Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Phil H]

Further, FM, from his own perspective, if convinced of Kosminski's guilt, Anderson amy have been seeking to allay any residual public fears, or loss of confidence in the police. Not an unpraiseworthy motive. Ego need not come into it.

Phil H

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

On the Swanson thread, you wrote the following..

A contemporary view has to be given weight, even if modern historians believe other perhaps scientific or archaeological evidence, or the views of other contemporaries contradict it.

(my emphasis)

Well that is very interesting indeed, Phil H.

The contemporary view of probably THE foremost expert on lunacy, referring to the murderer, comes from Dr Tuke, as quoted on this thread previously.
It has been said by a supporter of the Kosminski suspect, and one who is highly regarded by many, who additionally has gracefully admitted not knowing of this quote and then having read it, deems it worthy of being totally ignored, thusfar without any tangible explanation.

Interesting, the "historian's view", isn't it?
Especially as the modern view of "experts" in lunacy and psychology are given great weight in the "prime suspect" theory. As there is no reference to Dr Tuke's opinion (as it was not apparently known), the "prime suspect" theory is unbalanced, by the definition of distributing weight of contemporary foremost expert opinion of traits of lunacy regarding the murderer in Whitechapel being notably absent.

What happened to this "contemporary" opinion that has to be given weight in this instance, Phil H? Apparently it is to be ignored.

Oddly, it just so happens that Dr Tuke's very expert opinions directly conflict with the proposed personality of the killer as presented as a "prime suspect", and seemingly exonerates the very personality of Aaron Kosminski, as we know it to be. Yet it is to be ignored.

Your thoughts in conjunction with your previous quote relating to this expert contemporary view would be most appreciated. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[Errata]

Further, FM, from his own perspective, if convinced of Kosminski's guilt, Anderson amy have been seeking to allay any residual public fears, or loss of confidence in the police. Not an unpraiseworthy motive. Ego need not come into it.

Phil H

Except that he isn't allaying public fears. First of all, he didn't write the Da Vinci Code. It is little more than a vanity published my years on the force book. The only people who were going to buy this book were his friends, or people who were familiar with his previous books. Which may have been rather a lot. But it wasn't a massive distribution. I think (thought I confess I don't precisely remember) that his book didn't attain any kind of following until a few decades after his death. Secondly, if he was so concerned about public fears, why wait 20 years to dispense this information? Nobody said a word about this guy for fifteen years. Presumably because they decided not to. They certainly didn't disseminate this information at a time when it could have actually done some good. So he sat on it willingly for a long time. What changed? Another suspect was getting some press. And even to clear that man's good name, he wouldn't have had to say much at all.

If he were truly trying to alleviate fears, If he was simply trying to convey the information that Jack was known, and was off the streets, all he had to say was "We became aware of a suspect, who was identified by a witness. Unfortunately we didn't have enough to prosecute him. However shortly after he came to our attention, he was committed to an asylum where he will spend the rest of his days." No low class Polish Jew stuff, no we were right about him being insane stuff, no he was protected by fellow Jews crap. None of that was necessary information to either alleviate fears, restore the reputation of the force, whatever. That was grandstanding. That was teasing his readers with every possible piece of information except the man's name, and then saying "oh no. I'm sorry. I can't tell tales". The ego is not in the quality of his information. The ego is in his purpose. If he is giving this kind of information to make himself look knowledgeable and wise, to give the impression that the cops knew all along what kind of guy they were looking for, and they were proved right, that's ego. And given that he sat on that information for at least 15 years with no complaint, and given his position, probably through his own decision, that's even worse.

[Chris]

It has been said by a supporter of the Kosminski suspect, and one who is highly regarded by many, who additionally has gracefully admitted not knowing of this quote and then having read it, but deems it worthy of being totally ignored, thusfar without any tangible explanation.

I can't tell from that who you're talking about. Maybe it would be better if you said so, to prevent possible misunderstandings.

But I did see one response to your Batty postings, in which a number of pertinent questions were asked. I didn't see a reply - though it's quite possible I missed it, in the recent flood of erudition.

[Phil Carter]

I can't tell from that who you're talking about. Maybe it would be better if you said so, to prevent possible misunderstandings.

But I did see one response to your Batty postings, in which a number of pertinent questions were asked. I didn't see a reply - though it's quite possible I missed it, in the recent flood of erudition.

