"The Secret Idenity of Jack the Ripper". Your thoughts?

[Ozzy]

So Ozzy are you suggesting that at the time of the making of The Secret Identity that Fido only went along with the idea of Kozminski as a prime suspect for the Ripper because that's what the producers of that program wanted him to do? Not that at that time Fido actually thought Kozminski was an actually viable candidate for JtR?

If so this would probably fit in with my theory of at the time of the documentary Kozminski was used as a convenient suspect rather than a real serious candidate because of the lack of knowledge/photos of him.

I wasn't trying to suggest anything. Merely pointing out something I'd heard/read somewhere in relation to what Tom said (the part I quoted).

I have two* audiobooks by Martin Fido. I'll have a listen to them again as that might be the source of what I was trying to remember (thanks Tecs).

* On The Trail Of Jack The Ripper (about 3 and a quarter hours)
The Truth About Jack the Ripper (about 2 and a quarter hours)

[Barnaby]

The more detailed it is, the harder it is to refute?

I think we may be talking about two different things. If I have a very vague suspect (e.g., it was an unknown Polish Jew...), that is a very difficult thing for someone to refute. If on the other hand I have a very specific suspect (it was Prince Albert Victor!), that is much easier to refute.

This is a similar issue to falsification in science. Science advances by falsifying the specific predictions (hypotheses) made by theories (and thus perhaps falsifying the theory itself). Over time, the theories that withstand the test gain strength.

I'm not advocating vague suspects are better: just that they are harder to refute, or prove wrong. In fact, these sorts of vague suspects (unknown Polish Jew, etc.) are worthless because they do not make specific testable predictions.

[GUT]

G'Day Elleryqueen74

Just realised that I didn't answer you question about "Dear Boss" I really doubt it's authenticity, had the "saucy Jack postcard" come a day earlier I would have given it a lot higher probability of being real.

The only "mainstream" letter I give any chance of being genuine is "From Hell" and even it I only rate about 55:45.

[Tecs]

Dear all,

I feel awful saying it as Martin is one of the ripperologists that I really admire, but in his audio book on the case he also mentions the documentary we're discussing but he fudges it a bit.

As above I'm going from memory so don't shoot me but if I recall correctly he explains his Cohen/Kosminski theory and then in adding credibility mentions the secret identity documentary where he says

"A panel of experts was unanimous. Only Anderson's poor Polish Jew seems likely."

Which of course means Kosminski! He didn't clarify that he doesn't say he was the ripper but rather Cohen.

And on the programme in general, Philip Sugden got it right when he pointed out that although the panel did plump for Kosminski, the list they were actually asked to choose from was very poor.

regards,

[Scott Nelson]

The more detailed it is, the harder it is to refute?

[Barnaby]

How does that make him too convenient a suspect?

Because the more vague it is, the harder it is to refute.

[elleryqueen74]

I can't recall where (maybe even a Rippercast but don't go checking them all as it might of been somewhere else like another documentary) but I have heard/read Fido talking about the The Secret Identity documentary on this issue.
He said something like he didn't get into Kozminski/Cohen/Kaminsky because of how convoluted it is. Basically it wasn't the time or place. Words to that effect.

Generally I don't like speaking about what other people have said if I can't give a direct quote and source. Hence 'something like' in bold. But I vaguely recall this issue and Fido explaining it somewhere Tom. If I remember the source I'll post again.

So Ozzy are you suggesting that at the time of the making of The Secret Identity that Fido only went along with the idea of Kozminski as a prime suspect for the Ripper because that's what the producers of that program wanted him to do? Not that at that time Fido actually thought Kozminski was an actually viable candidate for JtR?

If so this would probably fit in with my theory of at the time of the documentary Kozminski was used as a convenient suspect rather than a real serious candidate because of the lack of knowledge/photos of him.

[Ozzy]

Martin Fido's proclamation that Kozminski was the Ripper is interesting since in his own book he reached a very different conclusion.

I can't recall where (maybe even a Rippercast but don't go checking them all as it might of been somewhere else like another documentary) but I have heard/read Fido talking about the The Secret Identity documentary on this issue.
He said something like he didn't get into Kozminski/Cohen/Kaminsky because of how convoluted it is. Basically it wasn't the time or place. Words to that effect.

Generally I don't like speaking about what other people have said if I can't give a direct quote and source. Hence 'something like' in bold. But I vaguely recall this issue and Fido explaining it somewhere Tom. If I remember the source I'll post again.

[elleryqueen74]

How does that make him too convenient a suspect?

Well because at the time of the documentary not much was known about him besides being labelled a woman hater etc etc. Thus they could conveniently use him in the documentary as someone they could pin as a likely suspect without having to use a whole lot of evidence. For if the were going to use one of the other suspects they had on the program they would probably need more evidence to support that.

[Scott Nelson]

How does that make him too convenient a suspect?

[elleryqueen74]

Thanks for your replies guys. It is interesting seeing other Ripperologists thoughts on these things.

I have always been of the opinion that Kosminski was too convenient a suspect since very little was known about him and no photo's etc exist of him.

[Tom_Wescott]

So GUT, Tom, I am guessing you don't take its conclusions seriously? or the suggestion the Dear Boss letter is a fake seriously either?

What about the suggestion from the "Panel" and Martin Fido that Kosminski was the most likely to be JtR?

The Dear Boss letter was probably a hoax, but that would be considered with or without this documentary. Martin Fido's proclamation that Kozminski was the Ripper is interesting since in his own book he reached a very different conclusion.

I put zero stock in serial killer profiling. These guys can't seem to catch modern serial killers. Considering their very limited knowledge of Victorian London, their methods would be even less effective in hunting the Ripper. Also, this documentary is quite old and far more is known about the case now than was known then.

Kozminski might have been the Ripper, but not for the reasons put forth in this documentary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'day ElleryQueen

I simply don't believe that there is enough evidence to support his conclusions based on profiling.

Kosminki is probably a better Susie ct than many, the fact that he was named by police who were "on the scene" means that I would need more to rule him out. By the same token I'd also need a lot more, and I mean a LOT before I'd say he WAS Jacky.

[elleryqueen74]

So GUT, Tom, I am guessing you don't take its conclusions seriously? or the suggestion the Dear Boss letter is a fake seriously either?

What about the suggestion from the "Panel" and Martin Fido that Kosminski was the most likely to be JtR?

[Barnaby]

G'Day EQ [don't mind the trade name]

And welcome..

t really depends on how much credence you place on profiling and perhaps even more to the point how applicable a modern profile is to events 100 years earlier.

That's a really good question. Even most of us skeptical of profiling, however, tend to make some common assumptions, such as the Ripper was not homosexual because gay "sexual" serial killers (e.g., Dahmer, Gacy) choose male victims. For this reason many disqualify Tumblety.

But was this true 125 years ago? Sex is sex of course but attitudes toward sexual orientation certainly have changed and this could affect how homosexuals perceive themselves, others, and act on their sexuality.