Plausibility of Kosminski

[Observer]

You may be an historian and author of repute, but from the above it seems you cannot disuss against others without maligning them and using vague forms of insult, belittling others' differing methodology through insinuated down-putting, I see. That is a shame, and I would have thought that you would know better. I do not, and will not, stoop to such argumentative tactics, note.

Phil

How about the time you belittled Monty for his spelling, and poor use of grammar?

Observer

[Phil Carter]

Hello Observer,

My post referred to how I address Paul within the context of the long on-going discussion with him. As the person you refer to is on my ignore list, it goes without saying I will not comment upon any comment made by the person nor about any of his previous, present or future communicative interaction..with anyone, myself included.


kindly

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

God, this is so boring. I've only been saying all along (to deaf ears/eyes), that Aaron Davis Cohen's foreign last name needs to be established. Only after that, can anyone reasonably expect to assess Anderson's suspect.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

I have never called them pillocks, neither have I stated that they pulled names out of thin air.. those are your words. What I have said is that MM, Anderson and Swanson's opinions, for that is what they are, are not proven, not substantiated, without proof and thereby not corroberated. On that basis I choose to draw a line. Whether people think I should be taken seriously or not is a pathetic comment. The point is whether the three men's opinions named above should be taken seriously.
More personal barbs from your historically minded tongue won't help either. And you don't look down on people do you... no, of course not.
Yet the suggestion of elitism in this genre is something that is baulked at.

You may be an historian and author of repute, but from the above it seems you cannot disuss against others without maligning them and using vague forms of insult, belittling others' differing methodology through insinuated down-putting, I see. That is a shame, and I would have thought that you would know better. I do not, and will not, stoop to such argumentative tactics, note.

You decided not to answer my politely asked questions, I notice. Others can make up their minds about that too. I wasn't referring to the Aberconway version on this occasion, in case you thought so. I was referring to any known other material from that source connected to this genre, because of the comment that MM had destroyed his material or nay. It is a shame you cannot answer a straight question or two. I was hoping the possibility that more material was being looked at and worked on. Not too much of a question now, was it?

I surmise that you just don't want to accept that nothing more can be gained from the known material discussed a thousand times. Thereby, more can be carried on forever and ever, regurgitated and re-wrapped in a new skin..keeping the Merry-Go-Round alive.

At some point in time, a line must be drawn. Do we have to wait for the icons of the genre to do it..or do we have to wait until every last drop of nothing is discussed again and again and again?

To my mind it IS flogging a dead horse. Without new information from these sources, there will NEVER be a concensus of any sort whilst the wheels go round and round using the same old oil.

That is indeed where we shall leave it. Going nowhere.



kindly


Phil

Phil,
It isn't elitism or condescension or anything like that, it is simply that your approach to historical evidence makes meaningful dialogue impossible.

You are very clearly stating that we should discard what Macnaghten et al say because it is uncorroborated. You wrote, “Yes. I am suggesting we dump Druitt in the waste bin. Likewise Kosminski. Likewise Ostrog.” You were vehement, that the statements in these sources be destroyed because what they say is “Toast, waste bin, Dustmen picked it up, collected it, taken to processing plant, and dumped somewhere... to be buried forever. NOT repackaged every once in a while. It is not bio-degradable either.”

I am saying that this is wrong. I am trying to explain to you that part of the evaluation process involves assessing the quality of the source to see whether credence can be given to what it is telling you and that in this case Macnaghten et al were there, they were in a position to know, and they are ostensibly honest and trustworthy. We can therefore take what they say seriously, which does not mean we accept what they say as true, but that there were probably credible reasons for it.

You disagree. What Macnaghten et al wrote is mere opinion and you claim that opinion is not evidence. But you do not distinguish between uninformed and informed opinion; yes, Macnaghten's conclusion about Druitt may have been his opinion, but it is the opinion of someone who was there, was in a position to evaluate the facts, and who unambiguously states that his conclusion was based on information received. We don't know what that information was, but Macnaghten's conclusion is good historical evidence.

Except you don't think so. Macnaghten et al are uncorroborated and therefore we should bin what they tell us. We utterly destroy it. We expunge it from the historical record. As you wrote, it is “Toast, waste bin, Dustmen picked it up, collected it, taken to processing plant, and dumped somewhere.. to be buried forever.”

