PDA

View Full Version : Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Harry D
11-02-2014, 05:56 AM
All the dirty business of Shawlgate aside, is Aaron Kosminski still the most compelling Ripper suspect based on all the known facts of the case?

Fisherman
11-02-2014, 06:07 AM
All the dirty business of Shawlgate aside, is Aaron Kosminski still the most compelling Ripper suspect based on all the known facts of the case?

No.

Fisherman

Jonathan H
11-02-2014, 06:11 AM
Arguably not, though he forever remains in the top three after Druitt and Tumblety.

From one angle, "Kosminski" remains a strong, contemporaneous suspect because he was the choice--in fact the solution--of Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson.

But ...

Too much of the little they wrote either does not match Aaron Kosminski, or makes no sense in terms of other policemen being ignorant of this suspect's extraordinary bona fides (or even of his existence).

Furthermore, Macnaghten, arguably, can be shown to know more accurate data about this suspect and he absolutely rejected him as 'Jack'. I further argue that this suspect's elevation, his being sexed-up, originated with Macnaghten and was passed on to Anderson.

Because of RipperLand's suffocatingly narrow focus on the Mac Report (official version) it is not well known or understood here that Macnaghten in 1913 and 1914--just like Anderson in 1910--claimed in public that the case was solved, but went with the man who who had taken his own life.

To make a convincing case for Anderson and/or Swanson as the most reliable source(s) of the time, and thus the Polish madman as the likeliest suspect, you have to explain away the above.

Fisherman
11-02-2014, 06:14 AM
Arguably not, though he forever remains in the top three after Druitt and Tumblety.


Forever is a long, long time, Jonathan. ;)

The best,
Fisherman

GUT
11-02-2014, 12:22 PM
All the dirty business of Shawlgate aside, is Aaron Kosminski still the most compelling Ripper suspect based on all the known facts of the case?

The "Shawl" makes not one bt of difference either he is a good suspect or he' not

Harry D
11-02-2014, 01:21 PM
The "Shawl" makes not one bt of difference either he is a good suspect or he' not

I wanted to make it clear this topic wasn't made on the back of Mr. Edwards's groundbreaking discovery.

The Good Michael
11-02-2014, 09:06 PM
Yes he is, and the DNA stuff, right or wrong, gives everyone another chance to look at him and to see that any of the mistakes made by Swanson and Anderson are minimal and easily dismissed as coming from a time when there was no Google that helped with coroborration. I still like Kelly better, but I have nothing but me 'spicions.

Mike

drstrange169
11-02-2014, 09:58 PM
Don't tell Fish or Lech, but I'd put Crossmere higher than Kosi. The whole Anderson thing seems a little too anti-Semitic for me. They are all "persons of interest" but all lack actual evidence so far.

Jonathan H
11-02-2014, 11:49 PM
For once I am hardly alone in writing that the broad argument for Kosminski, which, fair enough, becomes an argument for the veracity of Anderson and Swanson, is terminally weak.

The errors that Anderson and Swanson made were, we are always unconvincingly assured, 'minimal'.

As in nothing to see here, keep moving folks.

Minimal ... Really?

1. They have 'Kosminski', no first name, deceased soon after being incarcerated which they imply--Anderson several times-- happened in early 1889. In fact, Anderson predeceased Kosminski by a few months. This is why Martin Fido was not looking for the incarceration of a Kosminski as late as 1891, and partly why the writer/academic rejected this Pole as Anderson's suspect once having stumbled upon him.

2. Swanson writes and Anderson implies that no murders after Kelly were thought by the police to be by the same killer. A quick look at the sources from 1888 through to 1891--and arguably even as late as 1895-- disposes of that one. Especially the agitation over Tom Sadler and Frances Coles.

3. There was no witness identification by a Jew of a Jew, at the police seaside hospital or anywhere else, because Smith and Macnaghten would have to have known about it. In different styles the latter both firmly reject the existence of such an encounter. Buttressing that rejection is the 1908 interview which shows Anderson's alarming capacity to make a dog's breakfast of the past, and therefore the Evans-Rumbelow 2006 theory of Kosminski [self-servingly] substituted for Sadler makes sense of the little we have.

4. Even more devastating for this line of argument--so it is never dealt with--is that Sir Melville Macnaghten knew more accurate data about 'Kosminski' than Anderson and Swanson put together. He knew the Polish suspect was still alive and he knew that he was out and about for a considerable time after the Kelly murder. In Guy Logan's 1905 semi-fictional account of the Druitt solution, Kosminski is eliminated altogether, as he was to be in Sir Melville's memoir nine years later, e.g. he was judged to be nothing. 'Kosminski', with the same first name lacking, begins with Macnaghten in the extant record when he backdates the former's incarceration to March 1889 (matching Anderson's memoir and the implied dating of the Swanson jottings) but with Sims in 1907 this becomes a lengthier interregnum--plus Kosminski is further fictionalized (he lives alone, worked in a Polish hospital, was sectioned by the state).

4. In the primary sources of the Late Victorian Era and Edwardian Era the Polish madman was strictly a sideshow to the main game--the Ripper as a tormented, English gent. Therefore some modern writers are overturning the received wisdom of the past. Nothing wrong with that. It is done all the time. My problem is that it is not acknowledged it is being done, and therefore it is not understood how much has to be upended and recalibrated to make this revisionist interpretation work. Instead we have bland reassurances by some that it is all quite straight-forward re: Anderson-Swanson to Kosminski.

It is anything but straight-forward, and the perplexing features of Anderson's claim was perceived and understood at the time, e.g. as perplexing and even implausible, but far less so now.

This is how theory becomes doctrinal before calcifying into dogma.

Could Aaron Kosminski have been 'Jack the Ripper' after all?

It's possible. Anything is possible, but it is just not very probable.

