Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Jonathan H]

Bridewell, you have not responded to my answer to your previous question on the other thread -- which is your right of course.

But it is answered.

Your theory here is perfectly reasonable.

eg. this source says one thing, he says another.

Therefore, Macnaghten is an unreliable source manipulating untraceable data, depending on his audience.

My counter is:

1. Unlike 'Kosminski' and Ostrog (except for a brief mention in the police publication in 1888, as 'dangerous') Druitt, albeit un-named, begins as a Ripper suspect among his own people in Dorset before Macnaghten has heard of him. Essentially Farquharson's distorted profile of the deceased surgeon's son becomes Sims' instantly shattered suicide familiar to Edwardians as the 'police' solution to the whole mystery.

and,

2. In the one document for the public under his own knighted name, the de-factor third version of his 'Report', Mac eliminated 'Kosminski' (or Aaron Kosminski) and Michael Ostrog from contention. They are nothing. He did this long before, respectively, Martin Fido and Philip Sudgen discovered that they are not viable -- in Ostrog's case absolutely so. Mac also drops the American suspect and any reference to Cutbush. He also concedes that the real 'Protean' Ripper was not a suspect for years after he killed himself, matching the Farquharson revelation, but disagrees with the MP on a crucial element -- the maniac did not kill himself within hours of the final murder. This is true of the real Montie, rather than Sims' 'shrieking, raving fiend' who could not function even for 'a single day'.

[Phil H]

Two things Jonathan:

a) According to you I am worthless anyhow, yet here we are, you wasting your precious time debating with a know-nothing like me ...

If you read my past posts in numerous threads, I think you will find I have been scrupulous in saying that I respect your commitment to and persistence in promoting your idea. It is the fact that it is a structure erected on insecure foundations with which i differ. nevertheless...

b) For the benefit of others, as Phil H will have stopped reading by now.

Don't jump to assumptions, I always read your threads as my responses to many should have shown you. I also think that i usually explain why I differ from you. That I differ from you and indeed from the actual basis of your hypothesis is a different matter. For you it is a matter of conviction and faith, for me a set of assumptions and speculation that is less convinncing (to me) - for reasons given many times - than what Sir RA and DSS say.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

I would tend to agree that macnaghten favoured druitt but that holds as much weight as the contrary favouring of Kosminsky by Swanson and Anderson. They in many ways negate each other and illustrate that the police top brass actually didn't have any firm idea who it was and just had their own pet suspects that conformed to their prejudices.

[Bridewell]

Lack of Response

Bridewell, you have not responded to my answer to your previous question on the other thread -- which is your right of course.

Jonathan,

That's an oversight for which I apologise. Which thread are you referring to, Frantic Friends or a different one?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

I would tend to agree that macnaghten favoured druitt but that holds as much weight as the contrary favouring of Kosminsky by Swanson and Anderson. They in many ways negate each other and illustrate that the police top brass actually didn't have any firm idea who it was and just had their own pet suspects that conformed to their prejudices.

Odd logic Lechmere, that IMHO doesn't hold water.

MM was a latecomer to the scene.

Sir RA and SS were on the case at its height.

Because the individuals disagree does not make their views balance out. For one thing, MM mentions Kosminski (so was aware of the suspicion) and in at least one version of his writings equates him to MJD. So, in my book, that puts AK ahead!!

Sir RA and DSS DID indeed have a firm view of their man, Kosminski and this apparently was based on more than prejudice - an ID.

Moreover MM's candidate, as so vehemntly promoted by Jonathan, is entirely based on hearsay and post hoc views. Despite his defence, Druitt has no associations with the East End, or cime scenes (which Kosminski apparently does) or with victims, no proven mental instability or motive apart from his tragic suicide.

That's enough to create clear water between the two views for me, pending new evidence.

I know you want to canvas for your own pet suspect (for whom there's no contemporary evidence whatsoever) but that does not mean you can get away with weak arguments and dishing the rest of the field. I have sympathy for your views, but don't want the water muddied elsewhere just because its clarity doesn't suit you.

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

To Lechmere

It's not odd at all.

That the contemporary police cancel each other out due to different and competing Jacks is a reasonable opinion.

I just happen not to share it.

