefore no such file could have gone missing if it was never there in the first place.

(4) Don't get me started on the Holy Grail. That's just a friendly warning.

(5) It is questionable whether Macnaghten would have found it necessary to refer to the Ripper file as he is believed to have had a personal interest in the case and is known to have had photographs f the victims to hand, so it's probable that he had all the necessary basic facts already.

So 6 years later he could reel off verbatum everything he knew and had been told about the ripper case. Another one of your get me out of the proverbial answers

(6) I agree wholeheartedly that “Kosminski” came to the attention of the police by reason of “incidents involving a knife and females”, but as a suspect a case which kind of involved knives and females that's not a staggering thought. If, however, you are referring specifically to the incident in which he threatened the life of his or Cohen's sister with a knife, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the police knew of this episode. Further, it is highly unlikely that they'd have seriously suspected a man of being the Ripper because of a simple East End domestic involving a knife, particularly not as long after the murders as late 1890/91.

Well how could they seriously suspect Kosminski then if you eliminate the domestic what evidence is there i.e hearsay,circumstantial, documentary to make them suspect Kosminski at any time some 2- 3 years after the murders ceased.

(7) I do know what the C.I.D. register and what the commissioner's letters register are, and I went through one of the latter a few years ago at Scotland Yard with the late and lamented Maggie Bird.

(8) I happily subscribe to plausible explanations, in so far as by "subscribe" one means give them a hearing.

Now, arguing in the context in which I used the word means presenting or laying forth one's argument, not disputing with someone, but we'll let that pass. Your argument, though, is not clear as you seem to switch between the names coming from a C.I.D. register or coming from a file.

So...

...You say the names of “suspects”would have been recorded on a C.I.D. register and would have been investigated even though the allegations against most of the names would have had little or no foundation, and that a file, perhaps containing no more than a few sheets of paper, would have been opened.

So far, so good.

In 1894, for no discernable reason according to you, Macnaghten settles down to write a review of the crimes, has the files brought to him, opens them, and on top, by dint “of date order”, are the files of “Kosminski and Cutbush and Ostrog”.

So, what you are saying is that Macnaghten took his information from a file, not from the C.I.D. register, and that the suspects he named were named simply because they happened to be on top because they were the most recent?

Fine. No problem with that.

Except that Macnaghten didn't get Cutbush's name from a police file and quite likely would not have found it on the top of the suspect's files anyway and probably wouldn't have found it among the Ripper papers at all. It would probably have been a different case file. The same might be said for Ostrog, who must at one time have had quite an extensive file all of his own too.

Ostrogs criminal record file would have been different from a suspects file and would have been stored in the Criminal records office or their equivelant

MM didnt need to get the info on Cutbush from a file it was public knowledge was it not surrounding the Cutbush arrest and the belief he could have been the Ripper.

I'll defer to your greater knowledge as to whether the police file things by date or, the more customary way, alphabetically, but it would be useful to have evidence one way or the other.

But, Trevor, the problem is that this isn't in any sense a new idea.

It has long been argued that those named by Macnaghten were simply chosen at random to illustrate the type of suspect more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and that Macnaghten may have just taken them from a list or a file... And this argument held sway for a long time, especially when it was not realised that Anderson's suspect was one of those named. Because, as I assume you are fully aware, a very good case had been made that Anderson's suspect was John Pizer. However, when Martin Fido made the connection between Anderson's Polish Jew and “Kosminski”, and when this identification was apparently confirmed by the Swanson marginalia, it breathed new fire into the Macnaghten 3 because it could be seen that one was believed by Macnaghten to have been Jack the Ripper and another was believed by Anderson to have been Jack the Ripper and from this is wasn't too great a stretch to postulate that Ostrog c.1894 was believed by someone else to have been Jack the Ripper.

However, and it is becoming tiresome having to say this all the time, nobody knows (beyond what Macnaghten says) what the evidence against these three men was, so we have no way of assessing it, no way of gauging the probability of one or the other or of neither actually being the murderer. Anderson and Macnaghten could have been talking out of their backsides for all we know, and because we don't know what the evidence was, the argument, as Stewart Evans tirelessly tries to make clear, has come to revolve around the character of the men.

YOu are right about the evidence so in essence as we speak there is no more evidence against Kosminski than there is against any of the many names you list from the suspect file in fact there is less because no where does Kosminkis name appear. Except in The MM written in 1894 and that has proved to have been totally unrelieable and the marginalia allegedly written 20 years or so later and again like the entry in THe MM only consists of a surname. Yest out of all the supects he keeps being pushed to the front al the time. It is time now to let go of him and others.
Someone mentioned Burnt Toast I would suggest very very burnt toast in fact.


