Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Fisherman]

Maybe itīs just me - but why the "undoubtedly", as per "The Otago Witness"? Why not just say that he was insane?
To me, it sounds as if there was an ongoing discussion whether the man was insane or not - as if somebody was very much disagreeing with the assessment.

The only other context in which you use this sort of phrasing is when you have not yet caught your perpetrator, do not know how he is - but feel certain that the deeds done put it beyond question that he is insane.

Iīm not at ease with Andersonīs wording here, I must say - it leaves questions unanswered.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Maybe itīs just me - but why the "undoubtedly", as per "The Otago Witness"?

Surely it just means that the person he was talking about was undoubtedly the Ripper (in his view, obviously).

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"Surely it just means that the person he was talking about was undoubtedly the Ripper (in his view, obviously)."

Do you think so? To me, the "undoubtedly" seems to allude to "insane", and not to any assertion that he was the Ripper. Here it is again:

"The Whitechapel murderer, known as "Jack the Ripper," was, said Sir Robert, undoubtedly insane, and was ultimately confined within an asylum."

I make that a claim that the man was "undoubtedly insane", but - as always - you are the Brit and I am the Swede, so maybe I am missing some fine linguistic point?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Taken in the context of Anderson's other pronouncements, I don't see how else to interpret it. Really I just posted that extract because Errata found it strange he didn't use the word "insane" in his book.

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"Taken in the context of Anderson's other pronouncements, I don't see how else to interpret it. "

I do. And I donīt think Andersonīs other pronouncements would be in any way confused by acknowledging that "undoubtedly" clearly alludes to "insane" here. Shorten the sentence and see what you get, Chris: ""Jack the Ripper," was, said Sir Robert, undoubtedly insane".

So why "undoubtedly"? Kosminski was a certified lunatic by 1904 - why not just say so? To add "undoubtedly" is a strange thing to do. Undoubtedly so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

I agree - that wouldn't make sense. That's why I don't think it's what Anderson meant (or perhaps even said).

[Fisherman]

I dunno, Chris. I think we are many times left with these wobbly statements on behalf of Anderson. It bothers me.
Partly, it could be because he was not a hands on man, of course. And just like you say, paper reports are paper reports, and they could have gotten it slightly wrong.

But it bothers me, nevertheless...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

Let's not overdue it, Phil H. Kozminski is intriguing, and a reasonable suspect...but a suspect for WHAT? That's the big question. I should think very few of us could still operate under the delusion that the whole of the Ripper mystery could be laid at the feet of a single, local, East End nut. If the Ripper murders were your normal, typical murder series, it wouldn't generate near the interest it does, nor would it likely have gone unsolved. This was not your run-of-the-mill sexual serial killer series.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Really don't understand the idea that this is such a mystery.

It generates interest because a) he wasn't caught b) the severity of the crimes c) the moniker d) the Victorian period.

This is just a another serial killer who managed to evade detention at her Majesty's due to a) luck b) the policing of the times c) the location.

It really was just another sexual serial killer doing the rounds.

[Beowulf]

Chris:

"Taken in the context of Anderson's other pronouncements, I don't see how else to interpret it. "

I do. And I donīt think Andersonīs other pronouncements would be in any way confused by acknowledging that "undoubtedly" clearly alludes to "insane" here. Shorten the sentence and see what you get, Chris: ""Jack the Ripper," was, said Sir Robert, undoubtedly insane".

So why "undoubtedly"? Kosminski was a certified lunatic by 1904 - why not just say so? To add "undoubtedly" is a strange thing to do. Undoubtedly so.

The best,
Fisherman

Couldn't adding 'undoubtedly' be just a manner of speech? Often people use two words that mean the same thing together. An overemphasis? Like the use of 'you know' is overdone but it is commonly used.

[Fisherman]

Beowulf:

"Couldn't adding 'undoubtedly' be just a manner of speech? Often people use two words that mean the same thing together. An overemphasis? Like the use of 'you know' is overdone but it is commonly used."