Don't fall for that rubbish about Macnaghten being entirely too late. He was more in London at the time of the murders than was Anderson, and also pals with Monro -- his once and future police patron.

Mac was not too late to investigate the Druitt story when it first spilled out of Dorset in 1891, he knew of Ostrog all the way back to playing Old Scholars cricket the day the Russian thief stole from his beloved Eton, and he had been on the Force for nearly two years when Aaron Kosminski was permanently sectioned.

There is much confusion here between historical evidence and evidence for a trial or at least an arrest.

Just because we do not have Druitt's connections to the East End does not mean that there was not one, nor that Macnaghten did not know what it was.

Assume a crash position, though Lechmere, because to dissent with some here is to to be written off as a fanatic. I know -- how ironic?!

It won't matter a jot how many times you state that your opinion is provisional, and could of course be wrong.

[Phil H]

"Nothing in the recent research rules him OUT wholly, as is the case with Ostrog."

And nothing apart from the Anderson/Swanson (and MacNaghten) bit rules Aaron IN either.

Why must this be about compeition. I have not ruled Lechmere/Cross out. I am simply evaluating evidence and in my book being mentioned by a senior official in C19th rates higher than a C21st assessment based on interpreting what is thought to have been said, when the dialogue may have been misheard or be unreliable.

No contemporary evidence, Phil, and contemporary evidence was seemingly what you asked for on Lechmere´s behalf..? Ostrog is on no consequence to the discussion, by the way.

Ostrog IS relevent because he was mentioned by MM, but has been ruled out. AK could be if it proved that "Kosminski" was a cover-name for something else (I think not but you never know).

"I see no direct EVIDENCE that Lechmere was potentially in the right place at the right time"

Whomever found the body would fit the criteria you mention (as with Davis etc). This presence there was insufficient to nominate him as a suspect until recently, so the inference cannot be that obvious!! Lechmere/Cross cannot be closely associated with other crime scenes in the same way.

"The distinction between Lechmere and Kosminski, is that the former was never mentioned by officials at the time and I suspect was never investigated."

Sorry, your arguments here are sophistical - they are seeking to justify your contention. They do not stand up in their own right (IMHO).

And in only one case is the difference something that seemingly favours Kosminski over Lechmere in terms of viability - the contemporary suspicion.

And THAT to my mind is a CRUCIAL difference.

But if contemporary suspicions were grounded on partially faulty and prejudiced thinking, then of what worth are they?

But that was not the question, was it? There never was any statement on my behalf that these people were potential killers.

But they were in the same position as Lechmere and one at least is known to have told "fibs" (later admittedly). You may not want to admit it, but these are relevant.

But not having USED the evidence at the time does not change these matters into non-evidence, Phil. It only turns them into hitherto unemployed evidence. It´s evidence just the same, and it´s contemporary evidence.

I think the two sorts of "evidence" is of a substantially different kind. We are not in a position to speak to the people concerned, look them in the eye, evaluate them. Further, cobbling together a theory on the basis of what may be unreliably reported dialogue is hardly the same as ID's, surveillance etc at the time.

I read a good deal of "alternative" history because it intrigues and amuses me (Holy Blood Holy Grail stuff, Graham Hancock; Roswell) and the fascinating thing is they take a similar approach to you. It can be compelling, is often clever - but it isn't proper history. I understand why you, and such authors get frustrated with academic rejection of their theories, but there it is.

the historical method has been contrived over centuries to allow all those interested to build on a commonly agreed foundation - that can and may be overthrown by new discoveries, but then the process begins again. each generation has new perspectives - history is after all rarely onjective and reflects our modern concerns and views - but it is based on peer acceptance. When your view is peer reviewed and accepted, I'll give you all kudos - until then, for me - it remains an enjoyable but marginal theory.

"I am sympathetic to the view that maybe there was more than one killer of the canonicals; I think one man could have killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - that could be Lechmere - but the police ruled him out at the time because he had an alibi for say MJK."

But in such a case, he would have belonged to the suspects for a period of ten weeks, Phil. And he would have been thoroughly looked into, meaning that they would have noted the nameswop - which they clearly did not. Therefore, we may on very safe grounds assume that they never investigated him at all.

