Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

I was well aware of that Paul and have personally seen the Mepo reference 10282 in Kew-along with the reference to the knife wound to his right thigh.
I doubt it would have stopped him making a trip to Scotland Yard if he thought it was urgently needed.
Besides he would no doubt have read the series of 1891 Sun articles declaring they knew "the Ripper" was none other than Thomas Cutbush then arraigned in Broadmoor for Her Majesty's pleasure and though The Sun did not go so far as to actually name him, many knew it was Thomas Cutbush and apparently thought he was Charles Cutbush's nephew-so not exactly the most pleasant bit of news for poor old Uncle Charles in his well earned retirement !

I know you knew it, Norma. I was just trying to make the point that he wasn't able to buttonhole Macnaghten in the normal course of the working day, or, really, have had any real influence over what Macnaghten did or didn't do. I think it's Macnaghten who says Charles was related to Thomas, but has that relationship been confirmed?

[PaulB]

We only have to look at how modern day Ripper books are ripped to pieces by so called experts why does no one rip some of these older books to pieces we have about 140 published over the years they all cant be factually correct.

You have already proved Trevor that your grasp of history is tenuous at best. Now you indicate clearly that you know nothing of historiography.

What is your point?

Phil

So succinctly put that I've deleted the two paragraphs I'd written to say the same thing.

Frankly, I am finding it increasingly difficult to get Trevor to understand what history is and what historians do; he seems utterly incapable of understanding, for example, that "Kosminski" and Druitt are elevated to prime suspect status because of what two ostensibly informed and reliable contemporary sources say about them.

[Natalie Severn]

Good point Scott!



Jonathan,
re Druitt -you may be interested to know that I was given 6 pages of photocopied handwritten minutes by the very kind local Blackheath historian Mr Neil Rhind and includes a page looking very like it was written by MJ Druitt,then Hon Secretary of Blackheath Cricket Club .[The writing compares well with the letter in Stewart's book of Letters-though copperplate can all look so similar].One page contains the announcement of Druitt's death. Neil Rhind accompanied me to Blackheath Cricket Club a couple of years ago and showed me the originals.I think some of these may be in the book by Mr DJ Leighton on Druitt but I'm not sure.
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

So succinctly put that I've deleted the two paragraphs I'd written to say the same thing.

Frankly, I am finding it increasingly difficult to get Trevor to understand what history is and what historians do; he seems utterly incapable of understanding, for example, that "Kosminski" and Druitt are elevated to prime suspect status because of what two ostensibly informed and reliable contemporary sources say about them.

Surely Paul,the search for the ripper is about more than studying the swan songs of a lot of top cops --- -especially when they were all so out of tune with each other?
How on earth can they be reiiable?
Or is it now a case of discovering which one is telling the truth?

My bets are on Abberline---backed up as he is by Smith!
Best Wishes
Norma

[Robert]

Hi Paul

Debs and I have looked at Charles and Thomas Cutbush and it seems to us that they were not related, certainly not as uncle and nephew. Barring a simple blunder by Macnaghten, the best sense I can make of it is that perhaps there was a distant family relationship and Thomas, who had been abandoned by his father, came to look upon Charles as his "uncle."

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul

Debs and I have looked at Charles and Thomas Cutbush and it seems to us that they were not related, certainly not as uncle and nephew. Barring a simple blunder by Macnaghten, the best sense I can make of it is that perhaps there was a distant family relationship and Thomas, who had been abandoned by his father, came to look upon Charles as his "uncle."

Strange though-its such an unusual name.They lived close by to each other too -Charles in Stockwell -Thomas less than half a mile West of him.

[Trevor Marriott]

We only have to look at how modern day Ripper books are ripped to pieces by so called experts why does no one rip some of these older books to pieces we have about 140 published over the years they all cant be factually correct.

You have already proved Trevor that your grasp of history is tenuous at best. Now you indicate clearly that you know nothing of historiography.

What is your point?

Phil

Unlike you I do not profess to be an historian and never will. You yourself stated that they are from different moulds to investigators. Historians look at things in a different light,they evaluate things differently their thinking and reasoning is different. Thats what make you and I worlds apart I dont belive what I read or what anyone tells me I like to prove or disprove it for myself.

[Phil H]

I dont belive what I read or what anyone tells me I like to prove or disprove it for myself.

Then like Sysiphus you'll be condemned to roll your ideas to the top of the hill, then have to do the whole thing over again, Trevor.

In this world, it will be academics like Sugden, and serious reserachers who follow the conventions of the historical method (I'd mention SPE, Martin Fido, Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg - among others - as falling into that category) that will take the laurels in Ripper studies - assuming there are any.

I'd liken your approach to writers (in other fields) like von Daniken and Graham Hancock - maybe Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh, who may make money out of their books, but attract little respect expect from the likes of "Pyramidiots", and fringe cults. It's like cheap journalism, sensationalist, tawdry and passing. It may be interesting to read - and I enjoyed your book - but it does not convince and is unlikely to gain peer credence. Your book sits on my shelf along with one's like "Uncle Jack", Knight and Mei Trow - the other authors I mentioned are where my hand can reach to them as trusted references.

Sorry if that's blunt, but that's where I see your self-categorisation as leading.

Phil

[PaulB]

Unlike you I do not profess to be an historian and never will. You yourself stated that they are from different moulds to investigators. Historians look at things in a different light,they evaluate things differently their thinking and reasoning is different. Thats what make you and I worlds apart I dont belive what I read or what anyone tells me I like to prove or disprove it for myself.

