Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Monty]

You just argue for the sake or arguing

I must do, as you are the worlds expert on just that action, even when the argument is gone you continue, your words on the subject must have some gavitas.

The only time they do.

Monty

[Rosella]

Yes taxidermists would have knowledge, as would someone who had been a medical student and then dropped his studies. A person who had worked as a feldscher on the Continent, (besides Chapman.) Art students studied anatomy but I don't think they had practical experience in carving up bodies!

[TomTomKent]

Facts historical or otherwise are there to be proved or disproved. You seem to want to accept all historical facts are true and none should be disproved.

It is a fact that the Memoranda and Marginalia exist. They record what appear to be the stated opinions of figures close to the case.

If those opinions are accurate are not may be what you wish to discuss, but that would be the speculation Mr B discussed. It would seem, hopefully unintentionally, you are confusing the issues of validity of sources with validity of content.

Are historical facts going to solve a case no they are not, evidence is what is going to solve a case and much of the evidence little as it is in this case is contentious to say the least.

Speaking from a historical position NOTHING is going to solve this case. The best case scenario we can hope for is identifying plausible and probable solutions, but there will be no criminal prosecution, no definitive proof. Historical evidence may not be your interest, but it is no less valid than playing Columbo.

Yes there is a lot of what you call historical facts and much of which does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Again, the historical fact is that documents and sources recorded something. If those words were accurate is only part of the question. What does not stand to your scrutiny does not mean that it is not important to understanding the context of history. That is to say, it is easy to dismiss a source out of hand for being wrong. What is more useful however is to understand what these statements tell us, if they are wrong or not. If they are accurate or not. If they are perfect, or not.

What they tell us is largely how little we, or you, can know about how they reached their conclusions. That there is something out there, evidence and knowledge, that is completely lost and will probably never be recovered.

If we want to 'solve' the murders that may well seem absolutely useless. If on the other hand we want to know as much as we can about that particular slice of history, what people at the time believed they experiencing and why, what they did and why, what they hoped to know and why, it is invaluable.

[TomTomKent]

There's nothing to indicate Koz could take out the body parts Ina few minutes in the dark So he's not the best suspect

Anatomical knowledge and skill supposes that he was looking for particular organs. If however he did not happen to know what that purple wobbly bit was, but had enough skill to cut it out (and bare in mind not all the cuts were precise, clean or accurate by any stretch of the imagination) with out to much damage to the purple wobbly bit, then there is a whole new spin on it.

To my mind (and I admit right now this is just wild fancy and speculation) he was cutting out bits in an enthusiastic experiment rather than aiming for anything with more than a vague notion and bold strokes of layman knowledge. Possibly over what feels good to cut rather than what makes a good trophy.

The idea of anatomical knowledge seems an easy trap to fall into, when not all the savage and disgusting acts he performed seem based on removing anything that makes sense at all. Why the tip of a nose? Why drop stuff over a shoulder? If we think in terms of a sick mind wanting to know how stuff works rather than somebody wanting to use their learned skills and knowledge, it becomes somewhat easier, if not more comfortable, to understand the needless and yes, senseless brutality.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is a fact that the Memoranda and Marginalia exist. They record what appear to be the stated opinions of figures close to the case.

If those opinions are accurate are not may be what you wish to discuss, but that would be the speculation Mr B discussed. It would seem, hopefully unintentionally, you are confusing the issues of validity of sources with validity of content.



Speaking from a historical position NOTHING is going to solve this case. The best case scenario we can hope for is identifying plausible and probable solutions, but there will be no criminal prosecution, no definitive proof. Historical evidence may not be your interest, but it is no less valid than playing Columbo.

Again, the historical fact is that documents and sources recorded something. If those words were accurate is only part of the question. What does not stand to your scrutiny does not mean that it is not important to understanding the context of history. That is to say, it is easy to dismiss a source out of hand for being wrong. What is more useful however is to understand what these statements tell us, if they are wrong or not. If they are accurate or not. If they are perfect, or not.

What they tell us is largely how little we, or you, can know about how they reached their conclusions. That there is something out there, evidence and knowledge, that is completely lost and will probably never be recovered.