Not my point - I am simply suggesting criteria which might make lechmere an acceptable suspect for me.

"they are "weak" in the sense that you have to accept the underlying assumption that we have literally correct words quoted, and that the wrong name is significant."

Why would we not accept that Lechmere was found alone by a murder victim? That cannot be challenged by any misinterpretation musings, I hope?

The fact of his presence is not challenged. But the papers got his name wrong, so why can we trust their reporting of what was said?

And why would we NOT accept that work along the premise that what was written down was also what was said, is a historically more correct methodology than trying to ensure innocence on Lechmere´s behalf by allowing for more or less fanciful re-interpretations of the material?

Partly because it's recollection (not say taped/recorded like a modern interview). Reporters may have dressed things up (I am accepting that inquest testimony from the record will be verbatim, but it is recollected and will be third person.

"If it was a current case I agree, but we are studying JtR as history and thus a different standard of and approach to evidence is required."

But then you only agree that a police force of today should regard the correlation in times and places as being of very vital importance - whereas you say that the alternative approach of not caring would be the correct thing to do by the Victorian police.

What has police procedure to do with the historical method?

But it´s not about the standards of the police back then, Phil. We all know THEY were lacking.

Do we? I know they had less science, less technology, and were dealing with new issues - serial killers. But the officials probably had beeter trained powers of reasoning than we do. Classical education does that.

It´s about whether we TODAY, acknowledging the importance of matters like these, should applaud bygone police forces for having good intentions and bad working methods.

You will first have to convince others - I mean serious historians - that your methodology is sound. then await peer review.

We UNDERSTAND why the Victorian police were at a loss sometimes - but surely we cannot commend it?

We have to work with it. I try to avoid judging the past - things were different then.

"If you have to denigrate men like Swanson to bolster your case it shows how weak it is. That was beaneath you, Fisherman. There is no reason to believe that DSS was "foggy". His position was achieved by merit and justified promotion."

But I never said a iota about Swanson, did I? I admire the man much, and I don´t think he went foggy at all.

Then re-read your post.

What I DID was to say that if any old, foggy (like Anderson, towards the end of his life sometimes WAS) policeman in a high position had backed the Lechmere theory back then, we would be very keen on him today.

I am not convinced that Anderson was any foggier than Swanson in old age (the usually regailed story was when he was tired). Anyway you did not name Anderson in your post, you simply made a general derogatory statement.

"I am talking about the standard academic historical method, about evaluating EVIDENCE which is accepted world-wide."

"You are asking the wrong person the wrong question."

No, I am emphatically not, I´m afraid.

Please yourself, I'm not here to judge you, any more than the past. But if you want to play by rules that are unconventional be prepared to be marginalised.

I want to know why they do so, Phil. And that´s because I mean that the arguments we have presented are very STRONG arguments

Frankly they are not strong - they are clever. you make a case, but on a foundation of sand. I don't see wide acceptance of Lechmere as a prime suspect here on Casebook. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating. It may look nice, it may amuse, but does your theory convince others?

Phil H

[Phil H]

I don't think, personally, that the case will ever be solved unless new and remarkable evidence emerges. That's what I hope for.

The sad thing is sally, that Casebook seems to show that even if such evidence did emerge, people (and I have no one specific in mind) would seek to discredit and rubbish it for their own ends.

Look at the reception given to the 1909 Dutfield's Yard picture by some. It seems to originate in a mixture of "not invented here" or simple jealousy; and a too blind conviction to one's own suspect to the exclusion of all else.

The marginalia was an amazing find (as was the Aberconway draft in its day). Impeccable provenance (unlike the "Diary") and information (from senior figures centrally involved) that takes the case whole steps forward. We got names and details.

Yet, while there is a clear need to understand the motives and context of these writings, we have seen frequent efforts to discredit or disparage the maginalia and its author. Mainly I perceive this as arising from a view that acceptance of the marginalia and its contents would seriously weaken some individual's pet theory. It is neither good scholarship, nor useful, nor even subtle.

Unlike Fisherman's idea, the marginalia (and the MM memoranda in its various forms) is whole cloth. While we may not understand every nuance of either, they provide specific insights into the minds of the top cops of their day. They set out information that we would otherwise never have heard of - names of suspects, the way the investigation was carried out, the use of non-regular procedures...

