Kosminski Identification Questions

[Stewart P Evans]

So...

So what we have is Swanson apparently mistaken on a key piece of information and, again apparently, unaware of the true fate of the suspect he is writing about.

That, surely, must cast some doubt on the other content of his scribbled annotations. Some of which may have been written years later when he was more elderly and/or infirm.

It is also, apparently, impossible that he was referring to some other 'Kosminski' than Aaron, as there was none.

Taken together with all the other doubts and questions arising from Anderson and Swanson's writings I am surprised that some people invest it with so much importance, even considering it as an answer to the case.

[jason_c]

So what we have is Swanson apparently mistaken on a key piece of information and, again apparently, unaware of the true fate of the suspect he is writing about.

That, surely, must cast some doubt on the other content of his scribbled annotations. Some of which may have been written years later when he was more elderly and/or infirm.

It is also, apparently, impossible that he was referring to some other 'Kosminski' than Aaron, as there was none.

Taken together with all the other doubts and questions arising from Anderson and Swanson's writings I am surprised that some people invest it with so much importance, even considering it as an answer to the case.

Its invested with so much importance as its the only piece of evidence we have against any individual. Even if this evidence is flawed.

[lynn cates]

alia

Hello Jason. Isn't it on a piece with the Littlechild letter and the 2 MacNaughten memoranda?

Cheers.
LC

[belinda]

Anderson could have been given incorrect information about Kosminskis death. Mistakes do happen. Also Anderson said the City CID continued to watch Kosminski as the English Police did not have the power to arrest him without evidence.

As to the witness refusing to swear to the identification that could be more complicated than not wanting to " implicate another Jew".

The repercussions not only for the Kosminski family, who would have borne a terrible backlash of public hostility had Kosminski been brought to trial and convicted. I think they would have faced the very real possibility of having to leave Whitechappel where they had established themselves and their livelihood but the whole Immigrant Jewish population would have come under attack. These people had come from truly terrible conditions in Russia and Poland particularly and would have had a very real fear of those things starting in the East End had Jack The Ripper been proved to be a "Foreign Jew".

[lynn cates]

close to the case?

Hello Belinda.

"Anderson could have been given incorrect information about Kosminski's death."

Quite so, but does that not imply that Anderson was not as close to the case as some would have us to believe?

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

So what we have is Swanson apparently mistaken on a key piece of information and, again apparently, unaware of the true fate of the suspect he is writing about..

If he's talking about Aaron that would appear to be the case.

That, surely, must cast some doubt on the other content of his scribbled annotations. Some of which may have been written years later when he was more elderly and/or infirm.

Assuming that because someone is wrong about one thing, we must dismiss everything, is rather a jump of faith. On that logic you'd have to dismiss almost every little we know.

It is also, apparently, impossible that he was referring to some other 'Kosminski' than Aaron, as there was none.

We dont know that as fact. But I must admit my personal preference is that he was talking about Aaron.

Taken together with all the other doubts and questions arising from Anderson and Swanson's writings I am surprised that some people invest it with so much importance, even considering it as an answer to the case.

While I'm sure everyone is aware of the problems and limitations. Its still surely the best lead we have?

And probably why its the source of so much contention.

But just going back to Swansons belief that Kosminski died, I've always thought this makes more sence of Martin Fido's delema, and explains his course better than beleiving Aaron harmless or a poor fit for JtR.

Actually given what is known about Hebophrenic Schizophria, Aaron going through phazes that take him in and out of the asylum. (and private asylums, I dont see that his family might not have aforded this?) Might explain Swanson's belief...

Though clearly I except its problematic and I don't have any answers.

Trusting everyone enjoys their sunday

Pirate

[jason_c]

Hello Jason. Isn't it on a piece with the Littlechild letter and the 2 MacNaughten memoranda?

Cheers.
LC

As far as I can tell Lynn those examples you site only contain conjecture. No actual evidence has been handed down to us other than a supposed ID.

[Phil H]

I say again, we are not entitled to throw out the marginalia just because it contains errors.

Those may not be errors. Swanson may have known information we do not - maybe there was more than one Kosminski!! (I doubt it) - but my point is that we cannot assume that we have all the information available to him or act as though we did.

There may be errors - slips of the pen - Seaside Home for Seamens' Home perhaps - or of memory. But that does not entitle us to throw out the baby with the bath-water.

As a trained historian would we need to interrogate the document in an ordered way, look at the internal and external evidence. We need to look at the context, the timing and how each part of the marginalia fits together.

Without additional, corroborative evidence, we are not entitled to rationalise away/discard what Swanson wrote even if it counters what we think we know. That is NOT the historical method, and when such an approach has been applied to historical research or archaeology it has usually led to disaster and wrong conclusions.

Phil

[belinda]

Hello Belinda.

"Anderson could have been given incorrect information about Kosminski's death."

Quite so, but does that not imply that Anderson was not as close to the case as some would have us to believe?

Cheers.
LC

Oh Yes. I actually meant Colney Hatch could have supplied the wrong information.

I think both Anderson and Swanson were absolutely certain of what they wrote.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Apparently'

If he's talking about Aaron that would appear to be the case.
Assuming that because someone is wrong about one thing, we must dismiss everything, is rather a jump of faith. On that logic you'd have to dismiss almost every little we know.
We dont know that as fact. But I must admit my personal preference is that he was talking about Aaron.
While I'm sure everyone is aware of the problems and limitations. Its still surely the best lead we have?
And probably why its the source of so much contention.
But just going back to Swansons belief that Kosminski died, I've always thought this makes more sence of Martin Fido's delema, and explains his course better than beleiving Aaron harmless or a poor fit for JtR.
Though clearly I except its problematic and I don't have any answers.
...
Pirate

Hence my use of the word 'apparently'.

I am sure that you do not read and understand posts. I did not say 'dismiss everything', I said 'cast doubt upon' which is an entirely different thing. This subject has been discussed long enough for people to realise the doubts inherent in Anderson and Swanson's writings. So how can you say 'On that logic...' when it is something you have said and not what I said?

No, I do not think it is 'the best lead that we have', that is what you have been indoctrinated with and believe.

It is the source of so much contention because certain writers have pushed the theory for all its worth and they have gained followers like you who are prepared to debate endlessly until everyone else gives up and goes home.

[Stewart P Evans]

Historian

...
As a trained historian would we need to interrogate the document in an ordered way, look at the internal and external evidence. We need to look at the context, the timing and how each part of the marginalia fits together.
...
Phil

Philip Sugden is a trained historian, he has 'interrogated the document' etc. and he has concluded it is not a reliable source or a good theory.

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Jason. Evidence? I'm wondering what corroborated evidence is presented in the Marginalia? Is "the hands behind the back" corroborated? What about his dying just afterwards? Are we certain about "the seaside home"?

Most of all, are we certain that Swanson even wrote this stuff?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cahnge of emphasis

Hello Phil.

"we are not entitled to throw out the marginalia just because it contains errors."

Indeed so. But perhaps we are entitled to deemphasise it whilst spending scarce resources on other avenues more likely to bear fruit.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dissembler

Hello Belinda.

"I think both Anderson and Swanson were absolutely certain of what they wrote."

Why is that? It is not clear that, even though Swanson in fact wrote the "Marginalia" that it was his considered opinion.

And as regards brave, brave Sir Robert, it is not clear why (to paraphrase professor Porter) we should trust a professional dissembler.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Philip Sugden is a trained historian, he has 'interrogated the document' etc. and he has concluded it is not a reliable source or a good theory.

And the decent theory?

Does he plumb for Chapman?

Pirate