Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Phil H]

Much in Ripperology - indeed, in history generally, is perception, Fisherman. Or had you not realised that?

History is rarely objective (ever objective?) it reflects the perceptions, interpretation, concerns etc of today, of us, the student. That is why each generation rewrites history to some extent.

It is no accident in Ripperologythat Knight's conspiracy theory erupts just after Watergate. Why in the more class-ridden society of the 20s to the 50s, "toffs" were the suspects (Matters, Druitt etc) or why in the more liberal 90s the lower class suspects like Kosminski emerge. (I use the dates loosely.)

But historical study is about concensus - we cannot advance unless we agree on basic assumptions - that are subject to change but only via peer review and new agreement. That way each development can be much firmer than if it were based on just one person's views. The whole field goes forward together.

In terms of the Seaside Home, I am satisfied that the key peer group has reached a concensus that will work. It is an assumption but one on which there is broad agreement. It can change, will change, if new evidence or material emerges, but using it allows us to move ahead without having to look back at every step and without distracting debate on every nuance every time.

This is quite different, of course, from the "diary" which remains in the limbo of the unproven, or the fact that a few people may agree on some rather marginal theory. It;s a subtle concept i know, but one widely used, and relied on.

So please stop crying "assumption!" at every turn like some immature student. You know better than that - or so you have said.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Hi Phil!

I see you´ve taken to lecturing! No need for that.

I am fully aware that much in Ripperology is perception. That´s why we sometimes allow ourselves to elevate something from a mere assumption to an assumption that is so good that it becomes a near certainty, or at least something that is not to be questioned. All it takes is for a "key peer group" to reach a consensus that will work. As I mentioned before, Galilei will have been one of the men who knew this mechanism like the inside of his own pocket. A group of learned men in high positions decided that their assumption was better than his, and it was case closed.

I am fully aware that the Seaside Home in Brighton is a very good bid for the establishment we are discussing. But I am equally well aware that the marginalia is not very clear on many a matter, just as it is apparently wrong in others, at least if we work from the ASSUMPTION that Kosminski was the killer. Therefore, we may need to accept that more elements must be regarded as uncertain.

To me, this is fairly straightforward. To you, it is maybe not academic or scholarly enough. If so, that is a good thing. We need to disagree every now and then, or we will all become one large group of key peers. I don´t think that such a development would benefit Ripperology much.

Whether it is "immature" to be careful with these distinctions or not, or if we may always safely rely on the people you specifically respect on Casebook, is something we must leave to each and every poster to decide for themselves, I fear. You know where I stand and why, and I know where you stand - and why.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

conflict

Hello Roy. Well put. But, of course, in 1888, there was a rift within Morris' SL and the anarchists were contending with the socialists for control. This "conflict" was being played out at Berner street as well.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Cut Throats R Us

Hello Tom.

"The Autonomie Club was the sister organization of the Berner Street Club."

Indeed. And, if I had wanted to hire a good low profile cut throat, the Autonomie would have been a good place to find him

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

D & K

Hello Pat. Yes. And not only Dimshits, but also Kozebrodske was involved.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Not lecturing, just making a point, Fisherman. Apologies if the tone suggested otherwise.

You seem scornful of a "key peer group" in Ripper studies? Yet there has to be one and although called such before now, it is no "clique". It is effectively the frequent authors, but especially, I suggest those who edit the A-z, the magazines etc. I find your alanolgy to gaileo misplaced. He was up against an unchangeable" mindset - the catholic church - which had nothing to do with modern approaches to academic study. The historical method does not include views on heresy, operate an index of books, or burn those who disagree with it. It changes, but by concensus.

is apparently wrong in others

Where do you believe the marginalia to be "wrong" precisely?

Therefore, we may need to accept that more elements must be regarded as uncertain.

The whole point of my post was to make clear I regard EVERYTHING as uncertain (as in all historical study) but the concensus gives us a base to work from. You clearly DO NOT (or do not want to) understand that point.

If so, that is a good thing. We need to disagree every now and then, or we will all become one large group of key peers.

That is the most stupid remark I have EVER seen on Casebook, bar none. Debate, discussion, disagreement is the life blood of all historical study - why do you think I am here? The concensus is subject to constant adjustment and change, but acceptance of working hypotheses by the community allows us to build in a way in which all can contribute. I find this inability to get that, from a man with your ability, incredibly hard to understand.

