Plausibility of Kosminski

[Trevor Marriott]

Although the WM were no longer Swanson's total concern after Dec. '88 (which is what that document relates too) he was still in charge of the case as is documented in later reports and alluded to by newspaper articles throughout the 1890s. Stewart Evans detailed that in an earlier post.

Insp. Moore took charge of ground operations after Abberline's recall to CO in March '89. If you read the last surviving 'Ripper' file (1896) as published in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook - Evans and Skinner, you will see that that command structure was still intact as Moore compiles a report on a Ripper letter and forwards it to Swanson, who annotates it with his regret that the letter was even circulated.

Hi Hunter this reply is intended for all and not aimed directly at your post.

Thank you for mentioning Insp Moore a good time and opportunity for me to mention this article on The Ripper murders published in The Police Review magazine in 1913. The article was centred around an interview with Chief Inspector Henry Moore who was as is documented directly involved in investigating the murders the relevant quote is "Well so far as I could make out he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them"

Now where does Insp Moore figure in the shining light category, and do we have a sailor suspect who was mad and wait didnt a witness describe someone of sailor like appearence or have i been dreaming

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

I kid ye not.

I have the Cutbush "Family Pedigree" in front of me.

Mais pas de Charles.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

To you it may be history to others it could looked upon as cold case murder investigation. Again I say a big difference.

I dont know of any police forces who have engaged the services of an historian in an effort to detect any crime let alone a series of murders.

That's a rather naïve and unrealistic outlook Trevor.

You have no direct evidence and only theory to work with. The only real evidence is written in the case file.

After that its memoires and news reports.

Even your suspect is only connection to the case is based on his Solicitors opinion, an historical piece of evidence.

See the irony there?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

That's a rather naïve and unrealistic outlook Trevor.

You have no direct evidence and only theory to work with. The only real evidence is written in the case file.

After that its memoires and news reports.

Even your suspect is only connection to the case is based on his Solicitors opinion, an historical piece of evidence.

See the irony there?

Monty

To you it may seem that way and you are entitled to your opinion.

I think you should have read my reply to Hunters post.

There is no direct evidence in the whole Ripper case full stop

[Monty]

To you it may seem that way and you are entitled to your opinion.

I think you should have read my reply to Hunters post.

There is no direct evidence in the whole Ripper case full stop

You may wish to sit down for this Trevor, I actually agree.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

You may wish to sit down for this Trevor, I actually agree.

Monty

I knew that persitence would win you over, now only a few more to go

[Monty]

Steady now Trevor,

Only the last line.....but if it gives you hope.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Steady now Trevor,

Only the last line.....but if it gives you hope.

Monty

It would be an empty world without hope

[Phil Carter]

Phil,
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that there is a lack of evidence, but from a historical perspective the evidence is the source or sources, and you are failing to make the proper distinction between what the source says and the evidence on which the source said it, and because you don't know the latter, you dismiss the former. That's bad logic, bad reasoning, bad history... Put simply, because Anderson doesn't tell us what the evidence against "Kosminski" was doesn't mean that no evidence existed. What we don't know is whether is was good evidence or bad evidence, therefore we can't know whether Anderson was possibly right or possibly wrong. You, however, are assuming there was no evidence, ergo you dismiss what Anderson says. That's not an assessment, it's an assumption.

Hello Paul,

In calm tones and written quietly.
You know, I used to wonder whether you were being derogatory of we "lesser mortals" and our way of thinking on purpose, or whether it was just a natural talent to be so seemingly overbearingly correct in everything you say in public. Or just deliberately arguing for the sake of it.

Fortunately, I was educated at a Public School, and had my fair share of elderly teachers who always poured scorn on "pupilian" forms of thinking. I believe I know the difference.

I could answer you if I chose to by just being just as seemingly personally down-putting as you have, whether your intention was such or not, as I have highlighted in your post.. but I think the only way you will understand your own mannerisms of communication on a public forum is to reverse the post. It could be written in exactly the opposite manner. Please read on..

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you assume there is no lack of evidence, but from a historical perspective the assumed evidence is not always an assured directive from the source or sources, and you are failing to make the proper distinction between what the source is not saying and the lack of evidence on which the source supposedly based his comments upon, and because you cannot possibly know the latter, you presume the source is basing his comments on some form of actual, though non-existant evidence. That's bad logic, bad reasoning, bad history... Put simply, because Anderson doesn't tell us what the evidence against "Kosminski" was, doesn't mean that ANY evidence existed. What we don't know is whether there was any evidence of any sort, good or bad, therefore we can't know whether Anderson was possibly right or possibly wrong.[B] You, however, are assuming there was evidence, ergo you dismiss what all others who disagree with you say about what Anderson says. That's not an assessment, it's an assumption. On top of this, you tell us all the opposite as the basis for your post, in argument against us.

Easy isn't it Paul?

Now this posting is NOT personal. I want you to understand this clearly. I am perfectly calm, and the tone is neutral. There is no reason to be angry. However, if you like the way you are shown to seemingly dismiss others, then I suggest you do like I do, and control your temper if you do not like the same manner thrown back at you in return.

Just for the measure of my "schoolboy" impertinence, your postings to those who disagree border at times on the impolite, the rude and the pompous. That's OK.. it takes all sorts I suppose. You probably don't care.
Fair enough. Present yourself as you please.

I have met you and found your company in person very charming indeed. I have GREAT.. read it again.. GREAT...respect for you as an historian, even though I disagree with some of your written word and the way you work out the proposed answers to any problem withing the genre... but unlike some I refuse to accept to being TOLD that I am wrong in a look down the nose like, schoolmaster-like fashion. I do not accept such behaviour either.. from you or anybody else. If that was not the intention, that is EXACTLY how it read, and has done, repeatedly in your replies to my postings.

I will RESPECTFULLY remind you Paul, and this might just (hopefully) cause a pause in your thinking and attitude.. that it is WE.. the general public that have in a small way only perhaps, helped you attain the status of reputation you have within the genre. You have earned that status through your own dilligence and hard work, as have others.. and your reputation lies upon the reaction of those who have read and adjudged your work.. be they historian, author, researcher or lay person.

Whether you like it or not, others disagree with your views, particularly on Anderson. Stewart has said so, sometimes vehemently on occasions in the past, and he now realises that "agree to disagree" is perhaps better. Others have, in their own way, either agreed or disagreed with you as well.

I read your replies to all carefully, and pay the same respect as I do to most all others, no more, no less. I remind you of the words that have been said here on these boards by your peers, of rank. There is no elitism in Ripperology.

Dismissing others in the manner you seem to do to me, and others, could be deemed elitist. If that doesn't matter to you... then there is nothing more to say.

One thing is for certain. You may be an eminent historian and author. You could have been an eminent politician.. because your erudite use of the English language is used to it's utmost on the boards here in argument. However, I refuse to bend to such erudite dismissiveness....but you are welcome to your opinion... that is something else entirely..and I respect it as such. However you never state..in my opinion.. you just forge ahead telling people how wrong they are.

Perhaps this all just because you don't want the Merry-Go-Round to stop turning?
Well, Kosminski theories are flat and used up. There is NO evidence against him. (as you know, many see the same thing, SPE included.. and I do not agree with all SPE says either.. )..and that is after I read Rob's excellent book on the man. No further evidence.No "prime suspect" either.

I genuinely look forward to your new book when it appears, as you have previously announced.

And before others reading this start emailing or even pm'ing or posting on facebook to their friends with.. "have you seen what Phil has said...." etc etc.. I will remind them that I have met Paul in person. We will probably never agree on methodology of thinking our way around this problem. That does not mean we will be at each other's throats next time we meet either. We differ in our approach and interpretation of and to the written word. It's that simple. I always try to write with politeness. It isn't dressed up. But I will stand my ground on certain points, whether it is agreed with or not... whoever opposes the viewpoint.

My comments about Kosminski et al on this thread are now at an end. I have nothing more to add. Except this.

Toast.



kindly


Phil

[Garry Wroe]

Maybe it was the other way around..... the city police informing Anderson that the suspect had been positively identified, but nothing more forthcoming, so they wrote it off as a failure -- but not Anderson. Smith apparently did not even think it worth mentioning.

Well, Scott, that would certainly put a new slant on Smith's castigation of Anderson for the latter's assertion that the killer had been positively identified as a low-clash Polish Jew.

[Tom_Wescott]

Phil Carter to Paul Begg: "You know, I used to wonder whether you were being derogatory of we "lesser mortals".

Oh, so Paul is only talking to you lesser mortals on here? That explains why he never acknowledges my posts. I was wondering about that, but now it makes sense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

You are putting the cart before th horse, as do many, by accepting Macnaghten's words as gospel. He wanted to give the impression in his 'Report(s)' that the 'police' were trawling suicides, because he was burying the embarrassing truth: that Druitt was an entirely posthumous suspect which he conceded in his memoirs twenty years later.

But that's the thing, Jonathan. I don't take any of Macnaghten's statements at face value. And if Druitt did come to the attention of the police as a consequence of his suicide, he must, as you say, have been as an 'entirely posthumous suspect'. So I fail to see where we are in disagreement.

[Hunter]

Thank you for mentioning Insp Moore a good time and opportunity for me to mention this article on The Ripper murders published in The Police Review magazine in 1913. The article was centred around an interview with Chief Inspector Henry Moore who was as is documented directly involved in investigating the murders the relevant quote is "Well so far as I could make out he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them"

Now where does Insp Moore figure in the shining light category, and do we have a sailor suspect who was mad and wait didnt a witness describe someone of sailor like appearance or have i been dreaming

You are entirely correct here, Trevor. Moore worked directly under Swanson on the same case for, at least, eight years; yet they came to different conclusions. No one really knew who killed any of these women with any legal certainty and I doubt anyone ever will; nor would I ever proclaim any suspect - whether contemporary or modern - as a murderer of any of these poor women; no matter what any of these policemen said or any modern suspect theorist boast. I've said this before... I think it is immoral to do so.

But, it is still interesting to study this case, whether from an historical perspective (which is my interest) or as a cold case mystery; or a little of both. Fortunately, there are very few anymore who make the insidious claim that a certain person was Jack the Ripper. Nevertheless, the comments by the men who investigated these crimes are relevant to the study and are an essential key to at least better our understanding of what might have transpired, even if a conclusion can never be reached. Before I choose to castigate anyone from the past, I try to walk in their shoes for a while; at least as far as can be done at this removed date.

It is fairly certain that 'Scotland Yard' did not know who Jack the Ripper was. It is also certain that we don't know much about how the investigation proceeded after the murders ceased, nor what information was possessed by some of these officials. Nothing conclusive has been determined to absolutely verify or discredit any of them yet... despite the caveats that we all agree exists with every one of them.

We can't make toast without a piece of bread to put in the toaster because the loaf has never been properly sliced... and now its too stale to slice anyway, the mice have been eatin' on it over the years and there ain't nuthin' but crumbs left. So we all are left sitting there looking at a pile of crumbs imagining what the toast might have tasted like. At least those men got to smell the bread a cookin'.

[PaulB]

And the accuracy of the sources !

Assessing what the sources tell us embraces their accuracy.

[PaulB]

To you it may be history to others it could looked upon as cold case murder investigation. Again I say a big difference.

I dont know of any police forces who have engaged the services of an historian in an effort to detect any crime let alone a series of murders.

Why would a police force engage a historian to solve a crime. Equally, why would a historian engage a policeman to research and write history. As I have said, one of the problems with Jack the Ripper is that some people treat it as history, some people as a cold case. But the Ripper isn't a cold case. It's history.