Hello Chris,

I believe the postings are still there, but I do not want to be seen or misconstrued as becoming personal and or "attacking" in a personal manner, in any way shape or form, which I can assure you I am not, so will allow you to peruse at your convenience.

But that doesn't answer my point made to Phil H and his comment on historical weight. Which is my present concern.

And now, I must get some sleep,

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

I believe the postings are still there, but I do not want to be seen or misconstrued as becoming personal and or "attacking" in a personal manner, in any way shape or form, which I can assure you I am not, so will allow you to peruse at your convenience.

Yes, it was when I was perusing them that I saw those unanswered questions:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=245316&postcount=732

[harry]

Bridewell,
In answer to your post966.No I do not know that Kosminski wasn't arrested,no more than anyone today knows there was evidence to arrest him,but after the claimed identification,he was allowed to go home,this after said identification proved to police that he was JTR.As I said police only had to have reasonable grounds of suspicion to arrest.So allowing him to go home,is indicative to me that he was released from arrest,or had not been arrested at any time.Does one release a person that evidence shows to have been guilty?You either believe Anderson and Swanson or you do not,and they clearly showed they believed him to have been proven guilty.
As for fear of reprisals or demonstrations from the Jewish people,has anyone considered the response from the non Jewish people if they had become aware a Jewish person,proven to have been JTR,had been allowed to remain at liberty among them.So again we are expected to believe that the police took this chance.Unbelievable.

[Hunter]

Hi Phil (Carter),

Thanks for your response to my earlier post.
For me to answer each challenge you've presented would require a very long post that I'm not sure others could follow without repeating my original post broken into the segments as you've done, followed by your statements and/or questions, and then my response to each in the order presented. Plus we have severe weather moving into my area tonight that I may need to monitor. So I will answer in this way and try to be brief.

Some of your questions or statements I don't quite understand and others I believe may be misinterpretations of my statements, which often happens when something that is written to tie together in a correlating sequence is dismantled piecemeal. It is my fault for making the post in the first place. This is not the medium to present a complex thesis on a subject like this, and trying to make it concise for the purpose of a single post only leaves out other factors that may have made some points more clear and understandable.

I have decided to write something more complete that can take a more in-depth look at Donald Swanson, the CID and its methods, and the sequence of events that culminated in his writing of the marginalia. I've been researching this aspect for some time now along with George Bagster Phillips and the medical evidence. The reasons for delving into both topics is because I believe they are the two most vital aspects of the subject of the Whitechapel Murders as far as understanding what might have taken place. Perhaps one of the publications may be interested.

One last point for clarification...
Some of what I wrote in my post is subjective. That is the nature of a historical thesis. But if done using established criteria for historical analysis - i.e.- beginning the research with no predetermined conclusion; relying upon the known facts of the events themselves, the socio-political background, police structure and procedure, biographical information on the people involved as well as other aspects of their lives... etc... I have always believed that something credible is more likely to be achieved. And especially in this case, not to come to the table with a predetermined notion about any specific individual who may have killed any of these women (and that includes Kozminski) or an agenda on the topic. 95% of everything written on this subject has started with one of these caveats that virtually destroys objectivity and leaves this series of events in the virtual fog they have been in since they took place. There are notable exceptions... but even then, often, credible research has been challenged by the factions whose predilections are threatened. Its time to change that.

Everything will never be answered in something as unique and incomplete as this subject. But major ground has been broken by new information in the past few decades and the use of the internet has accelerated that exponentially. The chance has never been better to apply it to some kind of cognizant understanding that may engender some broad concensus, even if no definite conclusions can ever be achieved.

[Monty]

Very good news Cris,

I for one shall look forward to this.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil (Carter),

Thanks for your response to my earlier post.
For me to answer each challenge you've presented would require a very long post that I'm not sure others could follow without repeating my original post broken into the segments as you've done, followed by your statements and/or questions, and then my response to each in the order presented. Plus we have severe weather moving into my area tonight that I may need to monitor. So I will answer in this way and try to be brief.

Some of your questions or statements I don't quite understand and others I believe may be misinterpretations of my statements, which often happens when something that is written to tie together in a correlating sequence is dismantled piecemeal. It is my fault for making the post in the first place. This is not the medium to present a complex thesis on a subject like this, and trying to make it concise for the purpose of a single post only leaves out other factors that may have made some points more clear and understandable.