So, let's examine that: either there were reasons on which Macnaghten et al based their conclusions or there wasn't. If there was, we don't know it, we can't evaluate it, we can't even begin to assess its worth and the probability of Macnaghten being right. But your response to our ignorance is “Toast, waste bin, Dustmen picked it up, collected it, taken to processing plant...” So you are all for throwing away an informed opinion just because you don't know the evidence on which that opinion was based. That's what you have written.

Or you are saying that the opinion wasn't based on any evidence at all. That's the only reason why we'd utterly discard these informed opinions, Phil, and you have had them binned. taken away by the dustmen to the processing plant and destroyed forever. So, if Macnaghten et al didn't have any reasons for saying what they said, why did they say it? Well, if they had a reason then we shouldn't be binning informed opinion, but as you are binning it then you must be concluding that there was no reason, that Macnaghten et al just plucked the names out of the ether and for no reason at all advanced them as Jack the Ripper.

There isn't an alternative here, Phil: either Macnaghten et al had reasons for their suspicions and for writing what they did, in which case, as informed sources, their statements are valuable but you are throwing them away, utterly and completely. Or they didn't have reasons for their suspicions and what they wrote is worthless, in which case you are saying that they accused wholly innocent men against whom there was not a scintilla of evidence of being Jack the Ripper. And if that is indeed what Macnaghten et al did then they [I]were[I] pillocks

[PaulB]

Big difference between the two and perhaps I dont have the clout with admin to which you and your other cartel members have in getting people banned

There's no difference, Trevor. Whether you accused him of being a thief or insinuated that he is a thief, you were saying he is a thief. It was slimy, reprehensible and potentially damaging to him and outraged everyone who knows him. And by all means complain to admin. They won't listen to a word you say because the cartel have the clout to make admin do what we want. We'll get you banned again!

Of course, the reality is that there is no cartel, there is no clout with admin, and your posts were removed and you got banned because your behaviour was unacceptable.

[PaulB]

God, this is so boring. I've only been saying all along (to deaf ears/eyes), that Aaron Davis Cohen's foreign last name needs to be established. Only after that, can anyone reasonably expect to assess Anderson's suspect.

Scott,
I agree it's boring. Boy, do I agree! However, (1) there is little point in discussing anything about Kosminski or the other suspects if Phil Carter and Co believe they should be binned and forgotten about, which is precisely what Phil is advocating. And (2) I'm sorry but there are over 1600 posts on this thread and severe time limitations mean that I haven't read them all, so I am not sure what you mean when you say that we need to establish David Cohen's foreign surname. As far as I am aware it was "Cohen". Presumably I am not up to speed with the Cohen argument?
Paul

[PaulB]

Oh, I can think of one or two posters who might propose a link of common authorship with the Goulston Street message.

Sssshhhh... Don't tell everyone! Okay, here's the truth: the cartel are members of an Essene secret society whose members back in 1888 lived in voluntary poverty in the East End, and casting aside earthly pleasures wrote mystic messages on walls to prevent Sir Charles Warren from discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls and the secrets therein. Their enemy, Jack the Ripper, ritually slaughtered women to draw attention to the scrawled messages, but only the Goulston Street message was noticed. Nobody could have forseen that Muhammad Ahmed al-Hamed would fall into a hole and discover the scrolls, but today the Cartel, protected by their albino minders...

Nah, nobody'd believe that...

[Stewart P Evans]

Simplistic

Hello Stewart,
...and that means, does it not, that the three persons MM chose to document for whatever reason who were "more likely than Cutbush" were a man previously convicted of walking an un-muzzled dog (thank you Stephen for the correction), a thief of whom whether MM knew it or not, was locked away in a prison abroad, and a man with no known criminal record. He had, in his owns words "many homicidal maniacs who were suspected" that "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one"... to choose from. He then lists his three. Without proof either.
...
Phil

Well, that is a rather simplistic way of looking at it. But for that reasons that Paul has repeatedly given we cannot simply consign them to the 'bin'. They remain, and probably always will, in the suspect equation. The unmuzzled dog offence find was rather recent and we can only hope that more material of this kind emerges. As regards Druitt, fairly recently descendants of Valentine were contacted and they have some of his papers (and we now have a photograph of him). It is not beyond the realms of possibility that details of Druitt's problem at the school may come to light.