As someone who (sincerely) has no axe to grind apart from a serious desire to see Ripper studies taken seriously, I find it very difficult to understand how intelligent people can view mind games (the creation of an hypothesis from bits and pieces) with REAL historical evidence. Mind games, whether based on Macnaghten or Lechmere (to single out the two mentioned in this thread) are amusing, stimulating, clever, ingenious, but to me essentially they remain mental exercises based on supposition and stitching together miscellaneous material (in the process making unsupported assertions and assumptions about motive). This is not reputable historical study, this is free thinking. I cannot conceive how anyone can fail to discern the huge difference between that and solid written contemporary material.

I remember the days when Ripper studies were in the hands of men like McCormick, who seem to have invented material and sources as it suited them. We then moved on to Cullen and Farson and some solid research that added something, but were plunged back into chaos and disrepute by Knight.

Only after 1988 did we start to see the emergence of some really strong and serious historians - Rumbelow (earlier) then Fido, Begg, Evans, Skinner etc who added to our knowledge with impeccable scholarship, thorough research and deep logical analysis. Finally we got the brilliant editions of Source book, Letters and the A-Z which help us all. Eventually a proper academic, Sugden, felt he could dip into the field without damaging his reputation.

I don't want to see Ripperology slip back into the slip-shod days and ways of the 60s when it was a field for the journalist and the sensationalist.

Please, please look at the difference between the two approaches i have outlined. Have fun, play with ideas, but don't mistake that for scholarship that will gain respect and admiration through its solid worth and added value.

Sorry but I had to say that.

Phil H

[Sally]

Hi Phil

Excellent post, and I am in total agreement.

The marginalia was an amazing find (as was the Aberconway draft in its day). Impeccable provenance (unlike the "Diary") and information (from senior figures centrally involved) that takes the case whole steps forward. We got names and details.

Yet, while there is a clear need to understand the motives and context of these writings, we have seen frequent efforts to discredit or disparage the maginalia and its author. Mainly I perceive this as arising from a view that acceptance of the marginalia and its contents would seriously weaken some individual's pet theory. It is neither good scholarship, nor useful, nor even subtle.

Yes, again, I concur.

Unlike Fisherman's idea, the marginalia (and the MM memoranda in its various forms) is whole cloth. While we may not understand every nuance of either, they provide specific insights into the minds of the top cops of their day. They set out information that we would otherwise never have heard of - names of suspects, the way the investigation was carried out, the use of non-regular procedures...

I think that historically, this evidence is very interesting. Regarding Kosminski, I don't see how we can judge his viability as a suspect until (unless) we know more about the context of his suspect status. I hope that more will come to light in time.

As someone who (sincerely) has no axe to grind apart from a serious desire to see Ripper studies taken seriously, I find it very difficult to understand how intelligent people can view mind games (the creation of an hypothesis from bits and pieces) with REAL historical evidence. Mind games, whether based on Macnaghten or Lechmere (to single out the two mentioned in this thread) are amusing, stimulating, clever, ingenious, but to me essentially they remain mental exercises based on supposition and stitching together miscellaneous material (in the process making unsupported assertions and assumptions about motive). This is not reputable historical study, this is free thinking. I cannot conceive how anyone can fail to discern the huge difference between that and solid written contemporary material.

I agree, and yet, people do seem unable to see the distinction. Perhaps we're expecting too much, Phil. I think that in general, the more one learns about the past, the less willing one becomes to adhere to poorly constructed conclusions. The more you learn, as they say, the less you know.

Finally we got the brilliant editions of Source book, Letters and the A-Z which help us all. Eventually a proper academic, Sugden, felt he could dip into the field without damaging his reputation.

The Sourcebook is invaluable, it's one of the few books on the subject to grace my shelves

[robhouse]

I don't think, personally, that the case will ever be solved unless new and remarkable evidence emerges. That's what I hope for.

The sad thing is sally, that Casebook seems to show that even if such evidence did emerge, people (and I have no one specific in mind) would seek to discredit and rubbish it for their own ends.