I'm sorry, but this is basic undergraduate level, even senior school stuff. I shouldn't be having to explain it to you, of all people. It is simply the academic framework or methodology that differentiates between the dilente and the serious scholar, the academic and the professional.

I have tried to explain, I now wash my hands.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

There was no need to answer my post, Phil, to be frank. But since you did anyway...

"Where do you believe the marginalia to be "wrong" precisely?"

I specified that it was wrong if Aaron Kosminski was the suspect, Phil. Important distinction, not to be left out. Kosminski died not die shortly after his incarceration, therefore the marginalia is wrong on the score - if Aaron Kosminski was the suspect.

If he was not - then we are looking at something totally different.

"The whole point of my post was to make clear I regard EVERYTHING as uncertain (as in all historical study) but the concensus gives us a base to work from. You clearly DO NOT (or do not want to) understand that point."

Are you picking a fight, Phil? I would prefer if you refrained from it, if this is the case. Yes, a consensus among those who know much about the case is normally useful - but CAN actually be a hindrance too.
Now, what you wrote was something a little different from admitting to being uncertain f everything - or so I read it, anyway:

"In terms of the Seaside Home, I am satisfied that the key peer group has reached a concensus that will work. It is an assumption but one on which there is broad agreement. It can change, will change, if new evidence or material emerges, but using it allows us to move ahead without having to look back at every step and without distracting debate on every nuance every time."

I agree the Seaside Home agreement - if we dub it like that - offers a basis to move forward from. But I DON´T agree that it allows us to no longer look back and check AGAIN. Until we have certainty of an element, that element must remain open to other interpretations than the one agreed about by people who, notwithstanding their capabilities and insights, actually may be wrong.

In effect, I believe we agree on this, and if that is the case, then why would we spend any more space on flashing our respective feathers?

As a send-off, I find this peculiar passage:

My words: "If so, that is a good thing. We need to disagree every now and then, or we will all become one large group of key peers."

answered in this manner by you:

"That is the most stupid remark I have EVER seen on Casebook, bar none. Debate, discussion, disagreement is the life blood of all historical study - why do you think I am here?"

Having read this four times, slowly and carefully, I can only find that you agree with me that debate and disagreements are totally vital to any studies of history. And still you think it is the most stupid remark you have ever seen on Casebook...?

Could it be that you mean that it is a superfluous remark, and not a stupid one, Phil? If so, I think I have shown above why I thought it of essence to point it out anyway. Stupid or not, superfluous or not, not all people realize this.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. If I am correct and we are essentially in agreement, how about calling a seize-fire...? I bet we both have more important things to do - I know I have.

[Phil H]

I am clearly talking to the deaf. Have it your way Fisherman. You are right, I am wrong.

Let others determine from what we have said, what they think.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

I´m sure they will, Phil! Thanks for the exchange - I have learnt a lot.

The best,
Fisherman

[miakaal4]

If the person they (top cops) are writing about died earlier than Kosminski, then they are confused. That cannot be in doubt can it? If they are confused about that, what else are they confused about?

[Phil H]

I would draw a distinction between confusion and a mistake, miakaal.

I think - and I set out my reasoning on this in a post a few days ago - that Anderson and Swanson were misinformed. There was no reason for them personally to check or maintain a watch on a suspect put away. They would be reliant on information supplied to them by others. At their level of seniority, that is how it works.

If they were told incorrect information, but believed it and then used it in what they wrote, I do not think they can be said to be confused, even though they would undoubtedly be wrong/incorrect.

I believe that only one of the two men (Sir RA and DSS) would have heard the information directly - and that was probably Swanson, who told Anderson. But it could have been the other way round. Maybe they heard Kaminski as Kosminski; maybe someone else made that mistake. But having been told why should they check.

The information is not, in my view, central to the marginalia or the point Anderson is making. The thrust of the piece in both cases is that the Ripper was identified, (Swanson gives details) and put away. When he died is almost irrelevent. It does not, to my mind invalidate what Swanson was seeking to tell us or the other information in the text.

Edited to add that, if in either Anderson or Swanson's text the date of death had been omitted, would it make the wording any less clear - the answer is clearly no.


Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"... having been told why should they check."

To make sure.

We are talking about Jack the Ripper here, and at a stage very marginally removed in time from his period of terror. If Anderson and Swanson were not interested in confirming any information they received that Kosminski was dead, I would find that very odd.

Aaon Kosminsky also lived on for TWENTY-EIGHT years after 1891. As far as we can tell, he never went lost, nor was he erroneously mistaken for somebody else. The journals are there, pinning his existence for this period, and his death. He didn´t go off the map.