So, Trevor, we have three men named as suspects, two of whom were believed by senior policemen to have been Jack the Ripper. We are therefore looking at three suspects who are of greater importance than the run of the mill suspects of whom you speak, like Douglas Cow.

But of course you are forgetting Littelchild and Abberline and their "suspects"
and not forgetting the entry for The SB register which is suggested may relate to Randolph Churchill and Littlechild entry from the registe where he names another suspect. I think you are getting to carried away with what you see before you in writing from Scotland yards finest.

[Stewart P Evans]

Most definitely...

The report was, most definitely, in response to the Sun articles, it says so! Paul is well aware that it was the Sun and not the Star, it was a slip, such as we all make, in saying the Star.

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspects File

Well I never saw the suspects file, but we have it on the authority of those who did that it was MEPO 3/141 ff. 32-135, and was devoted to suspects who had been checked out.

[Stewart P Evans]

Files MEPO 3/141

Here's the content listing for files MEPO 3/141, suspect folios 33 -135 missing.

[Stewart P Evans]

Missing

And here's the PRO slip noting the missing pages (folios) in 1983.

[Trevor Marriott]

The report was, most definitely, in response to the Sun articles, it says so! Paul is well aware that it was the Sun and not the Star, it was a slip, such as we all make, in saying the Star.

Well as he is very quick to point out my errors I thought it only right to point out his.

[Stewart P Evans]

That Hour

God knows. What else is there t do at 4:53 a.m.? Actually, family members have to go to work early.

That is what I always ask myself when wandering the house at that hour. If you ever fancy a chat on the phone...second thoughts, I don't think that Rosie would approve.

[PaulB]

Well as he is very quick to point out my errors I thought it only right to point out his.

Not very quick, Trevor, and I wouldn't start shouting that you should get your facts right when it's an obvious slip like writing The Star instead of The Sun, or writing "elude" instead of "allude" as you have done. Your mistakes that I point out are serious ones, but I only point them out because you are trying to speak from a position of authority and yet demonstrate time and again that your knowledge and grasp of the facts is meager; and even that isn't something I'd normally give a damn about, but you like to mouth off about other people and make accusations about their honesty and abilities and theories. Sorry, but it's not mistakes that I pick up on. There is a big difference between a mistake and not knowing.

[Stewart P Evans]

Excellent Research

...
(3) You seem to doubt that there was a suspect's file that has gone missing, but I assume you are in fact aware that there was a suspect's file in existence before the Scotland Yard Files were transferred to the National Archives in the 1970s, that a number of files were seen and transcribed by Paul Bonner, Stephen Knight and Donald Rumbelow, and that these have since gone missing. They include material on the suspects Theophil Mary, Charles Ludwig, Dick Austen or Austin, Antoni Pricha, Edwin Burrows, Douglas Cow, James Connell, Alfred Parent, Joseph Denny, John Avery, John Murphy, and W. Van Burst . All of whom you know about, of course. You will also be aware that another important file seen by several researchers before it also went missing contained a long letter from Dr Roslyn Donston Stephenson, a statement about Stephenson taken by Inspector Roots from George Marsh, and Roots’s report on Marsh, Stephenson and Dr Davies (transcripts can be seen in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook), a well-thumbed copy of which is no doubt on your desk within easy reach as you read this, just like it is with every Ripperologist in the world. So, whilst I agree with you that anyone in possession of these files today would likely have made them known, the fact is that they did once exist and are now missing, presumably destroyed, or otherwise in the possession of someone who does not appreciate their value. It is also worth observing that some related documents and photos of the victims did not emerge until the 1980s, so it is entirely possible that material is "out there" awaiting discovery.
...

What Paul says is true. Some excellent research work was done by Paul Bonner for the BBC in the early 1970s and a copy of his detailed survey of all the official files is in my possession. Below are two extracts of particular interest to readers of this thread.

[PaulB]

And here's the PRO slip noting the missing pages (folios) in 1983.

[ATTACH]12676[/ATTACH]

I don't know how you do it. Many thanks.

[PaulB]

That is what I always ask myself when wandering the house at that hour. If you ever fancy a chat on the phone...second thoughts, I don't think that Rosie would approve.

Actually, I look at the computer over a coffee after I've got everyone off to work, otherwise it would be good to chat. We'll do it over a pint, not that I can afford coke or bitter right now! Not at pub prices.