Why not? Because a competent, hands-on police chief of the day rejected this suspect. Why choose his opinion over the others? Because he can be shown to know more that is accurate about the same suspect, and why shouldn't he as he was there.

On the other hand, Martin Fido and Scott Nelson arguably make a better case for David Cohen as 'Jack the Ripper'--even if we leave out the competing police chiefs.

Dr. John Watson
11-03-2014, 12:12 AM
Since no one is known to have witnessed the Ripper in the act of actually killing someone, Kosminski can only be suspected by implication. And if the witness who supposedly identified Kosminski was Israel Schwartz, as I believe it was, he could only tie Kosminski into the assault on Stride in the street outside Dutfield's yard 15 minutes before her body was found - not to Stride's murder. Swanson, in discussing the identification of Kosminski, simply made a logical assumption that if Kosminski wrestled with Stride in the street, he must also have been the one who killed her and, by implication, all the other Ripper victims.

Thus, in truth, there is no tangible evidence connecting Kosminski with any of the Ripper murders.

Dr. John

Monty
11-03-2014, 01:00 AM
Kosmiski is a suspect.

Many of the rest are not.

All non contemporaneously cited ones most certainly are not.

The rest is waffle.

Monty
:)

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 01:59 AM
Don't tell Fish or Lech, but I'd put Crossmere higher than Kosi. The whole Anderson thing seems a little too anti-Semitic for me. They are all "persons of interest" but all lack actual evidence so far.

I didnīt hear you saying that, Dr Strange - promise! ;)

Fisherman

lynn cates
11-03-2014, 02:17 AM
Hello Jonathan.

"3. There was no witness identification by a Jew of a Jew, at the police seaside hospital or anywhere else"

What of Wirtkofsky and Lowenheim? Are you certain the FO did not conduct such a meeting?

Cheers.
LC

Jonathan H
11-03-2014, 02:27 AM
To Lynn

I think that's a good point, and no doubt much went into Anderson's free falling synapses of 1910.

Including probably Violenia and Pizer in 1888, albeit the former was foreign but not Jewish.

Including Sims' 1907 description of a police witness allegedly seeing the Polish suspect at a later date and deciding he could not positively identify him.

A huge influence on this legendary element, I postulate, was Anderson first learning about 'Kosminski' in detail only in 1895, e.g. just after a Jewish witness (likely to have been Lawende) had said yes to a Ripper suspect (Grant) and yet, disappointingly, this breakthrough went nowhere.

Abby Normal
11-03-2014, 08:49 AM
All the dirty business of Shawlgate aside, is Aaron Kosminski still the most compelling Ripper suspect based on all the known facts of the case?

Hi Harry
He is the only contemporary police suspect that has any possible shred of evidence against him-the possible ID. He is mentioned by three top police officials at the time-one who thought he was the man.
So historically, yes, he is the most compelling ripper suspect.

But realistically? I put him in my top tier of 6 most viable suspects, but at the bottom of those 6. The ID is sketchy, put forth by a boaster, and for possibly prejudiced reasons (Anderson). The evidence seems to point away from a jewish perpetrator. And his overt insanity is a stumbling block for me as well.

However, no question, he was a MAJOR suspect at one time.

Sally
11-03-2014, 08:55 AM
Yes. I have yet to find any attempt at counter-argument convincing - and have voted accordingly.

barnflatwyngarde
11-03-2014, 10:26 AM
Harry D, good topic for a post.

I don't think Kosminski will ever go away, due mainly to Anderson and Swanson's written thoughts about him, although I am not entirely sure that the Swanson Marginalia is a total endorsement of Anderson's views.

Also I have trouble accepting that the man who so brutally butchered and dehumanised Mary Jane Kelly was calmly walking his dog a year later.

I still think that the blotchy faced man seen with Kelly by Mrs Cox is a more viable suspect than Kosminski.

This does of course assume that Hutchinson was lying.

But we all know that anyway.

Don't we?

RockySullivan
11-03-2014, 10:39 AM
Would Kosminski be able to kill, eviscerate and remove organs in the pitch black in only a few minutes? There seems to be nothing to indicate he would.

Scott Nelson
11-03-2014, 10:48 AM
The problem is, the two officials who privately named "Kosminski" never used a forename.

If Aaron Kosminski hadn't be adverse to using his anglicised name, "Abrahams," he would have gone down in the workhouse and asylum records as "Aaron Abrahams" -- and thus the Kosminski suspect would be lost to history. Or at the very least, it would have been extremely difficult to determine who he was in the records -- assuming name-change records and immigration records survived. But then the question would still be, can we be sure this is the correct Kosminski, the police suspect in the Whitechapel Murders?

Monty
11-03-2014, 10:53 AM
The problem is, the two officials who privately named "Kosminski" never used a forename.

If Aaron Kosminski hadn't be adverse to using his anglicised name, "Abrahams," he would have gone down in the workhouse and asylum records as "Aaron Abrahams" -- and thus the Kosminski suspect would be lost to history. Or at the very least, it would have been extremely difficult to determine who he was in the records -- assuming name-change records and immigration records survived. But then the question would still be, can we be sure this is the correct Kosminski, the police suspect in the Whitechapel Murders?

And there lies the rub.

However a Kosminski is named.

Monty
:)

robhouse
11-03-2014, 10:59 AM
Also I have trouble accepting that the man who so brutally butchered and dehumanised Mary Jane Kelly was calmly walking his dog a year later.

Source? Specifically, for the "calmly" part.

RH

PaulB
11-03-2014, 11:04 AM
And "walking" and "his" while we're at it.

barnflatwyngarde
11-03-2014, 11:11 AM
Source? Specifically, for the "calmly" part.

RH
Good point Rob!

It is true that he may have been agitated while walking the dog, but there is no evidence that he was, and of course there is no evidence that he
wasn't.

Rebuke accepted!