The trouble is that Jack the Ripper is history.
Historians do not simply believe what they read or what they are told.
It's a tad difficult to prove for yourself something that happened in the past.

[PaulB]

Good point Scott!



Jonathan,
re Druitt -you may be interested to know that I was given 6 pages of photocopied handwritten minutes by the very kind local Blackheath historian Mr Neil Rhind and includes a page looking very like it was written by MJ Druitt,then Hon Secretary of Blackheath Cricket Club .[The writing compares well with the letter in Stewart's book of Letters-though copperplate can all look so similar].One page contains the announcement of Druitt's death. Neil Rhind accompanied me to Blackheath Cricket Club a couple of years ago and showed me the originals.I think some of these may be in the book by Mr DJ Leighton on Druitt but I'm not sure.
Norma

How is Neil?

[PaulB]

Surely Paul,the search for the ripper is about more than studying the swan songs of a lot of top cops --- -especially when they were all so out of tune with each other?
How on earth can they be reiiable?
Or is it now a case of discovering which one is telling the truth?

My bets are on Abberline---backed up as he is by Smith!
Best Wishes
Norma

Norma,
Nobody said the search for the Ripper is about more than studying the swan songs of top cops, not that I am searching for the Ripper or give a damn who he was,but it is inevitable that the conclusions of people who were there are going to be of great importance, and that only a fool would accord them less than their due. Any one of them could be right or all of them could be wrong, and it is highly likely that we'll never know and that Jack the Ripper died in front of the fire in some East End common lodging house, a stranger, his name and his past unknown. Our job is to assess what all the sources tell us.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul

Debs and I have looked at Charles and Thomas Cutbush and it seems to us that they were not related, certainly not as uncle and nephew. Barring a simple blunder by Macnaghten, the best sense I can make of it is that perhaps there was a distant family relationship and Thomas, who had been abandoned by his father, came to look upon Charles as his "uncle."

That's the conclusion we reached too, as given in the New A to Z - that there was no family relationship, not that Thomas thought of the Super as Uncle Charley. I don't think any family connection existed. Thanks for the confirmation.
Cheers
Paul

[Phil Carter]

Norma,
Nobody said the search for the Ripper is about more than studying the swan songs of top cops, not that I am searching for the Ripper or give a damn who he was,but it is inevitable that the conclusions of people who were there are going to be of great importance, and that only a fool would accord them less than their due. Any one of them could be right or all of them could be wrong, and it is highly likely that we'll never know and that Jack the Ripper died in front of the fire in some East End common lodging house, a stranger, his name and his past unknown. Our job is to assess what all the sources tell us.

Hello Paul,

Sadly, it seems to this lay person that the influence given to the writings of these "top cops" has been overplayed. That is an assessment too, which we all can do, for or against. According them their "due" is a matter of assessment as well, and any conclusion, weight given for or against, takes assessment to another level.. i.e. evaluation. This is also something we all can do. We all have the right to evaluate the writings of these men. Different angles of evaluation will lead to differing conclusions.

So what our job is, as you put it, has add ons. Assess, evaluate and conclude.

Some here assess and evaluate Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog and concluded that in their assessment, evaluation and conclusion, the weight falls against the words of these "top cops" written offerings. Some hold the reverse conclusion.

The point being that no amount of counter argument from your side, my side, Scott's side, Rob's side, Stewart's side, Trevor's side, Simon's side, Norma's side, Robert's side.. or anyone's side, will ever be productive in terms of agreement UNLESS it is accepted that the three men's writings (Swanson, Macnaghten and Andersen) are not evidence against any one of the MM3 as being killers. There is no evidence against Kosminski as being a killer. There is no evidence against Druitt as being a killer. There is no evidence against Ostrog as being a killer.

I assess, evaluate and conclude that these writings are merely opinions, NOT based on any sort of tangible proof.

It is said, "we can only go on what we are given". Well, given what these men present us, I only see one possible conclusion, based on the lack of evidence. Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog are not killers. Therefore, their candicacy as Jack the Ripper, or the Whitechapel murderer (another name for this particular killer)..is totally baseless. It is therefore time to move on from the argument. The Merry-Go-Round grinds to a definitive halt, at this juncture, based on "what we have been given".

I assess, evaluate and conclude therefore that the "plausibility of Kosminski" as Jack the Ripper is non-evidential.

Those who differ in their conclusion, have that right. But in order to start the Merry-Go-Round again..tangible evidence must be produced from somewhere, showing these men, or one of them even, as a killer. It does not come from these three "top cops' " presently known offerings.


kindly


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

An elaborate Cutbush "Family Pedigree", prepared for the 1891 case Cutbush v. Cutbush, does not include Charles amongst its number.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Surely Paul,the search for the ripper is about more than studying the swan songs of a lot of top cops --- -especially when they were all so out of tune with each other?
How on earth can they be reiiable?
Or is it now a case of discovering which one is telling the truth?

My bets are on Abberline---backed up as he is by Smith!
Best Wishes
Norma

There's another problem with Abberline's opinion. He may have been geographically biased. Abberline was assigned to augment H-Division (for good reason), so Abberline would not have been directly involved with any investigations outside of H-Division, such as the West End. Abberline focused upon suspects living within H-Division and surrounding East End areas. He would have been privy to West End investigations, but not directly involved with them. This may have affected his recollections and opinions in later life.

Or I could be wrong.

Mike