Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[pinkmoon]

The bit about the witness refusing to identify Kosminski because he didn't won't his execution on his conscience is extremely hard to swallow because by stating that our witness is identifying Kosminski would the police then leave the witness in peace I very much doubt it.Kosminski became of interest because he picked up a knife to his relative two years after the Kelly murder so a desperate police force followed up a lead when you have no clues anything must look good.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Batman,

I'm with you on the whole 'coincidence' thing. Not just with Kosminski but the case as a whole. Seems people are willing to accept coincidence in the Ripper case at a rate far exceeding what they'd be willing to accept in their own life. One of my approaches to my research is to understand that coincidences will happen, but to not accept something as a coincidence merely because it doesn't fit with what I think or because I'm lazy and don't want to look deeper than necessary.

Kicking out Stride and GSG are the greatest 'coincidence cop outs' the case has ever seen and are the Ripperological equivalent of Jumping the Shark.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

because he picked up a knife to his relative two years after the Kelly murder .

Hi Pink

I know Jomathon is getting jumpy about me saying so…But this is Supposition.

The fact is that we don't know when kosminski picked up a knife and threatened his sister, we only know that this is mention when he is committed in 1891.

As I've been banging on, I believe this incident happened far earlier and relates to a specific incident reported in the press as early as 1888.

Thats because everyone has missed what has been blindingly obvious and steering everyone in the face all along..

That Kosminski entered a Private Asylum in Surrey in March 1889. An asylum that was run under alienist principles which meant the family could have him come and go. Alienists believed that such illnesses were curable with good clean healthy air. They were largely proved wrong. Besides these asylums were only ever meant for short term stays up to a year..

Kosminski was thus back on the street, Possihble on and off for quite some time. In order to insure he remained off the street as Swanson couldn't prove he was the murderer. It was insured he was placed in a Public Asylum with very different rules and regulations.

Hence Martin Fido's conundrum why MacNaughten clearly says he entered the asylum March 1889 and the late fact that a Kosminski was found in Feb 1891

Yours Jeff

PS I'll see if I can find the News Paper article about a woman attacked with a knife in Brick Lane.

[Batman]

'coincidence cop outs'

That's exactly what is going on.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just simply breaking up up my post and writing: well, that's just supposition is not a counter-argument, Jeff. '

We're in danger of going into the Monty Python Sketch here,,,is this a 5minutre argument or the half hour?

But seriously I've marked you posts as supposition where that is clearly what they are i.e. Your interpretation of a source rather than FACT.

Of course its perfectly legitimate for a Historian to interpret sources, but its not good 'argument' to quote your supposition as if it is FACT when it clearly isn't. MacNaughten and Simms simply don't say what you appear to claim they say on a number of occasions.

What that does is to prevent the interpretation from flowing and building and compounding, though I realize that is exactly your intention. It is not appropriate but predictable.

You are are just putting your interpretation too, but there is a critical difference which renders it unconvincing, to say the least.'

What I am trying to do is listen to the 'primary' sources. MacNaugten clearly states the suspect entered the asylum in March 1889. As a primary source that clearly is more important than anything written by secondary sources.

Martin Fido was trying to find the Polish suspect in asylum records in early 1889 because that is not only where Macnaghten [falsely]'

Again there you go adding Falsely in brackets…That is your opinion it is not fact.

places this event, along with the diagnosis of chronic masturbation as the cause of his insanity, it is also where Anderson places him in his a range of sources between 1895 and 1910. It is also where Swanson places him as dying, e.g. soon after he was committed. When Fido found Aaron Kosminski actually sectioned so late it did not match Anderson's account (let alone Macnaghten's) and so it had to be a Polish suspect who was 1) committed earlier and 2) deceased. Hence David Cohen was, broadly, a better candidate.'

MacNaughten is clear. The suspect entered the Asylum in March 1889. FACT. Primary source.

I've pointed out that this also matches claims made by Cox and Sagar. So it is supported.

IF Anderson's source is Swanson. And Swanson informed Anderson in 1894-5 that Kosminski was Dead. When intact he was transferred to Leavesdon.

Then the Sources match.