I have decided to write something more complete that can take a more in-depth look at Donald Swanson, the CID and its methods, and the sequence of events that culminated in his writing of the marginalia. I've been researching this aspect for some time now along with George Bagster Phillips and the medical evidence. The reasons for delving into both topics is because I believe they are the two most vital aspects of the subject of the Whitechapel Murders as far as understanding what might have taken place. Perhaps one of the publications may be interested.

One last point for clarification...
Some of what I wrote in my post is subjective. That is the nature of a historical thesis. But if done using established criteria for historical analysis - i.e.- beginning the research with no predetermined conclusion; relying upon the known facts of the events themselves, the socio-political background, police structure and procedure, biographical information on the people involved as well as other aspects of their lives... etc... I have always believed that something credible is more likely to be achieved. And especially in this case, not to come to the table with a predetermined notion about any specific individual who may have killed any of these women (and that includes Kozminski) or an agenda on the topic. 95% of everything written on this subject has started with one of these caveats that virtually destroys objectivity and leaves this series of events in the virtual fog they have been in since they took place. There are notable exceptions... but even then, often, credible research has been challenged by the factions whose predilections are threatened. Its time to change that.

Everything will never be answered in something as unique and incomplete as this subject. But major ground has been broken by new information in the past few decades and the use of the internet has accelerated that exponentially. The chance has never been better to apply it to some kind of cognizant understanding that may engender some broad concensus, even if no definite conclusions can ever be achieved.

Hello Cris,

It would be great to see such an analysis, and I wish you luck in attempting this.
Thank you for your reply.

best wishes

Phil

[harry]

Hunter,
I wish you well in your endeavour.Just one question.Do you know what law the police at the time were acting under,and how it affected their behaviour.How it affected the rights of citizens.Before anything else,I believe it neccessary that you have at least a working knowledge of that law.Not criticisingi,just trying to be helpful.

[robhouse]

It has been said by a supporter of the Kosminski suspect, and one who is highly regarded by many, who additionally has gracefully admitted not knowing of this quote and then having read it, deems it worthy of being totally ignored, thusfar without any tangible explanation.

As Chris has pointed out above, I did explain my reasons. Will you please admit that the above highlighted line is wrong.

RH

[Hunter]

Hi Harry,

I'm off to work with no notes, so Ill speak generally here. A good contemporary example of how the police approached dealing with a suspect and the legal requirements involved is to go back to the Coles murder and the process involved with Sadler... at least as a basis to go by.

Obviously, the situation with Kozminski was different as he was not charged with anything, but some degree of suspicion evidently was there but the evidence may not have been as direct. Sadler was known to be with a victim on the night of her murder and a weapon was located.

I think the suspicion of Kozminski was due to less substantial second hand information accrued much longer after any murder took place. And as I mentioned earlier, there was the profile of someone in a condition of satyriasis or 'erotic mania.' If Kozminski's mental condition had deteriorated by that time the legal aspects change there too. Just look at the difficulties Abberline had with Isenschmid and Dr. Menkel's refusal to let the police submit him to interrogation and an ID attempt. Kozminski's family apparently was having trouble with him by this time and the police probably thought some type of committal could be eminent.

The indication to me is that some kind of arrangement was agreed upon with Kosminski's family to keep this low keyed and out of the public eye for obvious reasons. Placing Kozminski into the workhouse met the legal requirements and gave the police a shot at a discreet ID attempt. They didn't want another Pizer situation to develop and Kozminski's family would surely be in fear of their own safety as well.

Perhaps someone here who has access to documents can give you the specific clauses in British law. I am not at liberty to do so at the moment.

[AdamNeilWood]

I have decided to write something more complete that can take a more in-depth look at Donald Swanson, the CID and its methods, and the sequence of events that culminated in his writing of the marginalia. I've been researching this aspect for some time now along with George Bagster Phillips and the medical evidence. The reasons for delving into both topics is because I believe they are the two most vital aspects of the subject of the Whitechapel Murders as far as understanding what might have taken place. Perhaps one of the publications may be interested.

Hi Cris,

Yes, please!

Best wishes
Adam

[lynn cates]

sadler

Hello Cris. Yes, Sadler indeed! I just finished reading his file again just a few days ago. He was kept under surveillance and closely monitored until, I think, Mrs. Sadler felt safe.

Look forward to your work.

Cheers.
LC