[Monty]

Phil

How about the time you belittled Monty for his spelling, and poor use of grammar?

Observer

Hello Observer,

My post referred to how I address Paul within the context of the long on-going discussion with him. As the person you refer to is on my ignore list, it goes without saying I will not comment upon any comment made by the person nor about any of his previous, present or future communicative interaction..with anyone, myself included.


kindlyPhil

Smacks of elitism to me, though no denial.

At least I have the common decency to refer to Phil by his name.

Sniff sniff.....no one likes me

Monty

[Chris]

Big difference between the two and perhaps I dont have the clout with admin to which you and your other cartel members have in getting people banned

You think it's acceptable to imply publicly that someone is a thief, and you think that when as a result Casebook takes action against you it must be because of a conspiracy? Amazing.

But presumably you do understand that in civilian life that's not a good way to get people to cooperate with you?

[Trevor Marriott]

You think it's acceptable to imply publicly that someone is a thief, and you think that when as a result Casebook takes action against you it must be because of a conspiracy? Amazing.

But presumably you do understand that in civilian life that's not a good way to get people to cooperate with you?

You mention co-operation and I again return to The Aberconway version they were asked to co-operate by Mr Mclaren the owner of that document. They have not accceded to that request. To me that a serious lack of co-operation to the point of being deliberatley obstructive, and they havent had the decency to come out and give an explanation as to why they havent published it.

Those who have seen it keep saying there is nothing startling in it. Well it should it be the case for everyone to read it and decide for themselves about the contents.

Then there is Dr Davies forensic report on the marginalia which is another story and I dont intend to keep going over old ground and arguing the same points again.

As far as the MM is concerned it has not stood up to close scrutiny by a country mile. In the light of that Swanson and Andersons writings either stand or fall with The MM as do the suspects named in them.

Paul Begg keeps going on about we need to know why they were named. Do we ?
the fact is that there was no evidence against them 123 years ago to connect any of the with any of the crimes, and no one has been able to gather any against any of them since and that is what all of this is about. The present not the past.The past only can point us in the right direction. Again we get back to the difference between Historians and Investigators as to how you look at the whole scenario

I am the first to agree that we will never fully know how these names came to be recorded however we can speculate and in my opinion come to a safe conclusion based on police methodology and the comparison with other police documents of the day, and the fact that there is no corroborative documenation to back up these names being referred to or the actions of the police as written by Anderson and swanson.

[PaulB]

What you have not addressed and what I really don't expect you will address is the filthy innuendo you made about Keith.

[Chris]

You mention co-operation and I again return to The Aberconway version...

That's what we're talking about, though, isn't it? Your ridiculous implication that a researcher stole that document.

As far as I know, you've never apologised for that. Why don't you apologise now? If you can't bring yourself to apologise, why don't you shut up for a bit?

[harry]

Evidence

We have heard the word evidence used quite a lot on these boards.Well what evidence is needed to justify Kosminski ?If we are to believe the claims of Anderson and Swanson,then evidence already existed before the alledged identification.What was that evidence?They didn't say.No one else seems to know.Yet we are asked to believe.To accept their word without corroberation.Is that reasonable?Historical or convention wise,for me to accept an identification having taken place we need three pieces of evidence.The building in which it took place,the names of the witness,and the names of the officers who were sent.The building,physical evidence,or as some say real evidence.The other,documentary.Produce any one of those,and I might be swayed,but do not keep repeating that the claims of Anderson and Swanson are in themselves evidence,and that is sufficient.Historical bull dust.

[Garry Wroe]

Sssshhhh... Don't tell everyone! Okay, here's the truth: the cartel are members of an Essene secret society whose members back in 1888 lived in voluntary poverty in the East End, and casting aside earthly pleasures wrote mystic messages on walls to prevent Sir Charles Warren from discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls and the secrets therein. Their enemy, Jack the Ripper, ritually slaughtered women to draw attention to the scrawled messages, but only the Goulston Street message was noticed. Nobody could have forseen that Muhammad Ahmed al-Hamed would fall into a hole and discover the scrolls, but today the Cartel, protected by their albino minders...

Nah, nobody'd believe that...

Karen Trenouth might.