I do not agree with Fido's interpretation but I respect it because he was trying to make sense of the limited data--ironically he was trying to rescue Anderson's reliability as a source, because the harmless Aaron Kosminski as the Polish suspect would torpedo said credibility.'

Well I'd agree that we now know a hell of a lot more about Aaron Kosminski and schizophrenia.

However I've been thinking a lot recently about Martin Fido's claims that 'Cohen' might have been confused, even in 1888. Its struck me that there are remarkable similarities between Nathan David Cohen and Aaron Cohen Kosminski… and of course Kosminski's step brother Jacob Cohen.

If Swansons contact at Colney hatch were Dr Seward… That might explain the confusion… As Cohen and Kosminski were remarkably alike. ANd he treated both patients.

Which he does, for a range of writers on this subject: Fido, Evans, Rumbelow, Sudgen, Beadle, Connell, Gainey, et al.'

Martin Fido is an expert in literature and Victorian religion and theology, which was Andersons main interest. His observations on Anderson are therefore far more important as he uses expert reasoning.

You miss all this completely. Hence your attaching yourself unwisely to the shawl after being against it because it was Edwardian, then you were for it if it could propel Kosminski to the top of the top of the suspect pile, then you were against it again because the DNA results were shown to be dubious. '

I'm sorry? When the hell did I attach myself to the Shawl? I've spoken to both Lari and Edwards, but thats hardly attaching myself to the theory. Actually I'm pretty much on the fence until I see further evidence and have made my own separate enquiries to that length. I've publicly stated I don't really understand the intricate science, and would be guide by expert opinion on that….

There is nothing wrong with searching any source for new leads, but it is motivated by the desperate sense that Russell Edwards' flamboyant over-reach has taken a legit Victorian suspect down the plughole with him.'

My work is not connected to Russell Edwards in any shape or form and neither are any of the people I'm working with.

Your attempts to prove that black and white and up is down are doomed, because Macnaghten knew that Kosminski was alive and Anderson-Swanson believed he was deceased. It is not that you do not agree with me that renders this 'debate' so unappealing (Paul Begg and I disagree and those debates are very productive) it is your rigidity at not even being able to concede that it is a fair position to take (and that it is an interpretation you have never noticed before).'

Yes I realise I'm somewhat more cantankerous than Paul. But to my knowledge Paul dosnt support the MacNaugten Super slethe theory. Because its far to complex and edges into the conspiracy theory territory.

It also relies on the 'interpretation' of secondary sources that are week to say the least.

I'll leave you with this, three sources about the un-named Kosminski, and readers can see which is arguably more accurate about the Polish suspect, and that nobody was suggesting multiple incarcerations of this suspect (I believe that Sims is a Macnaghten source at one remove).

Dr. Robert Anderson--'The Nineteenth Century', 'Punishing Crime', Feb 1901:

'... the inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safely caged in an asylum.''

Yes and NOTE the comer after seized him Commer or after he had been SAFELY caged in an asylum…

Also note the word 'Safely' is Anderson talking about two separate events here…. I think that most possible

Sir Arthur Ponsoby Moore-Anderson, 'The Life of Sir Robert Anderson', 1947:

'Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum'. '

Swanson believed he died in an asylum. I again point you back to the Transfere 1894-5… and the fact that Cohen and Kosminski had the same doctor…was Swanson given the wrong info?

George R. Sims, "Lloyds Weekly", 'My Crminal Museum--Who was Jack the Ripper?', Sept 22nd 1907:'

'The first man was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall. This man was in the district during the whole period covered by the Whitechapel murders, and soon after they ceased certain facts came to light which showed that it was quite possible that he might have been the Ripper. He had at one time been employed in a hospital in Poland. He was known to be a lunatic at the time of the murders, and some-time afterwards he betrayed such undoubted signs of homicidal mania that he was sent to a lunatic asylum.

The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder ...'

Interesting though what Simms writes is, its a secondary source. We have no idea were the source was, if there was more than one source and what bits he did or didn't make up…

My personal opinion is that his source was MacNaugten and he is recounting what MacNaughten knew up to March 1889. He simply gives a little more detail as in his report MacNaughten had heavily abbreviated the information.

[Sims then describes the Russian doctor suspect]

Both these men were capable of the Ripper crimes, but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.