If we want to 'solve' the murders that may well seem absolutely useless. If on the other hand we want to know as much as we can about that particular slice of history, what people at the time believed they experiencing and why, what they did and why, what they hoped to know and why, it is invaluable.

Historical records are only of use if they can be proven to be totally accurate and totally reliable. The Marginalia and the MM do not fit into those categorizes.

Part of trying to identify the killer or killers necessitates trying prove or disprove the content of historical documents that many want to readily rely on as being factually correct.

[TomTomKent]

Historical records are only of use if they can be proven to be totally accurate and totally reliable. The Marginalia and the MM do not fit into those categorizes.

Part of trying to identify the killer or killers necessitates trying prove or disprove the content of historical documents that many want to readily rely on as being factually correct.

You continue to miss the point.

If the document is useful in identifying the criminal who commited the crimes is entirely unrelated to their validity as historical scources, or their usefulness to a historian.

The MM and Maginalia are useful to a historian because they tell us what key figures belived, or were willing to commit to paper. If that is true, if that is useful to a detective or your narrow field of interest is unimportant and incidental.

Importance is not measured by how close it brings us to 'solving' a case. If you can only think in terms of identifying the killer, then you miss the point entirely. They are the most accurate and reliable sources we have for what two key figures believed at the time, or the conclusions they drew in the years after. They are good sources.

Just perhaps not for tilting at windmills on a donkey. But again, identifying a favoured suspect is not the only valid form of enquiry into what remains a hostorical subject.

[Trevor Marriott]

You continue to miss the point.

If the document is useful in identifying the criminal who commited the crimes is entirely unrelated to their validity as historical scources, or their usefulness to a historian.

The MM and Maginalia are useful to a historian because they tell us what key figures belived, or were willing to commit to paper. If that is true, if that is useful to a detective or your narrow field of interest is unimportant and incidental.

Importance is not measured by how close it brings us to 'solving' a case. If you can only think in terms of identifying the killer, then you miss the point entirely. They are the most accurate and reliable sources we have for what two key figures believed at the time, or the conclusions they drew in the years after. They are good sources.

Just perhaps not for tilting at windmills on a donkey. But again, identifying a favoured suspect is not the only valid form of enquiry into what remains a hostorical subject.

But if a suspect is mentioned in an historical document we must first prove whether that document is factually correct, before looking into the antecedents of any suspects named. If its not then what follows is immaterial.

We have clear example of historical documents naming suspects being proved to be unsafe and un reliable, but are those suspects then disregarded no and the suspects continue to be propped up.

The we get the argument, well we don't know what they knew to name them. Does it matter because if we can eliminate them or prove the documents they are named in to be unsafe bang out the window they go

We are never going to know why they were named. There was no evidence then and none today. So some should stop using this old chestnut. We can however draw inferences, which suggest that they knew nothing by using other historical documents and opinions given by other officers whose opinions in my opinion are far more credible that the likes of Anderson, Swanson and MM

So historical documents cut both ways do they not ? Or perhaps not because if you favour Kosminski or Druitt then you will support Anderson, Swanson and MM. But to be fair to MM he was referring to hearsay with regards to Druitt.

Now with regards to those files if they were the best suspect names that were in that file it doesn't say much about the police investigation. What it does infer is that the police up to 1894 did not have a clue as to the identity of the killer.

[Steve S]

I will completely go along with the last sentence, just adding "the Police (As an institution)"...On sources...It is a norm in Historical research that not all contemporary sources are neccessarily accurate....But they are still valid contemporary sources.........Catch-22!

[Trevor Marriott]

I will completely go along with the last sentence, just adding "the Police (As an institution)"...On sources...It is a norm in Historical research that not all contemporary sources are neccessarily accurate....But they are still valid contemporary sources.........Catch-22!

It depends on which way you choose to look at them, from an historical perspective or an investigate perspective.

[Steve S]

It depends on which way you choose to look at them, from an historical perspective or an investigate perspective.

For me, always historical......But that's up to the individual..............

