Plausibility of Kosminski

[Phil H]

...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.


I haven't perused everything said over the weekend, but that's not necessary to comment on your post harry.

I think there are some misunderstandings here

* Swanson/Anderson and MM's views are historicalevidence because they represent a contemporary view/views of thinking. As such they cannot simply be dismissed.

* this does not mean those statements are evidence that Kosminski or anyone else was the killer - simply of views at the time.

* to argue that an identification did not take place (of some kind, somewhere) would mean you have to say Swanson at least lied, made up the story out of whole cloth or misremembered seriously - we have no grounds for doing so, especially as he seems, separately, to be endorsing and expending on Anderson's writings.

There may be mistakes - Swanson may have confused the Seaside Home and a Seamens' Home, for instance.

But I do not see that we can discmiss that a suspect was taken somewhere and some sort of identification took place, and that all that involved a man called "Kosminski". That leaves room for all sorts of proper conjecture.

But it is no more BS and no more difficult than much other historical evidence relating to other issues and other periods - some where the record is even more fragmentary and more discordant even that ripperology.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

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

What was said and the context in which it was said are totally different to how it was interpreted. However as you said historians and investigators are two different breeds. I am glad I am not a part of your world my legs would be aching from constantly treading water for fear of drowning.

And just to stop you whingeing even more, note reply not in bold writing

[PaulB]

What was said and the context in which it was said are totally different to how it was interpreted. However as you said historians and investigators are two different breeds. I am glad I am not a part of your world my legs would be aching from constantly treading water for fear of drowning.

And just to stop you whingeing even more, note reply not in bold writing

Asking you to behave yourself and conform to accepted practice is not winging. I don't think what you said was wrongly interpreted and neither did anyone else, that's why the post was removed and you were banned. And your silly little analogies don't hide the lack of substance in what you say.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Well as you are cartel member you should have known that I did reply to the accusations and I issued the following which formed part of an email to The Authors,

"And so, if in the course of my endeavours I unwittingly impugned the reputations of the A-Z authors I most fully and unreservedly apologise."

Now I would suggest you button it and next time think carefully and do your own research before you so hastily post comments containing disparaging remarks.

I think the term opening your mouth before engaging your brain" comes to mind

[PaulB]

...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.


I haven't perused everything said over the weekend, but that's not necessary to comment on your post harry.

I think there are some misunderstandings here

* Swanson/Anderson and MM's views are historicalevidence because they represent a contemporary view/views of thinking. As such they cannot simply be dismissed.

* this does not mean those statements are evidence that Kosminski or anyone else was the killer - simply of views at the time.

* to argue that an identification did not take place (of some kind, somewhere) would mean you have to say Swanson at least lied, made up the story out of whole cloth or misremembered seriously - we have no grounds for doing so, especially as he seems, separately, to be endorsing and expending on Anderson's writings.

There may be mistakes - Swanson may have confused the Seaside Home and a Seamens' Home, for instance.

But I do not see that we can discmiss that a suspect was taken somewhere and some sort of identification took place, and that all that involved a man called "Kosminski". That leaves room for all sorts of proper conjecture.

But it is no more BS and no more difficult than much other historical evidence relating to other issues and other periods - some where the record is even more fragmentary and more discordant even that ripperology.

Phil

Again, very succinctly put. You and Martin F. would get on really well. To be honest, I don't know why some people find it so difficult to understand how sources are evaluated.

Paul

[Trevor Marriott]

Asking you to behave yourself and conform to accepted practice is not winging. I don't think what you said was wrongly interpreted and neither did anyone else, that's why the post was removed and you were banned. And your silly little analogies don't hide the lack of substance in what you say.

Oh and your historical ones should be beleived by all and sundry just because you are a self professed historian and what you say should not be questioned.

Well I for one will continue to question it as will many others both from here on casebook and others who are not even members of casebook from around the world. So you had better get used to the fact that you are not going to keep asserting you misconceived views upon everyone without them being questioned.

If you can stand the heat of the questions take a leaf out of Abberline, retire go do some gardening.

So far all your answers do not stand up to close scrutiny regarding MM,Swanson and Anderson The MM and the Marginalia, which most can already see.

Yoiu must know the saying "There are none so blind as they that cannot see"

[m_w_r]

Yoiu must know the saying "There are none so blind as they that cannot see"

Trevor,

Sometimes I can't tell whether yours is a conscious effort to amuse, or whether it's an accidental by-product of something else. Anyway, I love your rendering of this phrase, but surely it's "they that will not see". Apart from that, the logic's impeccable: "there are none so blind as those who are actually physically blind". Absolutely, Trev. Abso-bloody-lutely.

Regards,

Mark

[Phil H]

Thank you Paul (not least because the words come from a writer I admire). I'd love to meet Martin, as well as you, SPE and Don Rumbelow someday.

More germane to the thread, I can and do understand why some feel restricted and frustrated by the historical method.

If you start with a theory, a belief or an inspiration that you feel MUST be true - then you are blinkered and begin to subordinate everything to your view. It is relevant or not solely in terms of your point of reference, your theory. Inconveient facts or evidence that does not fit has either to be ignored or twisted.

The historical method lets theories emerge from the broader facts and is based on the careful work of many minds who advance broadly in step (with the odd intellectual contretemps) going no further than the evidence will allow. Thus it is consensual and to an extent unselfish (not that I'd push that word too far in academe!), in that all can build on the foundations collectively and painstakingly assembled.

But this process can be perceived as hidebound and limiting by the revolutionary or the egotistical. What stops their views, usually, being widely accepted is that the fair-minded reader/observer quickly identified the missing evidence, the distortions of facts and the frail foundations.

"Suspect" based Ripper studies are always going to be closer to the Holy Blood/Holy Grail, Pyramidiacy end of the spectrum that to the Oxford thesis or dissertation, because they are out to prove a point. They are, to use a word which I first came across in the work of the late historian Charles Ross (in his Richard III to be precise) "perfervid: it means overly fervent.

I think perfervid is a term which could well be used by some posters on these boards.

Phil

[PaulB]

Well as you are cartel member you should have known that I did reply to the accusations and I issued the following which formed part of an email to The Authors,

"And so, if in the course of my endeavours I unwittingly impugned the reputations of the A-Z authors I most fully and unreservedly apologise."

Now I would suggest you button it and next time think carefully and do your own research before you so hastily post comments containing disparaging remarks.

I think the term opening your mouth before engaging your brain" comes to mind

Actually, the A to Z authors did not accept that apology. You unnecessarily and disgracefully publicly impugned the honesty of Keith Skinner and the A to Z authors asked you to make a full and complete public apology, which you categorically refused to do. I gather that the owner's request that the document be made public was withdrawn in consequence of that. It will now be published in full in the next edition of the A to Z. Chris doesn't have to button it. He knows the facts and chose his words with care.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Sometimes I can't tell whether yours is a conscious effort to amuse, or whether it's an accidental by-product of something else. Anyway, I love your rendering of this phrase, but surely it's "they that will not see". Apart from that, the logic's impeccable: "there are none so blind as those who are actually physically blind". Absolutely, Trev. Abso-bloody-lutely.

Regards,

Mark

Thank you for you support welcome abord still a few seats left on the good ship "marriott" if anyone else want to come aboard

Just hope we dont bump in to Jeff Leahy as he continues his quest across the Rubicon.

[Chris]

Trevor Marriott

Oh, thanks - a quotation from a private email, some drivel about my being privy to other people's inboxes because I'm a member of the "cartel" and another sample of playground insults.

But obviously I wasn't talking about the "unwitting" offence you caused - I was talking about the offence you caused when you implied someone had stolen a document.

Or maybe the idea is that all the insults and abuse you post here are written "unwittingly"?

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, the A to Z authors did not accept that apology. You unnecessarily and disgracefully publicly impugned the honesty of Keith Skinner and the A to Z authors asked you to make a full and complete public apology, which you categorically refused to do. I gather that the owner's request that the document be made public was withdrawn in consequence of that. It will now be published in full in the next edition of the A to Z. Chris doesn't have to button it. He knows the facts and chose his words with care.

One thing I have to admire about tou Paul is that you never know when to give up even when you are beaten

[PaulB]

Oh and your historical ones should be beleived by all and sundry just because you are a self professed historian and what you say should not be questioned.

Well I for one will continue to question it as will many others both from here on casebook and others who are not even members of casebook from around the world. So you had better get used to the fact that you are not going to keep asserting you misconceived views upon everyone without them being questioned.

If you can stand the heat of the questions take a leaf out of Abberline, retire go do some gardening.

So far all your answers do not stand up to close scrutiny regarding MM,Swanson and Anderson The MM and the Marginalia, which most can already see.

Yoiu must know the saying "There are none so blind as they that cannot see"

Please yourself.

[PaulB]

One thing I have to admire about tou Paul is that you never know when to give up even when you are beaten

Oh, your admiration is thoroughly misplaced, Trevor. I do give up when I'm beaten. But you haven't beaten me.

Or anyone else.

Or come close.

And nor will you, because you don't say anything of substance, just an endless stream of cheap and silly platitudes, as you demonstrate to all and sundry with almost every post you make.

[PaulB]

Thank you Paul (not least because the words come from a writer I admire). I'd love to meet Martin, as well as you, SPE and Don Rumbelow someday.

More germane to the thread, I can and do understand why some feel restricted and frustrated by the historical method.

If you start with a theory, a belief or an inspiration that you feel MUST be true - then you are blinkered and begin to subordinate everything to your view. It is relevant or not solely in terms of your point of reference, your theory. Inconveient facts or evidence that does not fit has either to be ignored or twisted.

The historical method lets theories emerge from the broader facts and is based on the careful work of many minds who advance broadly in step (with the odd intellectual contretemps) going no further than the evidence will allow. Thus it is consensual and to an extent unselfish (not that I'd push that word too far in academe!), in that all can build on the foundations collectively and painstakingly assembled.

But this process can be perceived as hidebound and limiting by the revolutionary or the egotistical. What stops their views, usually, being widely accepted is that the fair-minded reader/observer quickly identified the missing evidence, the distortions of facts and the frail foundations.

"Suspect" based Ripper studies are always going to be closer to the Holy Blood/Holy Grail, Pyramidiacy end of the spectrum that to the Oxford thesis or dissertation, because they are out to prove a point. They are, to use a word which I first came across in the work of the late historian Charles Ross (in his Richard III to be precise) "perfervid: it means overly fervent.

I think perfervid is a term which could well be used by some posters on these boards.

Phil

I've gone through life and never to my knowledge stumbled over "perfervid", but now that I have I shall perfervidly use it! Yes, you explain it well - again! Actually, very well. Many should listen. - but it makes life a little difficult at times.

Paul