They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men.'

Again this is a secondary source, that simply turns MacNaughtens 'Belief' into a more stated tense… But I don't believe Simms knows about the ID that Swanson describes as he dosnt mention it…

In other words, it is a more garbled version of the original Kosminski and Ostrog files…its that simple

Yours Jeff

[Errata]

Kicking out Stride and GSG are the greatest 'coincidence cop outs' the case has ever seen and are the Ripperological equivalent of Jumping the Shark.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Eliminating them because they do not fit a preconceived pattern is probably a cop out. But there is a lot of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc going on, and there are reasons to eliminate both the GSG and Stride on their own merits. Or lack of merits.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Eliminating them because they do not fit a preconceived pattern is probably a cop out. But there is a lot of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc going on, and there are reasons to eliminate both the GSG and Stride on their own merits. Or lack of merits.

If there are I've yet to see them. I've seen Stride eliminated because Kidney was a more likely killer (he was not), that he locked her in their rooms (he did not), that Stride was killed by a left-handed killer (she was not), that she was killed with a dull or blunt knife (she was not), ad infinitum. As for the GSG, I've seen it eliminated because it was old (it was not) and because the police thought it irrelevant (they did not), or because the now largely discredited serial killer profilers of the 80s and 90s said a killer wouldn't write such a message (they would, could, and have).

Of course there are 'reasons to eliminate' them. There are equal reasons to eliminate Eddowes, or Kelly, if one is so inclined. Just as there are reasons to include Smith and Tabram. In the cases of Stride and GSG I researched those reasons back to their sources and found them to be questionable (in the case of GSG) to downright flawed (in the case of Stride). But this misinformation persists and persists and will no doubt continue to do so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

We all selectively accept and reject information about Kosminski. And we do it for a very necessary reason. All the information we have about him cannot be true. Being dead at the time of publishing, but still alive for almost a decade after cannot both be true, unless he is a cat, and the asylum is a box. And this is a physics parable.

We have to pick one. Since his date of death is a matter of public record, we have to assume that the notes are mistaken. At which point we have to decide if that is the only thing in those notes that are mistaken. We also have to decide whether or not the police at the time were capable of getting the right suspect when their qualifications for the suspect were wrong. Masturbation does not cause madness. It doesn't create serial killers. Nor are the vast majority of serial killers mad in any discernible way. The police thought that the killer would have to tick certain boxes. We know now that's not true. Nor did anyone witness any of the murders, or listen to a confession. The best witnesses can only identify a person near the scene. And if a witness is there to see someone, it means that it is not unreasonable for a person to be in that area at that time.

The cops had to choose. The bosses had to choose. We have to choose what information to accept or reject. Because it cannot all be true. And nobody watched anyone die other than the killer. And at this point any rational basis to accept or reject a piece of information is valid. I can believe that Mcnaughton or Anderson or Abberline were absolutely certain they knew who the Ripper was. And they were all in a position to think they know. On the other hand, why didn't they manage to convince anyone else of that fact? If the case for Kosminski, or Druitt, or Chapman was so strong, why didn't everyone settle on one name?

So any argument for or against Kosminski is worth listening to. I don't think it was him. I have my logic. It's good logic. And while I will argue my point, I don't for a second think I have some monopoly on the truth. No one does. And anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

[Jeff Leahy]

We all selectively accept and reject information about Kosminski. And we do it for a very necessary reason. All the information we have about him cannot be true. Being dead at the time of publishing, but still alive for almost a decade after cannot both be true, unless he is a cat, and the asylum is a box. And this is a physics parable.
.

Actually thats not true. The information might fit very well. Were just missing the parts of the jig saw that join them together.

The complexity of the various Kosminski and Cohen combinations has long been recognised. And researchers like Chris Scott expressed those concerns

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/castofthousands.kosminski.html

And the fact is we still know very little about Nathan David Cohen, who he was and what he was doing on the Street in 1888.

However the remarkable similarity between the two men may have meant genuine confusion on the ground as Martin Fido suggests.

Their names, there ages, there appearance, were they both tailors? from Poland...

And what if they go in an asylum at approximately the same time? Dec 1888

Infact it might be argued that David Cohen goes in to early to be the man watched by Sagar?