[TomTomKent]

But if a suspect is mentioned in an historical document we must first prove whether that document is factually correct, before looking into the antecedents of any suspects named. If its not then what follows is immaterial.

Nope. You are still assuming that the document is only of worth as a source of identifying the suspect.

Why?

If the document offers a factually incorrect information, in this case the name of a suspect, then that is still an insight to the belief of a source. Understanding how and why the source held that belief is of historical importance. Wrong information can be invaluable if we can understand why it came to be believed.

We have clear example of historical documents naming suspects being proved to be unsafe and un reliable, but are those suspects then disregarded no and the suspects continue to be propped up.

This has nothing to do with the validity of a historical source. The suspects are not disregarded because they are historically important to understanding the history of the case. If you happen to think they were guilty or not is incidental to the question of why they were important enough to those investigating to be named.

We do not know they came to the attention of investigators, we therefore have no reason to regard, disregard or second guess how or why they were considered viable suspects.

The we get the argument, well we don't know what they knew to name them. Does it matter because if we can eliminate them or prove the documents they are named in to be unsafe bang out the window they go

Again. You miss the point being made. You assume the only importance of anybody is if they are or are not valid suspects in solving the case. Why? It is quite clear this is not the point I have been making.

We are never going to know why they were named. There was no evidence then and none today. So some should stop using this old chestnut.

What old chestnut? That historical sources are valid even if they do not contain the one piece of information you personally happen to be interested in?

We can however draw inferences, which suggest that they knew nothing by using other historical documents and opinions given by other officers whose opinions in my opinion are far more credible that the likes of Anderson, Swanson and MM

And that does not make the historical sources any less valid as historical sources.

So historical documents cut both ways do they not ? Or perhaps not because if you favour Kosminski or Druitt then you will support Anderson, Swanson and MM. But to be fair to MM he was referring to hearsay with regards to Druitt.

Historical sources don't cut any way. They would only cut any particular way if the naming of a suspect and identifying the murderer was their only purpose. As this is not, as far as I can tell, the interest or viewpoint of those you argue against, and is certainly NOT the point I have been making in the posts you quoted and responded to, I am not sure why you feel the need to mention this.

That various individuals at the time had different opinions? Yes. We know. That is one of the many reasons why mentions of Kosminski are so important.

Now with regards to those files if they were the best suspect names that were in that file it doesn't say much about the police investigation. What it does infer is that the police up to 1894 did not have a clue as to the identity of the killer.

What can be inferred is simple: That there was information that led to the opinions and conclusions of various officers that we do not have.

We can not claim they had no idea, because unless your crystal power and hypnotic regression is about to win you the JREF Million Dollar Challenge there is no reasonable way to reach any conclusion. We do not know how and why they reached their conclusions. We can not divine what information they had, how much or what it contained, or what quality it was. We can not reasonably infer that which we have no information on.

We can only reasonably infer that opinion was divided and that there is more information we will be unlikely to recover.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nope. You are still assuming that the document is only of worth as a source of identifying the suspect.

Why?

If the document offers a factually incorrect information, in this case the name of a suspect, then that is still an insight to the belief of a source. Understanding how and why the source held that belief is of historical importance. Wrong information can be invaluable if we can understand why it came to be believed.



This has nothing to do with the validity of a historical source. The suspects are not disregarded because they are historically important to understanding the history of the case. If you happen to think they were guilty or not is incidental to the question of why they were important enough to those investigating to be named.

We do not know they came to the attention of investigators, we therefore have no reason to regard, disregard or second guess how or why they were considered viable suspects.


Again. You miss the point being made. You assume the only importance of anybody is if they are or are not valid suspects in solving the case. Why? It is quite clear this is not the point I have been making.



What old chestnut? That historical sources are valid even if they do not contain the one piece of information you personally happen to be interested in?



And that does not make the historical sources any less valid as historical sources.

Historical sources don't cut any way. They would only cut any particular way if the naming of a suspect and identifying the murderer was their only purpose. As this is not, as far as I can tell, the interest or viewpoint of those you argue against, and is certainly NOT the point I have been making in the posts you quoted and responded to, I am not sure why you feel the need to mention this.

