Poll - Was Aaron Kosminski the Ripper?

[Chris]

Kosminski ... was believed by HIS OWN FAMILY to be the Fiend ...

With respect, there is absolutely no evidence that Aaron Kozminski's family suspected him of being the murderer - let alone believed him to have been the murderer.

Of course it's possible that they suspected something. But it's equally possible that they never had any idea that he was suspected.

[Jonathan H]

With all due respect, up to a point I agree, Chris.

It's a theory, for sure.

But it also depends on the definition of 'evidence'.

History is an attempt to figure out what happened, and is not a court of law, or a pathologist's lab.

This is why historical methodology is often a despised 'science'; it's too speculative, too contingent, too subjective others claim -- the others often being people of the hard sciences.

We know there really was an Aaron Kosminski, and we know that a few years after he was institutionalized Anderson and Swanson's opinions were hardening that he was the best bet to be the Ripper.

The link, however, between those two stages is missing?

Forensic science or a legal advocate's approach cannot help us.

Since Kosminski was not, I argue, a contemporaneous suspect, and since the witness identification -- which was a dodgy claim only made much, much later -- is probably a myth, and since Macnaghten silkily alludes, in 1894, to the Kosminski family having a terrible suspicion, then it is in my opinion that it is a reasonable theory that his origin as a Ripper suspect began with family members.

[Chris]

It may be a reasonable theory. I just don't like it being stated as fact when it's not.

While it can be interesting to speculate, let's remember that Aaron Kozminski still does have family, and let's not go beyond the facts in our speculations.

[Jonathan H]

Let me tell what I don't like and that is the reductionism of this approach.

It's sterile and a dead end.

Now you're talking like you're about to launch an indignant libel suit on behalf of Kosminski's descendants against me for daring to suggest that a suspect believed by senior men at Scotland Yard to be the Ripper -- is beneath contempt?!

Of course, ironically, you do not realize how close you come to explaining why the middle section of the story about Kosminski is missing.

The libel laws of the time are a key part of the puzzle.

The need to protect reputations is a another.

Let me ask you something, mate, since you offer no counter-argument, and no alternative theory, what's your particular bias?

[Chris]

Jonathan

I'm sorry you seem to feel the need to be so hostile, particularly as we have previously had a perfectly amicable discussion by email.

What I'm objecting to is simply the statement - as if it were a fact - that Aaron Kozminski was suspected by his own family of being the Ripper. Because that's not a fact, but a speculation. If it had been presented as a speculation, of course I would have had no problem with it.

One of the more baffling features of the case, to me, is the number of people who insist on stating their speculations as fact, and who take offence when someone asks them to observe the distinction.

[Jonathan H]

Hostile??

You mean because I dare to defend myself?

I'm not apologizing for that, pal!

You don't get it do you?

You really don't get how utterly pompous and dogmatic your posts read, do you mate?

And -- much, much worse -- totally humourless!?

You need to lighten up.

You practically accuse me of libel, and then have the gall to say I'm being hostile.

This is whilst not challenging my point about reductionism, nor answering my question about your own personal bias?

You dismiss me as a tiresome cliche but don't show your own cards.

I have been as careful, as time allows, to always make clear in my posts that I am theorising with a declared Druitt/Macnaghten bias.

I try and argue and counter-argue even with myself.

And all that counts for nothing with you because just once I did not say 'theory' even though any historian, or any historical researcher, is by definition putting an opinion any time they express themselves.

What 'baffles' me [not really] is the way as soon as an outsider challenges the conventional wisdom there are certain people who thunderously project their biases, and their touchiness, and their dogmatism onto me, and others of course. They then accuse me of doing what they do?

To be positive I have found Johnr, and Wolf, and Lynn, and a couple of others, and Stewart of course, to be terrific to debate and share interpretations with.

To be fair, I had been warned from several people before I began posting that this would all end in tears.

[Chris]

Jonathan

You seem to be reading all kinds of things into my posts that aren't there.

I repeat - all I'm objecting to is something being stated as fact when it's not fact but speculation.

Surely you're not really arguing that that's not an important distinction to make?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Johnathon, Chris, all,

May I be allowed to take up one of your points Johnathan?
I am one within this community, and I think Chris will agree here, that dares to step outside the box and try to expand the boundaries. Yes, there are some people who stand doggedly by their own theories, and yes, there are others who are willing to "give me my lead" and discuss factually and respectfully, from the opposite point of view. To all of them, whoever they are, whatever they say, in what ever way they say it, I remain respectful in my responses.
Chris, from my dealings with him over a short period, has shown exactly that same respect back...and I am sure we don't agree on many issues. Far from it I'd imagine.

I'm not a "Druitist", "Kosminskyite" "Cutbushman" nor a "Gullible" nor a "Tumbeltyman" and can see reasonable points for all their nominations.

Your input is certainly welcome Jonathan. I must admit, respectfully, that on this occasion, like Chris, I read your theory as speculative, as opposed to factual. But I liked the input and like the idea behind it.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

It's Jonathan not 'Johnathon'.

And that's my last post in RipperLand.

[Paul]

And this is my first, I hope all debates don't end like this otherwise I'll be scared to put my opinions and ideas in.

[Chris]

I think it would be a shame if Jonathan stopped posting.

Just in case it makes any difference, I will point out that there was - of course - no implied accusation of "libel" in my comment about Aaron's family. Obviously all the people concerned are now dead, so it's not possible to libel them.

My point was simply that, in fairness to surviving members of the family, speculation about their possible involvement should be clearly acknowledged as such, and not presented as fact.

[Robert]

Where does Macnaghten allude to the Kosminski family having a "terrible suspicion"?

[Phil Carter]

It's Jonathan not 'Johnathon'.

And that's my last post in RipperLand.

My sincerest apologies Jonathan... you will have noticed I spelt your name correctly twice in the same posting. The first however, was wrong. The last thing I'd do to ANYONE is cause offence in any way.

I hope you continue to post as well, as I stated, I enjoyed the posting and the idea behind it.

best wishes

Phil

[mklhawley]

It's Jonathan not 'Johnathon'.

And that's my last post in RipperLand.

Jonathan. Get your butt back on this forum. The saltier ripperologists do respect your comments, because they are respectable and logical. They need us junior types, because it allows them to clarify and revisit. Heck, I've been called Miss Marple and Banana, but I'm lovin' this stuff. Keep the faith, Jonathan.

Sincerely,

Mike

[harry]

I do not believe Kosminski a likely Ripper.
I would be interested to know who advised Jonathan about writing on these boards.I live in Adelaide,and have yet to meet a person interested in the Ripper,and none who remotely know of this site.