But we know both men were treated and Colney Hatch nby the same doctor..Dr Seward..

When Kosminski was transferred to Leavesdon, if Swanson contacted a busy worked off his feet doctor…could Seward have gotten confused and given Swanson the wrong information which Swanson in turn passed to Anderson?

OK its speculative but no need for Schodingers Cat

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pink

I know Jomathon is getting jumpy about me saying so…But this is Supposition.

The fact is that we don't know when kosminski picked up a knife and threatened his sister, we only know that this is mention when he is committed in 1891.

As I've been banging on, I believe this incident happened far earlier and relates to a specific incident reported in the press as early as 1888.

Thats because everyone has missed what has been blindingly obvious and steering everyone in the face all along..

That Kosminski entered a Private Asylum in Surrey in March 1889. An asylum that was run under alienist principles which meant the family could have him come and go. Alienists believed that such illnesses were curable with good clean healthy air. They were largely proved wrong. Besides these asylums were only ever meant for short term stays up to a year..

Kosminski was thus back on the street, Possihble on and off for quite some time. In order to insure he remained off the street as Swanson couldn't prove he was the murderer. It was insured he was placed in a Public Asylum with very different rules and regulations.

Hence Martin Fido's conundrum why MacNaughten clearly says he entered the asylum March 1889 and the late fact that a Kosminski was found in Feb 1891

Yours Jeff

PS I'll see if I can find the News Paper article about a woman attacked with a knife in Brick Lane.

Nice reply thank you.I still think it's a lot to ask to expect Kosminski to have refrained from killing for nearly six months after the Mary Kelly murder I also find Kosminski very unlikely to have the ability and knowledge to commit these crimes also if the police had anything on him no matter how slight we would know I think he was a desperate bid by a very desperate police force.

[Jeff Leahy]

Nice reply thank you.I still think it's a lot to ask to expect Kosminski to have refrained from killing for nearly six months after the Mary Kelly murder I also find Kosminski very unlikely to have the ability and knowledge to commit these crimes also if the police had anything on him no matter how slight we would know I think he was a desperate bid by a very desperate police force.

What if Kosminski was going in and out of the private asylum as early as December 1888?

That would place him in an asylum at the same time as David Cohen, Check this out:

Dublin Express, December 1888:

“The Dublin Express London correspondent gives as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who, to avert a terrible family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm´s way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this theory, detectives have recently visited all the registered private asylums and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted”

[pinkmoon]

What if Kosminski was going in and out of the private asylum as early as December 1888?

That would place him in an asylum at the same time as David Cohen, Check this out:

Dublin Express, December 1888:

“The Dublin Express London correspondent gives as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who, to avert a terrible family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm´s way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this theory, detectives have recently visited all the registered private asylums and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted”

It's a very logical theory and certainly an avenue that the police could explore but we don't know this happen and if it did it happen it would be noted by the police and we would know .

[Jeff Leahy]

It's a very logical theory and certainly an avenue that the police could explore but we don't know this happen and if it did it happen it would be noted by the police and we would know .

Yes I agree , it is speculative…but thus is any suspect theory ripperology.

I can only say that I am re-evaluating the sources about Kosminski and Cohen

Starting form scratch in 2015…

And I've checked with Martin Fido (After all he is the father of this research)

And he has at least said that its worth while research (I suggest given that he has only checked Public asylum records and there is contemporary source records that 'The Suspect' did indeed enter a private asylum).

Trusting this clarify's

Yours Jef

[Batman]

What if Kosminski was going in and out of the private asylum as early as December 1888?

That would place him in an asylum at the same time as David Cohen, Check this out:

Have you read the latest book from Robert House? He discusses these points exactly. He is a Kozminski expert.

[Jeff Leahy]

Have you read the latest book from Robert House? He discusses these points exactly. He is a Kozminski expert.

No I am communicating with people with new ideas that expand upon Robert houses book. Robert is clearly attached to a single asylum theory

We are saying that Kosminski enter the asylum on more than one occasion.

i.e. from December 1888 until February 1991

Rip up everything you have ever believed before…

2015 here we come!

Yours Jef