That various individuals at the time had different opinions? Yes. We know. That is one of the many reasons why mentions of Kosminski are so important.




What can be inferred is simple: That there was information that led to the opinions and conclusions of various officers that we do not have.

We can not claim they had no idea, because unless your crystal power and hypnotic regression is about to win you the JREF Million Dollar Challenge there is no reasonable way to reach any conclusion. We do not know how and why they reached their conclusions. We can not divine what information they had, how much or what it contained, or what quality it was. We can not reasonably infer that which we have no information on.

We can only reasonably infer that opinion was divided and that there is more information we will be unlikely to recover.

But there was no more important information you and others are trying to read into something that is unreadable.

The missing information if it did exist you refer to was clearly insignificant and could have been perhaps been nothing more than hearsay.

More recent sources tell us that the police did not have a clue so that must negate anything that there was to suggest they did know, which we have seen, or anything that we might not have seen. So why keep chasing a lost cause and keep saying we don't know what they knew, when we are never going to know, and if we did we would no doubt disregard it as being nothing more than hearsay etc.

[TomTomKent]

But there was no more important information you and others are trying to read into something that is unreadable.

More or less important to establishing what?

The conclusions reached by those close to the case are important on their own, regardless of how many differing opinions that may cover.

The missing information if it did exist you refer to was clearly insignificant and could have been perhaps been nothing more than hearsay.

Or it could not be. We don't know. It is missing. That we don't know what it was or to what extent is all we can infer from it, unless we think the individuals reached their conclusions randomly with out any form of reason. Which would an important discover in and of itself.

More recent sources tell us that the police did not have a clue so that must negate anything that there was to suggest they did know, which we have seen, or anything that we might not have seen.

Which does nothing to negate the importance of those individual officers as historical sources. Sorry but how and why they may have reached right, wrong, or misguided conclusions can still be of interest. So what if they are wrong? There will still be a reason for them to be wrong, and that is of interest itself.

Importance is no more decreed by your narrow focus on solving the crime than validity.

So why keep chasing a lost cause and keep saying we don't know what they knew, when we are never going to know, and if we did we would no doubt disregard it as being nothing more than hearsay etc.

I am sorry, but once again: But it is not a lost cause. It may be of no interest to you personally because you are determined the conversation has to lead to identifying the Ripper or is not worth having. But, assuming you have actually read my posts before you hit the quote button, you should by now see the obvious: That is not what makes the cause interesting.

Assume you are right and this is all based on hearsay, why would that be any less interesting or exciting? Why would that not make your spine tingle? Think about the questions it raises: Why would seemingly competent officers blunder about believing half remembered stories? How did these stories get jotted down in personal files and the margins of a book? Why would the officers lie in their own copies of the file or in their own scribbled notes?

It could be tosh and piffle, but it is important tosh and piffle as they are good sources discussing their opinions. They are the glimpses we get behind the curtain. To the people at the heart of the chaos in a moment of history. They are the documents that put us close as we can get to the ranking officers overseeing an infamous investigation.

Frankly they could have named the Queen and the dread lord Cthulhu and I would still be excited to discuss how and why they may have reached that conclusion. If they were barking up the right tree or not is only one of many more questions. Maybe we wont know why they chose that tree to bark up, or if it was the wrong tree, or the right tree, or any number of other questions. It is important to be able to walk into the forest and point at a tree that somehow, somewhere, was considered for barking up.

And if there is information we don't know? Can't know? Wont know? Hell yes! That is important. That is exciting. That is a pretty wonderful thing to know about the source.

I can think of nothing more terrible than the idea that we know enough to stop being excited or interested in something just because it does not point directly to proof positive of any given suspect.

[Harry D]

So is everyone on the same page that Anderson's "poor Polish Jew" was conclusively Kosminski, and we can dismiss Fido's 'David Cohen' theory?

[Steve S]

So is everyone on the same page that Anderson's "poor Polish Jew" was conclusively Kosminski, and we can dismiss Fido's 'David Cohen' theory?

I think that is the present consensus