If Swanson or Anderson were informed about Kosminski dying, then that information would have not been complied by one of the asylum cleaners - it would have come from a senior person, with a very good insight into the asylum. A person, that is, who would have access to all information regarding Aaron Kosminski.

The information can have been the result of an active or passive bahaviour on behalf of Anderson/Swanson:
They may have made it their business to keep an eye on Kosminski and they may have requested to be updated about him frequently - and I think this is what they would have done, if they were of the opinion that they had the Ripper caged in an asylum. And if so, it is beyond reasonability to propose that they simply said "Aha, Ok, thanks!" when informed.
They may equally have taken no further interest in Kosminsky after his incarceration, in which case somebody who KNEW that Kosminski was a man in whom Anderson/Swanson had taken a very active interest, was the person who found it essential that they were informed that their "protegé" was dead. And of course, this somebody may have mistaken a "Kamensky" for "Kosminski". But he was fresh in the asylum at that stage, and the hoo-haa factor would have been high and mighty still, I think.

Plus, of course, IF jack the Ripper died a short time after his incarceration, my money is on Anderson and Swanson doing all they could to make absolutely sure no mistake was made in that department.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

You get worse Fisherman, in both your approach to the evaluation of evidence and in failing to be realistic.

Anderson and Swanson were senior officials, they were dealing the the policy, administrative and "political" aspects of crime in the cpital. From late 1888 Swanson ceased to be the co-ordinator.

People in those positions have to rely on the word of their subordinates or they would never be able to do their jobs. They cannot double check evcer detail and indeed probably had more pressing concerns.

Indeed, I am actually not sure that JtR was EVER quite the big deal to the Met officials that it was to the politicians and the public. They may have done what was necessary - visiting murder scenes, boosting police on the street etc, but that is superficial. There were new issues to press on the shoulders those in authority by 1891. They lost two Commissioners in short space, and the clear internal divisions must still have been present.

I find it no surprise that, with the suspect favoured put away, Anderson and Swanson believed he died soon afterwards. End of story. one of the problems of being given incorrect information is that, if it is plausible, you do not question it unless there is reason to do so. In this case what reason was there?

Phil H

[Bridewell]

Confrontation

We can see that there was no line-up, meaning that the ID process was a very bad one from the start,

Hi Christer,

Perfectly permissible, evidentially, to do a one-on-one identification of this kind (technically a confrontation) if, but only if, the suspect had refused to stand on an ID Parade. It's value as an identification would be limited, for obvious reasons, but it could be done.

Regards, Bridewell.

[robhouse]

Hi Pat,

That April 1889 article is in reference to a riot that took place at the IWEC on March 16 between anarchists and the police following a workers protest against Sweaters in the tailoring trade. I cover this in my book. Here is the excerpt:

"By early 1889, the workers in the tailoring industry began to mobilize. The socialists and anarchists of the Berner Street club realized that the time for action had finally arrived, so the Arbeter Fraint announced a workers parade of Jewish Unemployed and Sweaters’ Victims “to demand work, bread and the eight-hour day.” On March 16, some 2000 men gathered at the International Workingmen’s Educational Club on Berner Street, and then marched to Duke Street where they intended to hold an open-air meeting in a courtyard called Mitre Square, directly behind the Great Synagogue. But the police refused to allow the mob to convene in that location, so the throng relocated to the Mile End Waste. After numerous speeches, the meeting dispersed and many of the participants returned to Berner Street, where a large force of police was waiting for them. According to one report, Police Commissioner Monro had sent “some of his men, without any pretext, to break into [the club],” whereupon they proceeded to smash up the place and beat up anyone who was there. Numerous club members came out in defense “armed with sticks,” and a vicious street battle erupted. Three club members were arrested, among them a man named Louis Diemschutz. A pamphlet circulated seeking funds for the club members’ legal defense noted, “the wealthy Jews and the sweaters, both Jews and Gentiles, wish to see these men in prison and their club destroyed.”

By the way Pat, I have not read all today's posts very carefully (I skimmed them) but am I to understand now that you have NOT identified the Abrahams from that article? It seems to suggest a person whose last name is Abrahams, as there is an s at the end, as opposed to Abraham.

If as I understand, you were wrong in suggesting that another article identified the man "Abrahams", then is it not still possible that the man was either Aaron or one of his brothers?

All the best

Rob

PS: By the way, Id be happy to send you a copy of my book if you don't have it.