Look at the reception given to the 1909 Dutfield's Yard picture by some. It seems to originate in a mixture of "not invented here" or simple jealousy; and a too blind conviction to one's own suspect to the exclusion of all else.

The marginalia was an amazing find (as was the Aberconway draft in its day). Impeccable provenance (unlike the "Diary") and information (from senior figures centrally involved) that takes the case whole steps forward. We got names and details.

Yet, while there is a clear need to understand the motives and context of these writings, we have seen frequent efforts to discredit or disparage the maginalia and its author. Mainly I perceive this as arising from a view that acceptance of the marginalia and its contents would seriously weaken some individual's pet theory. It is neither good scholarship, nor useful, nor even subtle.

Unlike Fisherman's idea, the marginalia (and the MM memoranda in its various forms) is whole cloth. While we may not understand every nuance of either, they provide specific insights into the minds of the top cops of their day. They set out information that we would otherwise never have heard of - names of suspects, the way the investigation was carried out, the use of non-regular procedures...

As someone who (sincerely) has no axe to grind apart from a serious desire to see Ripper studies taken seriously, I find it very difficult to understand how intelligent people can view mind games (the creation of an hypothesis from bits and pieces) with REAL historical evidence. Mind games, whether based on Macnaghten or Lechmere (to single out the two mentioned in this thread) are amusing, stimulating, clever, ingenious, but to me essentially they remain mental exercises based on supposition and stitching together miscellaneous material (in the process making unsupported assertions and assumptions about motive). This is not reputable historical study, this is free thinking. I cannot conceive how anyone can fail to discern the huge difference between that and solid written contemporary material.

I remember the days when Ripper studies were in the hands of men like McCormick, who seem to have invented material and sources as it suited them. We then moved on to Cullen and Farson and some solid research that added something, but were plunged back into chaos and disrepute by Knight.

Only after 1988 did we start to see the emergence of some really strong and serious historians - Rumbelow (earlier) then Fido, Begg, Evans, Skinner etc who added to our knowledge with impeccable scholarship, thorough research and deep logical analysis. Finally we got the brilliant editions of Source book, Letters and the A-Z which help us all. Eventually a proper academic, Sugden, felt he could dip into the field without damaging his reputation.

I don't want to see Ripperology slip back into the slip-shod days and ways of the 60s when it was a field for the journalist and the sensationalist.

Please, please look at the difference between the two approaches i have outlined. Have fun, play with ideas, but don't mistake that for scholarship that will gain respect and admiration through its solid worth and added value.

Sorry but I had to say that.

Phil H

Bravo sir. Beautifully put.

[Abby Normal]

I disagree. Swanson was specific about this identification and how the witness and suspect reacted, which would have been an entirely different result with Sadler. And the special "difficulty" involved in getting the suspect to the ID location that Swanson remembered makes it also unlikely that he mis-remembered that location.



I am not aware that Anderson stated that the suspect had been transported "outside of London by police of a different jurisdiction," but Swanson clearly writes that the suspect was "sent by us."

If this ID did take place in some form, it would have been orchestrated by Swanson, not Anderson. Swanson was in operational charge of this case, as he had conducted ID procedures on other cases as well. Unlike Anderson or Macnaghten, Swanson was an operational officer. This would have been his job and is probably why he wrote so prolifically about this event in Anderson's book, because he remembered it, not just was told about it.

Totally agree with this-good post.

[Paddy]

If Aaron was my brother I would call in all help I could to have him supported at any identification process. I am sure his family were very suportive so who would they call in?
Jewish board of Guardians or maybe the Russian Embassy? I seem to recall that Aaron was ranting about the Russians protecting him, in the asylum?
How would a citizen of another country be treated in such circumstances I wonder. Any thoughts on legalities?

Pat

[Phil H]

I seem to recall that Aaron was ranting about the Russians protecting him, in the asylum?

I don't recall that. Source?

Phil H

[Chris]

[1893] Sept 18 [Believes he is under protection of Russian Consolate - deleted]
Indolent but quiet, and clean in habits, never employed. Answers questions concerning himself.
Cecil F. Beadles
[Colney Hatch Case Book Male Side new series no 20, H12/CH/B13/39]

[Phil H]

Thanks for that. Interesting - a detail I'd overlooked.

Phil H