I suppose I fell into the trap that that many people make when posting on the Message Boards, making an assumption that can't be proved.

I am a newbie, I'll learn.
Hopefully!

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 11:13 AM
no question, he was a MAJOR suspect at one time.

For whom, apart from Anderson?

The best,
Fisherman

barnflatwyngarde
11-03-2014, 11:13 AM
And "walking" and "his" while we're at it.
I only meant that the dog was under his "control".

Kosminski the loving pet owner............what are the odds?????

RockySullivan
11-03-2014, 11:18 AM
I'm not knowledgable about Koz at all, can someone fill me in on the details of his self abuse? Why is Koz considered to have been a "chronic masturbator" or someone who masturbated more than usual? If Koz did frequently masturbate in public or in front of us others, this would be the one and only thing about him that might fit the ripper profile, and it's not a very strong point at that.

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 11:20 AM
I only meant that the dog was under his "control".

Kosminski the loving pet owner............what are the odds?????

Paul is pointing out that it was not Kosminskis dog, barnflat.

Then again, that does not diminish your point - I think it is kind of hard to believe that the Ripper was a man who walked peopleīs dogs for them. Not much evidence as such, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 11:22 AM
I'm not knowledgable about Koz at all, can someone fill me in on the details of his self abuse? Why is Koz considered to have been a "chronic masturbator" or someone who masturbated more than usual? If Koz did frequently masturbate in public or in front of us others, this would be the one and only thing about him that might fit the ripper profile, and it's not a very strong point at that.

Can you think of one serial killer that frequently masturbated in public? I canīt.

As for Kosminskiīs masturbation sessions, they are hotly debated. Some say he did, some say he didnīt, so there are two schools - surprise! ;)

The best,
Fisherman

RockySullivan
11-03-2014, 11:26 AM
Can you think of one serial killer that frequently masturbated in public? I canīt.

As for Kosminskiīs masturbation sessions, they are hotly debated. Some say he did, some say he didnīt, so there are two schools - surprise! ;)

The best,
Fisherman

I can't think of any but Wikipedia lists compulsive masturbation as a characteristic of lust serial killers. What evidence or reports are that Koz was a compulsive masturbator other than self abuse being listed on his asylum record? Anything at all?

Monty
11-03-2014, 11:27 AM
Can you think of one serial killer that frequently masturbated in public? I canīt.

As for Kosminskiīs masturbation sessions, they are hotly debated. Some say he did, some say he didnīt, so there are two schools - surprise! ;)

The best,
Fisherman

Dahmer, Shawcross...apologies, you said one.

Monty
:)

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 11:35 AM
Dahmer, Shawcross...apologies, you said one.

Monty
:)

Are you referring to Dahmers masturbating in front of two boys on one occasion, and to Shawcross being found masturbating on a bridge over a canyon where a victim of his was lying?

I didnīt know that these men frequently masturbated in public, which was what I posed as a question. Did they? If so, I have either never read it or forgotten about it.

Both versions are possible, so you are going to have to tell me.

The best,
Fisherman

Richard Dewar
11-03-2014, 11:36 AM
Kosminski is the only suspect for which there is any evidence linking him to the murders.

The evidence appears to be tangential - a mysterious identification by someone cited by two police officials.

As have been by others, we know of know difinitive evidence linking him to the murders. We cannot even be sure that the suspect was Aaron Kosminski - he might have been someone with a different name.

But this person, whoever he was, is the only individual where there appears to be contemporary evidence linking him to the case.

RockySullivan
11-03-2014, 11:38 AM
Kosminski is the only suspect for which there is any evidence linking him to the murders.

The evidence appears to be tangential - a mysterious identification by someone cited by two police officials.

As have been by others, we know of know difinitive evidence linking him to the murders. We cannot even be sure that the suspect was Aaron Kosminski - he might have been someone with a different name.

But this person, whoever he was, is the only individual where there appears to be contemporary evidence linking him to the case.

And what is that evidence? If dahmer and shaw cross were caught masturbating in public on one occasion, there's a good chance it wasn't the only time. And if they were taking their habit to the streets that's a good indication they practiced a lot at home

Richard Dewar
11-03-2014, 11:44 AM
And what is that evidence? If dahmer and shaw cross were caught masturbating in public on one occasion, there's a good chance it wasn't the only time. And if they were taking their habit to the streets that's a good indication they practiced a lot at home

The evidence is the witness identification cited by Anderson and Swanson. We don't know who the witness was or what the witness claimed to have seen the suspect do.

This is very scant - but it's better than we have against any other suspect.

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 11:48 AM
And what is that evidence? If dahmer and shaw cross were caught masturbating in public on one occasion, there's a good chance it wasn't the only time. And if they were taking their habit to the streets that's a good indication they practiced a lot at home

The Shawcross masturbation thing was actually not in public - at least not the occasion I am speaking of. He was seen masturbating by a bridge, under which a victim of his was lying. I have the impression that he was reliving the kill, and that was made him masturbate. It was more of a coincidence that a policeman in a car happened to pass by as he did so, so there was seemingly not any intention on Shawcrossī behalf to show himself off.

Monty apparently knows about frequent occasions when Shawcross masturbated in public. Those are unknown to me so far.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 12:01 PM
The evidence is the witness identification cited by Anderson and Swanson. We don't know who the witness was or what the witness claimed to have seen the suspect do.

This is very scant - but it's better than we have against any other suspect.

Nobody saw any of the victims being killed. If Anderson was correct, then a jewish witness said that he had seen "Kosminski" in some context that supposedly was incriminating.
But what was that context?
Anderson says that the only person who ever had a good view of the murdered unhesitatingly identified him afterwards.
But as what?
The man seen with the woman who may or may not have been Kate Eddowes minutes before she was found slain?
If so, how is it a capital crime to speak to a woman at nighttime? That would have been what they had on him. And it would seem that the witness (Lawende) later identified ANOTHER man as the one he had seen in Church Passage.
It would be circumstantial evidence at best.

I much prefer Lechmere.
He was found alone by a freshly killed victim.
He didnīt give his true name to the police.
He seemingly lied his way past Mizen.
There are many anomalies attaching to him on the murder morning.

This too is circumstantial evidence. But it is much heavier than a sighting of a man close to a murder spot.

Saying that what we have on Kosminski is much better than what we have on any other suspect is simply not true. We donīt even know what it is we have on Kosminski in the first place. A suggested ID, yes - but in what context?

The best,
Fisherman

Richard Dewar
11-03-2014, 12:18 PM
Nobody saw any of the victims being killed. If Anderson was correct, then a jewish witness said that he had seen "Kosminski" in some context that supposedly was incriminating.
But what was that context?
Anderson says that the only person who ever had a good view of the murdered unhesitatingly identified him afterwards.
But as what?
The man seen with the woman who may or may not have been Kate Eddowes minutes before she was found slain?
If so, how is it a capital crime to speak to a woman at nighttime? That would have been what they had on him. And it would seem that the witness (Lawende) later identified ANOTHER man as the one he had seen in Church Passage.
It would be circumstantial evidence at best.

I much prefer Lechmere.
He was found alone by a freshly killed victim.
He didnīt give his true name to the police.
He seemingly lied his way past Mizen.
There are many anomalies attaching to him on the murder morning.

This too is circumstantial evidence. But it is much heavier than a sighting of a man close to a murder spot.

Saying that what we have on Kosminski is much better than what we have on any other suspect is simply not true. We donīt even know what it is we have on Kosminski in the first place. A suggested ID, yes - but in what context?

The best,
Fisherman

Your observations about the weakness of the Kosminski identification are all valid. Yet we don't even have as much "evidence" against any other suspect.

Monty
11-03-2014, 12:25 PM
Are you referring to Dahmers masturbating in front of two boys on one occasion, and to Shawcross being found masturbating on a bridge over a canyon where a victim of his was lying?

I didnīt know that these men frequently masturbated in public, which was what I posed as a question. Did they? If so, I have either never read it or forgotten about it.

Both versions are possible, so you are going to have to tell me.

The best,
Fisherman

Ah, once is acceptable normal behaviour.

Monty
:)

Harry D
11-03-2014, 12:28 PM
The whole Anderson thing seems a little too anti-Semitic for me. They are all "persons of interest" but all lack actual evidence so far.

That's quite a malicious allegation against a man who is not alive to defend himself. Anderson's belief in a Jewish Ripper was not completely unfounded, nor was his belief that the tight-knit Jewish community in Whitechapel would protect one of their own.

Also, am I the only one (probably) who dislikes the term 'anti-semitic'? Why should Jews have their own special word, especially when it's mainly used to defame anyone who dares to speak out against the culture? It instantly evokes images of Nazism & the Holocaust, thereby manipulating people's emotions and discrediting any kind of valid point. What's wrong with 'racist'?

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 12:32 PM
Ah, once is acceptable normal behaviour.

Monty
:)

That will have to stand for you, Monty. The fact remains that I said in my earlier post that I do not know of any serialist that frequently masturbated in public.

Then you tried to be smart and pointed out Dahmer and Shawcross - as examples of people who frequently masturbated in public. And you jestingly apologized for having supplied two men when I asked for only one.

And now, when the time for you to apologize for your mistake has arrived, you choose to make a suggestion that I would think masturbation in public an acceptable behaviour...?

Why would I? I donīt even think undressing in public is acceptable, Monty. ;)

The best,
Fisherman

GUT
11-03-2014, 12:33 PM
G'day Fisherman

How is

He was seen masturbating by a bridge, under which a victim of his was lying.

Not in public, if he is seen and is by a brdge what is that if not in public.

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 12:34 PM
Your observations about the weakness of the Kosminski identification are all valid. Yet we don't even have as much "evidence" against any other suspect.

Actually, I think we do.

the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 12:40 PM
G'day Fisherman

How is



Not in public, if he is seen and is by a brdge what is that if not in public.

Itīs about intent, Gut, as far as Iīm concerned. Shawcross was alone when he started masturbating, and I think he wanted to stay alone.

I actually misremembered the whole thing to some extent - Shawcross was seen from a helicopter, not from a car. Hereīs the story about what the police helicopter men saw:

They flew low over Salmon Creek, scanning back and forth, alert for anything unusual. Suddenly they saw something near a bridge. They flew closer and saw what appeared to be a human figure lying splayed out and facedown on the surface of the ice. She was wearing a white top, like Felicia Stephens was reported to have worn when last seen, but nothing else.

They hovered for a closer look and made out a female with darkish skin but not black. It could not be Felicia Stephens, but they had three other missing women, so this could be one of them. But then they noticed a Chevy Celebrity on the bridge, so they radioed to patrol units on the ground to check it out. A large overweight man was there and he appeared to be urinating. Then he got into his car and drove away.

That man was Arthur Shawcross. He masturbated (way) over his victim, and he was caught out. He had no intention to invite the public.

The suggestion about Kosminski is that he did not mind doing it in public - on the contrary.

Different matters, as far as I can tell!

The best,
Fisherman

GUT
11-03-2014, 12:47 PM
But we don't know if

Itīs about intent, Gut, as far as Iīm concerned. Shawcross was alone when he started masturbating, and I think he wanted to stay alone.


Applied to Koz.

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 12:53 PM
But we don't know if




Applied to Koz.

No, we donīt! Of course, compulsive masturbation will be compulsive, and people suffering from it will masturbate no matter what. Thatīs what lies in the term.

But that was not the point I was making. I was making the point that much as Dahmer is known to have masturbated before to boys and therefore could have been said to have had the intent to be seen masturbating, Shawcross is another case altogether.

And I was making that point in defence of my statement that I know of no serialist that frequently masturbated in public.

It should all be very clear, shouldnīt it?

The best,
Fisherman

Monty
11-03-2014, 01:58 PM
That will have to stand for you, Monty. The fact remains that I said in my earlier post that I do not know of any serialist that frequently masturbated in public.

Then you tried to be smart and pointed out Dahmer and Shawcross - as examples of people who frequently masturbated in public. And you jestingly apologized for having supplied two men when I asked for only one.

And now, when the time for you to apologize for your mistake has arrived, you choose to make a suggestion that I would think masturbation in public an acceptable behaviour...?

Why would I? I donīt even think undressing in public is acceptable, Monty. ;)

The best,
Fisherman

No, I never mentioned you at all Christer, I find it insulting that you suggested it, as well as your personal attack upon me.

You have reminded me why I no longer engage in debate here.

Monty

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 02:19 PM
No, I never mentioned you at all Christer, I find it insulting that you suggested it, as well as your personal attack upon me.

You have reminded me why I no longer engage in debate here.

Monty

Oh, so now I am to blame for your not reading what I say before you answer it incorrectly?

You thought I was ignorant about Dahmer and Shawcross. You were wrong.

You tried to poke fun at me, without even having read and understood that you were the one making the error.

And now you play the innocent, wronged hero?

By all means, engage in "debate" here if you wish. But do please try and leave me out of it fortwith. Iīll try and extend you the same favour.

The best,
Fisherman

Monty
11-03-2014, 02:26 PM
Oh, so now I am to blame for your not reading what I say before you answer it incorrectly?

You thought I was ignorant about Dahmer and Shawcross. You were wrong.

You tried to poke fun at me, without even having read and understood that you were the one making the error.

And now you play the innocent, wronged hero?

By all means, engage in "debate" here if you wish. But do please try and leave me out of it fortwith. Iīll try and extend you the same favour.

The best,
Fisherman

Not debating, laid a simple fact which clearly you need to explore further than wikipedia

However, error or not, there was no need to get personal.

Monty

robhouse
11-03-2014, 02:42 PM
The fact remains that I said in my earlier post that I do not know of any serialist that frequently masturbated in public.

Isn't this a straw man argument? Show me where it says Kozminski compulsively masturbated in public.

RH

robhouse
11-03-2014, 02:46 PM
Incidentally, while we are on the subject... Peter Sutcliffe masturbated over some of his victims at the crime scenes. Hadden Clark masturbated in front of his neighbor's children (and was schizophrenic.)

Also this, from my book:

"“Compulsive masturbation” was one of the most commonly reported traits of serial killers in the BSU study—over 80% of the interviewed murderers reported “compulsive masturbation” in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. The authors of the study theorized that the prevalence of compulsive masturbation among killers was the result of an ineffective social environment, which led to the development of negative personal traits, such as a mistrust of society at large, and the inability to form close personal relationships. And this in turn, would cause a person to rely on fantasy “as a substitute for human encounter.” According to the report, “The personal traits critical to the development of the murderers in our study include a sense of social isolation, preferences for autoerotic activities and fetishes, rebelliousness, aggression, chronic lying, and a sense of privilege and entitlement. The murderers’ sense of social isolation is profound.” "


RH

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 02:49 PM
Not debating, laid a simple fact which clearly you need to explore further than wikipedia

However, error or not, there was no need to get personal.

Monty

Monty, YOU got personal by having a dig and a laugh at me; Oh, I DO apologize for handing you TWO examples of where you went wrong when you only asked for one. Remember?

This also latches on to a long-standing tradition of taking cheap shots at me, as you will know. And yes, it has resulted in my sniping back, thatīs for sure. Who is the hen and who is the egg, Iīve long since forgotten.

If you can end it, I can too. And I donīt mind going first, so you wonīt see me taking a swipe at you unless I have a very good reason to. Lifeīs too short. Letīs be good boys, both of us. We have nothing more to prove in terms of sarcasms and manure-throwing anyway.

All the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 02:54 PM
Isn't this a straw man argument? Show me where it says Kozminski compulsively masturbated in public.

RH

I canīt. Nor did I claim that he did. Others claim that, however. And I can see their point, given that compulsive masturbation stops at nothing.

However, there is so much uncertainty clinging to this, ehrm ... accusation, that I wonīt nail my colours to any... uh ... mast (yikes!).

I think there is way too little to make any call about Kosminski baing a useful suspect. I think more weighs against it than for it.

But I do not involve the masturbation bit on either side, until further notice.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-03-2014, 02:56 PM
Incidentally, while we are on the subject... Peter Sutcliffe masturbated over some of his victims at the crime scenes. Hadden Clark masturbated in front of his neighbor's children (and was schizophrenic.)


Yep - and I think that Kroll masturbated before children at some stage too. That, however, is not something I deny. What I say is that I canīt think of any serialist who frequently masturbated in public. Frequently as in reoccuringly at an even and high pace.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Iīve had it for today, and Iīm packing in. Iīll answer whatever needs to be answered tomorrow, if I can muster the will...

Monty
11-03-2014, 03:08 PM
Monty, YOU got personal by having a dig and a laugh at me; Oh, I DO apologize for handing you TWO examples of where you went wrong when you only asked for one. Remember?

This also latches on to a long-standing tradition of taking cheap shots at me, as you will know. And yes, it has resulted in my sniping back, thatīs for sure. Who is the hen and who is the egg, Iīve long since forgotten.

If you can end it, I can too. And I donīt mind going first, so you wonīt see me taking a swipe at you unless I have a very good reason to. Lifeīs too short. Letīs be good boys, both of us. We have nothing more to prove in terms of sarcasms and manure-throwing anyway.

All the best,
Fisherman

My previous comments was not sarcasm, they were comments.

These, however, are. Thanks for the lecture, truly appreciated

Monty
:)

GUT
11-03-2014, 03:50 PM
Isn't this a straw man argument? Show me where it says Kozminski compulsively masturbated in public.

RH

Thank you Rob I was about to make the same point.

GUT
11-03-2014, 04:27 PM
Kosmiski is a suspect.

Many of the rest are not.

All non contemporaneously cited ones most certainly are not.

The rest is waffle.

Monty
:)

But Monty how could those named by police at the time be suspects.

The police were Keystone Kops.

In spite of having his workplace and home address they didn't even look into Cross.

After a 4 hour interview they know nothing about Hutch.

They didn't even have enough brains to look at Kelly's ex's.

[Well they are a few of things we are expected to believe anyway] I could go on for pages.

Lechmere
11-03-2014, 04:55 PM
‘Still the best’ implies he ever was the best.
He seems to have been the best in the imagination of Anderson, and possibly Swanson.
But the named police suspects really tell us more about contemporary prejudices of the vain top brass political appointees than they reveal anything about the likely identity of the culprit.
Kosminski is the best of that bad bunch, but this is merely indicative of the weakness of the other police suspects than the strength of Kosminski as the potential culprit.
The content – basic errors - of the records about Kosminski effectively cancel out the likelihood that he was a serious main contender at the time.
The known biographical details of Aaron Kosminski make the realistic likelihood that he could have been a stealth serial killer who successfully evaded capture after killing at least five victims remote to say the least.
So no he is not the best suspect.

Monty
11-03-2014, 05:02 PM
But Monty how could those named by police at the time be suspects.

The police were Keystone Kops.

In spite of having his workplace and home address they didn't even look into Cross.

After a 4 hour interview they know nothing about Hutch.

They didn't even have enough brains to look at Kelly's ex's.

[Well they are a few of things we are expected to believe anyway] I could go on for pages.

Now that is sarcasm.

I do often wonder why many of today's commentators on the subject feel they are in a better position to declare a person a suspect than the contemporaneous police officials.

We are not party to the full information. We assume.

Monty
:)

GUT
11-03-2014, 05:11 PM
Now that is sarcasm.

It was meant to be

I do often wonder why many of today's commentators on the subject feel they are in a better position to declare a person a suspect than the contemporaneous police officials.

Pure pride, "I must know more than anyone else"


We are not party to the full information.

And that's the rub.

Varqm
11-03-2014, 06:03 PM
The only actual event weighing for Kosminsky was the claim that he was identified by a fellow
Jew and the witness subsequently refused to testify.The rest of the so-called evidence against
him does not matter.Many types of personality could have done the murders.We do not know.

So what did the witness saw.Did he saw the so-called suspect before the murder,in the act of murder,
after the murder? It's not clear,I go for the first.

So when they said the witness subsequently refused to testify, did they mean he actually said
I saw him but I refuse to testify.Or was it just an impression that the officers present sensed
or had a gut feeling about that the suspect was the one the witness saw but he refused to acknowledge it?

If it was the former it would have been a bigger incident.My inkling is there would have been other officers
who would have knew about this,there would have been follow-up investigations and such.We likely
would have hear more about this refusal.
So the most likely possibility is it was just an impression.
How many so-called supects are put up in line-ups, identified and then released later cause it turns out
another person did the crime? How many people with more evidence against what they have against
Kosminski are actually innocent and released.

Kosminski even as a person of interest has nil going for it,let alone a suspect.

jmenges
11-03-2014, 06:28 PM
Tim Krajcir liked to masturbate in public. He was busted doing that in a Walmart parking lot. He also liked to kill women, and did that at least nine times.

JM

The Good Michael
11-03-2014, 06:38 PM
But Monty how could those named by police at the time be suspects.

The police were Keystone Kops.

In spite of having his workplace and home address they didn't even look into Cross.

After a 4 hour interview they know nothing about Hutch.

They didn't even have enough brains to look at Kelly's ex's.

[Well they are a few of things we are expected to believe anyway] I could go on for pages.

Obviously this is sarcasm because we know the opposites of all these things are more likely than not.

Mike

drstrange169
11-03-2014, 07:08 PM
"As for Kosminskiīs masturbation sessions, they are hotly debated."

Mass debated, it seems.

Jonathan H
11-03-2014, 07:19 PM
As I wrote, move along, move along, nothing to see here ...

The most important aspect of the Swanson Marginalia is that the suspect allegedly confessed.

The suspect knew he was identified, e.g. the people in the room could see that he knew the jig was up (this theme is repeated) and his expression, if not his words, made this crystal clear.

You got me!

Remember that this was written in the wake of the Aolf Beck outrage of 1904-5 that proved that a dozen witnesses could be honestly wrong about a posiitive identification (as pointed by the outraged Mentor in 1910 to Anderson), even about a person that some of the women had slept with.

Anderson does not provide this 'confession' innovation in either version of his memoirs, but Swanson does.

Either this is because it is from him or it is, as I believe, from a chastened Anderson who is acutely aware of the Beck factor in discrediting witness identifications (let alone by a single witness), as he has been made publicly aware, and so has allowed himself to become, eh, carried away.

Swanson is asserting that the prime suspect gave the game away (he wasn't that deranged, hey?)

Let me ask a question:

Why did Anderson never reveal to the public that the Polish suspect was long deceased?

Scott Nelson
11-03-2014, 09:14 PM
And there lies the rub.

However a Kosminski is named.

Monty
:)

Yes, Neil. But which Kosminski? A hairdresser, or a bootmaker, tailor, or someone else? If only Swanson hadn't written that he died soon after confinement to the asylum, and it was also found that he had said to a newspaper years earlier that the murders were the work of a man who was by then (1895) dead - one year after Macnaghten's memo on Kosminski and the other suspects, giving scant details about them, had been written -- suggesting that Swanson was aware of, and likely referring to, Kosminski. The hairdresser Aaron Kosminski would then not seem to fit Anderson's suspect like a tailored glove. Clearly Swanson was referring to a Kosminski who he believed was dead by 1895, and not someone else. And Arthur Anderson stating that his father believed the Ripper was someone who was dead (Anderson dying in 1918, Aaron Kosminski in 1919). So there's arguably three bits of historical data on the suspect's premature death that run contrary to the hairdresser, Aaron's candidacy. But this is pretty crappy historical data, but it's mostly we got to go on at the present.

The Sims 1907 piece that says the Polish Jew suspect (presumably the hairdresser, Aaron) was at liberty for a considerable time after the murders (assuming MJK was the last). This would eliminate someone like David Cohen, who was not at liberty for a considerable time after the murders, but instead was taken permanently off the streets less than a month after MJK's murder, never to return again and to die less than one year later. Also, the masturbation observed of Aaron was not documented of someone like David Cohen (although it doesn't mean Cohen couldn't have engaged in it and been observed - it may just never been recorded as anything significant other than the "normal" behavior of a confined asylum male inmate.)

Question: Could there be more to Martin Fido's "Confusion Hypothesis" than meets the eye? In other words, could there have been some confusion between two police forces as to the identity of the Kosminski suspect, in that the "Cohen" suspect was actually a "Kosminski" by original (European) name? This is something I'm not sure if Fido considered, but it would make the confusion hypothesis much more tenable in my opinion. In other words (Aaron) David Cohen's Polish name could have been "Kosminski." Later there was a mixing of facts between the hairdresser, Aaron and the tailer, David because both shared the same name, age and general behavioral characteristics.


Nah!!!

Never mind.

Jonathan H
11-03-2014, 09:51 PM
To Scott Nelson

Much of what you write makes ense, and you are spot on about the Swanson conundrum.

It's all a minor sideshow, anyhow, because Macnaghten, a much better cop than Anderson, rejected the Polish suspect as nothing, nothing at all.

I'll ask you directly;

Why do you think Anderson did not mention in public--as Swanson seemingly did--that the Ripper was long deceased?

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 01:31 AM
My previous comments was not sarcasm, they were comments.

These, however, are. Thanks for the lecture, truly appreciated

Monty
:)

Thatīs just fine, Monty.

You erroneously and jestingly point me out as having gotten things wrong.

When I point it out, you claim that I have wronged you.

And when I suggest that we lay it behind us, you think the best thing to do is to go on with mockeries and sarcasms.

Thanks for the exchange.

Fisherman

Monty
11-04-2014, 01:45 AM
Yes, Neil. But which Kosminski? A hairdresser, or a bootmaker, tailor, or someone else? If only Swanson hadn't written that he died soon after confinement to the asylum, and it was also found that he had said to a newspaper years earlier that the murders were the work of a man who was by then (1895) dead - one year after Macnaghten's memo on Kosminski and the other suspects, giving scant details about them, had been written -- suggesting that Swanson was aware of, and likely referring to, Kosminski. The hairdresser Aaron Kosminski would then not seem to fit Anderson's suspect like a tailored glove. Clearly Swanson was referring to a Kosminski who he believed was dead by 1895, and not someone else. And Arthur Anderson stating that his father believed the Ripper was someone who was dead (Anderson dying in 1918, Aaron Kosminski in 1919). So there's arguably three bits of historical data on the suspect's premature death that run contrary to the hairdresser, Aaron's candidacy. But this is pretty crappy historical data, but it's mostly we got to go on at the present.

The Sims 1907 piece that says the Polish Jew suspect (presumably the hairdresser, Aaron) was at liberty for a considerable time after the murders (assuming MJK was the last). This would eliminate someone like David Cohen, who was not at liberty for a considerable time after the murders, but instead was taken permanently off the streets less than a month after MJK's murder, never to return again and to die less than one year later. Also, the masturbation observed of Aaron was not documented of someone like David Cohen (although it doesn't mean Cohen couldn't have engaged in it and been observed - it may just never been recorded as anything significant other than the "normal" behavior of a confined asylum male inmate.)

Question: Could there be more to Martin Fido's "Confusion Hypothesis" than meets the eye? In other words, could there have been some confusion between two police forces as to the identity of the Kosminski suspect, in that the "Cohen" suspect was actually a "Kosminski" by original (European) name? This is something I'm not sure if Fido considered, but it would make the confusion hypothesis much more tenable in my opinion. In other words (Aaron) David Cohen's Polish name could have been "Kosminski." Later there was a mixing of facts between the hairdresser, Aaron and the tailer, David because both shared the same name, age and general behavioral characteristics.


Nah!!!

Never mind.

Having been exposed to Swansons involvement in many matters, both police and non police related, I see a thorough, meticulous man, and due to that nature, it seems he was chosen, quite often, to conduct inquiries and reports into internal matters concerning procedure. In other words, for me, Swanson rarely made errors.

However, he also comes across as a savvy operator, and to reach the heights he did, he knew how to work the system, to misinform when required. Anderson likewise, as a barrister, would know how to roll, however he made, in my opinion, and error in public by boasting. A telling aspect for me is that Swansons notes were never intended for public review, there is no motive for gain. Also his 95 comments about the killer being dead shows a man with his finger on the pulse.

Too many people assume that Swanson (due to Andersons ill chosen reference) is citing THE prime suspect, instead of A prime suspect. He does not. It is clear Kosminski is a player, and a significant one (that's not to say he was Jack mind), the interesting question is which Kosminski is he?

Yes, I agree, Mr Fido seems to have been so close, yet so far. Not sure about the police being confused as to who he was, more to do with the why? I see no reason for the I.D , as a crime had not been committed. If the suspect was insane, no parade would have been officially permitted (see Isenschmid) by a doctor. Therefore the parade could only occur with either the suspects consent, or behind the backs of the medical men. The legal ramifications would have been explosive if exposed. So it makes sound sense to keep the whole process under wraps, whilst hopefully seeking a positive identification more for reassurance than justice.

Of course, such an event could not be conducted by itself, a number of persons had to be involved, and its surprising we have not heard more from anyone else. Either they chose their confidants wisely, or the event is a myth...but that brings us back round to Swanson and my opening paragraph.

Monty
:)

Monty
11-04-2014, 01:49 AM
Thatīs just fine, Monty.

You erroneously and jestingly point me out as having gotten things wrong.

When I point it out, you claim that I have wronged you.

And when I suggest that we lay it behind us, you think the best thing to do is to go on with mockeries and sarcasms.

Thanks for the exchange.

Fisherman

You still waffling on?

To be clear, I've made no error. You think I have.

Also, I was not teasing nor jesting in that post. You think I was.

The bottom line is you got personal due to your assumptions. And THAT is where the error lays.

Monty
:)

Barnaby
11-04-2014, 02:07 AM
I voted no because I've never been swayed by his being named as a contemporaneous suspect. I don't think it was a "hey, let's blame a Jew" anti-Semitic thing going on; rather I wonder if his identification was an early example of profiling. The police realize that the killer is local and that the area is dense in Jewish people. And that there is crazy Jewish masturbator who was recently caught. Seems like he is as good of a suspect as any given the lack of evidence. Maybe then there is even an eyewitness ID. Who knows how this was conducted and - depending on the methodology - this could be quite worthless.

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 02:19 AM
To be clear, I've made no error. You think I have.

Monty
:)

Are you still waffling?

No, Monty, I donīt THINK you made an error - I KNOW you did. You exemplified with Dahmer and Shawcross when I asked for examples of people that frequently masturbated in public. Error.

Thatīs it and thatīs all and thatīs where I leave you to your waffling.

Fisherman

Monty
11-04-2014, 02:30 AM
Are you still waffling?

No, Monty, I donīt THINK you made an error - I KNOW you did. You exemplified with Dahmer and Shawcross when I asked for examples of people that frequently masturbated in public. Error.

Thatīs it and thatīs all and thatīs where I leave you to your waffling.

Fisherman

No, you asked for a serial killer. Error.

Two, and now around four, have been provided.

However, its moot, it has no relation to your personal insult.

Monty
:)

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 02:36 AM
Tim Krajcir liked to masturbate in public. He was busted doing that in a Walmart parking lot. He also liked to kill women, and did that at least nine times.

JM

But masturbating once in Wal-Mart does not amount to frequent masturbation in public, does it?
Krajcir masturbated before his victims before he killed them - that is not masturbation in public.
He peeped into peopleīs homes, while masturbating - thatīs not what I would call masturbating in public.

Maybe there IS a serialist who DID masturbate frequently in public, I donīt know. But what I mean with masturbation in public, is masturbating out on the streets with people around, in malls with people around, on beaches with people around.

Every year, people are sent down for this type of offense - it is a common thing, unsavoury though it is. We can read about it in the papers every now and then.
But are these people potential serialists, or are they something else? I would suggest that they are seeking for an outlet for dammed-up sexuality, and once theyīve had that outlet, they donīt go on to killing people.

And serial killers are looking for an outlet for their dammed-up feelings, and once they have had that outlet, they donīt go on to masturbate in public.

It is not an unthinkable combination if a serialist is killing for some other gratification than sex - in such a case, I could imagine a perpetrator that killed for a sense of power or something such, and then he would perhaps get a sexual kick out of masturbating in public, so he could do that too.

But in such a case, it would be unrelated things.

Of course, we may perhaps imagine an oversexed serialist who both liked to masturbate frequently in public AND to kill people for a sexually related urge. But do we really have examples of it?

Maybe Krajcir is as close as we will get. With men like for example Ridgway and Bobby Joe Long, both much oversexed, there are no examples of them being caught masturbating.

I think the two phenomenons are to a very high degree mututally exclusive, but I am willing to have my mind changed if the examples are there.

The best,
Fisherman

GUT
11-04-2014, 02:40 AM
Maybe there IS a serialist who DID masturbate frequently in public, I donīt know. But what I mean with masturbation in public, is masturbating out on the streets with people around, in malls with people around, on beaches with people around.


And the relevance would be ...?

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 02:42 AM
My original question:

Can you think of one serial killer that frequently masturbated in public? I canīt.

Your original answer:

Dahmer, Shawcross...apologies, you said one.

Now stop wasting valuable time, please.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 02:46 AM
And the relevance would be ...?

That the intent was to have the public seeing your masturbating. That is one of the two types that would masturbate frequently in public.
The other one is the type that would masturbate anyway, oblivious of where he was and what people thought about it - in other words, a mentally challenged man.

Shawcross, for example, clearly does not fit either bill. Nor does Dahmer, Krajcir or any other serialist I have heard of.

Once again, I am ready and willing to get informed and swayed.

The best,
Fisherman

GUT
11-04-2014, 02:48 AM
That the intent was to have the public seeing your masturbating. That is one of the two types that would masturbate frequently in public.
The other one is the type that would masturbate anyway, oblivious of where he was and what people thought about it - in other words, a mentally challenged man.

Shawcross, for example, clearly does not fit either bill. Nor does Dahmer, Krajcir or any other serialist I have heard of.

Once again, I am ready and willing to get informed and swayed.

The best,
Fisherman


Clearly I'm extra dense tonight but how does it change things one iota if other serial killers masturbated in public [your definition of public or some other] or not.

Monty
11-04-2014, 03:00 AM
My original question:

Can you think of one serial killer that frequently masturbated in public? I canīt.

Your original answer:

Dahmer, