Plausibility of Kosminski

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

Assessing what the sources tell us embraces their accuracy.

What accuracy would that be?

I'm off to sleepy-byes now, so take your time.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

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

Phil,
“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....”

That is what you wrote.

It is true that there is no evidence that any one of the Macnaghten 3 were killers. For all we know each and every one of them would never have hurt a fly.

But Macnaghten thought that Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

Why?

Are you saying that there was no evidence to suggest that he could have been, nothing to connect him with the East End, there were no homicidal tendencies. Nothing. Are you saying that without any reason at all Macnaghten decided Druitt was Jack the Ripper?

Well, that's fine. If that is what you are saying we can dismiss Macnaghten as an utterly worthless source and dump Druitt in the waste bin.

But if you are saying that then you need some proof.

But if you are not saying that then Macnaghten had a reason for believing what he did. It may have been a very bad reason, we may still dump Druitt in the waste bin, but unfortunately we can't do that just yet because we don't know what Macnaghten's reason was, or if he had a reason. We don't know.

So, which do you think makes the most sense: to suppose that Macnaghten plucked Druitt's name out of thin air and for no reason whatsoever said he was Jack the Ripper, or that Macnaghten had some sort of reason, good, bad or indifferent, for saying it? And that the same goes for Anderson and anyone else who volunteered a suspect?

If you think it likely that Macnaghten et al had a reason then you are conceding that there was “evidence”, not necessarily evidence that Druitt was the murderer, but evidence upon which Macnaghten based his conjecture that he was.

If you think it is reasonable to assume that Macnaghten based his conclusion on something, that he didn't simply stumble across Druitt's name and for no reason decide he was the murderer, then you cannot write that we should accept that the writings of Macnaghten “are not evidence against any one of the MM3 as being killers.” Because the writings of Macnaghten is “evidence”.

Now, as Stuart has frequently pointed out, because we don't know what the evidence was, or to put it another way, what Macnaghten's reasons were, analysis has turned to the man, to attempts to evaluate him, to assess his trustworthiness and reliability.

What you seem to be doing is thinking that people have accepted that there was evidence, that it was good evidence, and that Druitt (or Kosminski or whoever) was Jack the Ripper, and you rightly baulk at that and say there is no evidence for such a belief. I say the same thing. Exactly the same thing. I say, as I have said here time and time again, we do not know the evidence on which Macnaghten, Anderson, et al based their conclusion, therefore we can't evaluate it, therefore we can't even begin to assess the probability of one or other being right.

However, one can evaluate the source and conclude, say, that Anderson was informed and reliable and that he'd have known the evidence against all the “serious” suspects and that if he thought Kosminski was the best of the bunch that we ought to pay him heed. Even if Kosminski was a poor best of a bad bunch. Or we could conclude that Macnaghten would have known all about “Kosminski” and that his favouring of Druitt means that the evidence against Kosminski wasn't that great. And so on. And that's what some people have done.

So, by all means go ahead and conclude that Anderson and Macnaghten didn't have any reasons for thinking the way they did, that they plucked Druitt and Kosminski out of thin air and for absolutely no reason accepted that they were murderers. But there is no evidence for that conclusion, and it is highly improbable because generally people do have reasons for reaching that sort of conclusion. Me, I leave the option open. Maybe they didn't have reasons, maybe they did, but we don't know, we can't conclude either way, but if they didn't have reasons then their thoughts on the matter amount to nought, and if they did have reasons then maybe those reasons were good and their suspects reasonable.

I know which approach I consider to be good logic, good reasoning, and likely to produce good history.

And if you think I'm being condescending, I'm not. But as Phil H has pointed out, there is a historical method, developed and honed over the decades, and taught.

[PaulB]

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

Nothing personal, Tom, but there is so little time left after the lesser mortals have been addressed.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,



What accuracy would that be?

I'm off to sleepy-byes now, so take your time.

Regards,

Simon

I don't need time. Accuracy means the correctness or otherwise of what the source says. Simple really.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

You are wrong of course it is a cold case are you suggesting that you and other historian have not been trying to solve this case all these years ?

My personal involvment on this case has been on a cold case basis. So are you suggesting that all the oustanding undetected murders police forces re open are done from an historical aspect, come on.

You and others who are regarded as historians have been trying to solve the case have you not surley thats not just from an historical interest. ?

[Stewart P Evans]

Our Problem

As far as suspects go the police suspects are a pretty poor selection. It is not possible to make a credible case against any one of them. There is no tangible evidence to connect any of them with the crimes. Unless, of course, you bring in the very dubious, claimed, identifications of Kosminski and Grant/Grainger. Therein lies our problem.

[Stewart P Evans]

Things to Avoid

Things for a Ripper author to avoid (and in the case of 1. it is impossible for the author of a suspect book to avoid) are -

1. A partisan stance.
2. Lack of care over factual details.
3. Lack of rigour in the evaluation of primary sources.

There is a primary need to discriminate between good and bad sources, and if we cannot do that then we may find ourselves in trouble.

[Trevor Marriott]

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'.

Thank you for your reply I put this example forward not to highlight Feigenbaum but to compare Moores commnets with those of Anderson and Swanson who Paul seems to heavily rely on and in doing so casts aside all other conected matters.

Moores comments are very important in my view because it has been suggested that all of these other suspects from The MM came to notice in later years 1890 onwards. I have repeatedly highlighted the fact that nothing has been recorded or mentioned in any document or newspaper or any quotes from anyone to corroborate these later suspects.

As Moore was involved either with Abberline or on his own after Abberline moved to other things and in charge of the investigation on the ground. I would have thought that if there had been any such developments as is beleived and any one of these suspects regarded as a prime suspects he would have known.

As far as any ID procedure is concerned I would have expected the police to have an officer of at least Inspector rank present and to supervise and oversee such a procedure.

Now in the newspaper interview he never mentions any prime suspect, he never mentions a name, he never mentions anyhting about "we knew who he was but couldnt prove it", or "we knew who he was and was locked away and could kill no more" He does pass the comment about a mad sailor. All of this now speaks volumes against Anderson and Swanson and the reliability and accuracy of both of their writings.

The burning question now and it really is the only question that can be asked is Who do you beleive ? and to answer that you have to sit down and assess and evaluate all the facts surrounding each of the police officials.

My own personal view is that as you have said no one knew the identity of the killer or killers. The list of "Suspects" that have formed the backbone of reserach for 123 years now has to be looked at in a totally different light and in doing so some like myself may choose to disregard one, some or all of them in the future.

[PaulB]

You are wrong of course it is a cold case are you suggesting that you and other historian have not been trying to solve this case all these years ?

My personal involvment on this case has been on a cold case basis. So are you suggesting that all the oustanding undetected murders police forces re open are done from an historical aspect, come on.

You and others who are regarded as historians have been trying to solve the case have you not surley thats not just from an historical interest. ?

I am more than suggesting that I haven't been trying to solve it, I am telling you that I haven't. I didn't say or suggest that unsolved murder cases be investigated from "an historical aspect", whatever that is. And this is not a cold case, it's frozen. There are no witnesses to interview, no suspects to challenge, no investigators to talk to, and the bulk of the case papers don't exist. It is also over 125-years-old, so it's history, and the only information we have are historical sources to which historical methodology must be applied. And some punctuation would make your last sentence intelligible, but once again, I have never been bothered with a solution, I have always been interested in establishing the historical facts. But I don't have to explain myself to you; you either understand what history is and approach it accordingly, or you don't. You don't. You've said so.

[Natalie Severn]

My own personal view is that as you have said no one knew the identity of the killer or killers. The list of "Suspects" that have formed the backbone of reserach for 123 years now has to be looked at in a totally different light and in doing so some like myself may choose to disregard one, some or all of them in the future.

What about Littlechild? He wasn't writing an autobiography which by default is a book containing one's recollections from a subjective, non impartial point of view.He was simply trying to help Sims over the matter of who a Dr D could be-this in 1912 or thereabouts. By then he would have read Anderson's 'autobiography' and in his letter he dismissed his claim with words to the effect of,'He only thought he knew'
Anderson was Littlechild's boss in the CID.He would have been known him well from a professional point of view,but here,in the letter, he gives him no credence.
But Littlechild is willing to discuss a suspect who fitted the initials Dr 'T'.Tumblety no less-----.
Why?

[PaulB]

Things for a Ripper author to avoid (and in the case of 1. it is impossible for the author of a suspect book to avoid) are -

1. A partisan stance.
2. Lack of care over factual details.
3. Lack of rigour in the evaluation of primary sources.

There is a primary need to discriminate between good and bad sources, and if we cannot do that then we may find ourselves in trouble.

Actually, Stewart, no 3 on your list (or, rather, the application of rigour) should eliminate or reduce the risks of no 1 so that even the author of a suspect book can - and should - be unbiased in their assessment of their material. If that assessment leads them to a conclusion then it is legitimate, up to a point, to interpret and argue in the context of that conclusion. It's been a while since I read The Lodger, but I seem to recall that this is what you did with the information available to you, most of which was emerging as you wrote and did not afforded you the time for the sot of considered analysis people can indulge in today.

[PaulB]

As far as suspects go the police suspects are a pretty poor selection. It is not possible to make a credible case against any one of them. There is no tangible evidence to connect any of them with the crimes. Unless, of course, you bring in the very dubious, claimed, identifications of Kosminski and Grant/Grainger. Therein lies our problem.

Yep. It's as I've said, we don't know why anyone ever suspected these people, so we have no idea whether they were good suspects or bad suspects.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yep. It's as I've said, we don't know why anyone ever suspected these people, so we have no idea whether they were good suspects or bad suspects.

But over the years littles gems have been unearthed in relation to the viabilty of these suspects which in my opinion have tipped the scales firmly against them being good suspects.

[PaulB]

But over the years littles gems have been unearthed in relation to the viabilty of these suspects which in my opinion have tipped the scales firmly against them being good suspects.

"firmly against"?
Such as?

[Trevor Marriott]

"firmly against"?
Such as?

The credibilty of Swanson and Anderson amd Macnagten to start with as I said before take their contributions out of the equation and what evidence are you left with which points to any of their suspects.

You dont seem to grasp the fact that their is no corroboartion to what they say, what Littelchild says or in fact what any of the others say. So you are either going to treat them all the same or totally disregard them.

You keep saying we dont know what it was they all supposedly had evidence wise which led them to "suspect" whoever which is correct and on one point I do concur with you. What there is though is corroboration to the suggestion that they had no hard evidence which would have led to suspect any prime suspect in a way that these have been elevated to by some.

In later years they all say we knew nothing. I think that sums it up nicely.

So what are we left with today. A series of unsolved murders commited in similar fashion by a killer or killers unknown, with only several likely suspects which merit serious consideration as to whether these murders were commited by one or more of them.

I think thats progress as far as a cold case investigation is concerned and as we speak even more progress is being made so the future is bright.