Maybe it could. Nothing is black or white around this case. I am just saying that it is a strange word to use for a man who purportedly knew very well that his suspect - if Aaron Kosminski - was a certified lunatic.

Where Anderson should have described a man that was diagnosed as a lunatic by professionals in the field and who lived on to 1919, he instead spoke of a man that seemingly did not have this diagnosis - but Anderson felt a need to press the point home that he WAS insane - and who, according to Sir Robert and Donald Swanson, died shortly after his incarceration.

To me, it seems that the pair are either speaking of another man altogether, or they are hopelessly out on very important factors of the case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Couldn't adding 'undoubtedly' be just a manner of speech? Often people use two words that mean the same thing together. An overemphasis? Like the use of 'you know' is overdone but it is commonly used.

Maybe, but have you ever noticed that when people say "undoubtedly" what they really mean is "I can't prove it, but my personal conviction is"? When people say it, it means that it is in fact in doubt somewhere.

For example, though perhaps a bad one. Whenever I hear it, it gos something like this: "Undoubtedly your husband would rather be with his family than at work, so I wouldn't worry about it." Which means the preceding statement was in fact expressing doubt about said husband.

If the suspect was "undoubtedly insane" then it seems to me that someone was expressing doubt, ad Anderson was making a pronouncement. Not necessarily of fact, but of opinion/conviction.

It's along the lines of "No offense, but..." and that's your signal that you are about to get offended. If they didn't know you were going to get offended, they wouldn't add that intro. "Undoubtedly" means they know there is room for doubt, so they are making a preemptive descriptive strike.

[Chris]

I really must be missing something here. Are people suggesting that Anderson was describing someone who had been confined to a lunatic asylum without having been found to be insane?

[Errata]

The other thing that's a little odd is that he says the he was undoubtedly insane, and ultimately confined within an asylum. So he isn't taking the view that he was insane, and we know that because he was confined to an asylum. It's a subtle thing, but the implication is that Anderson is not submitting to the judgement of the doctors who admitted him. He is basically saying that ultimately, the doctors agreed with him.

A lot of this is the extremely fuzzy pseudoscience of word choice. If it were me, and I met a guy who I thought was insane, but there was no proof, and no action that could be taken, but I find later on down the road that someone finally committed him and I was proven right, this is exactly how I would phrase it. If I was withholding judgement on someone's sanity until I got some kind of professional opinion, I would phrase it differently. Maybe "The suspect was confined in an asylum, having been judged to be insane." That I lead with the institutionalization means that's the important factor in the statement. In other words, leading with the apparent proof, not with the conviction likely means you don't have a horse in the race. So Anderson is declaring the man's insanity based on something other than professional pronouncement. Personal belief, personal interaction with the man, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but he made that assessment before doctors got involved.

Also, "ultimately" confined within an asylum alludes to there being many steps leading up to that. It could mean workhouse to asylum, but it's like "a grand total of" which implies more than two. For example, I might "ultimately" end up in an asylum, having exhausted all other options, and having already been under the treatment of a psychiatrist, participated in day programs, partial programs, had a battery of testing, etc. over the course of 25 years. 4 years, 1 unrelated arrest, and a stint in the workhouse does not seem to constitute enough time, effort, or difficulty to qualify as "ultimately". 15 years later, sure. Multiple stints in various places of limited freedom, yes. If it took a bunch of people a bunch of years to manipulate the system in order to get the guy off the streets, I'll buy it. His brother taking him down to a local office? I don't see it. It's an odd word choice. Why not Eventually, subsequently, therefor, because of which, etc.? Ultimately is too strong a word.

Of course, most of this is, as I said, fuzzy pseudoscience. And if Anderson was a flamboyant man with a penchant for writing in a somewhat precious style, it's all moot. But I've read the man's book on this part of his life. He's pompous, but not precious.

[Errata]

I really must be missing something here. Are people suggesting that Anderson was describing someone who had been confined to a lunatic asylum without having been found to be insane?

Having been found to be insane and actually being insane are two different beasts entirely.

[Chris]

But we're agreed that Anderson was talking about someone who had been found to be insane and put into a lunatic asylum?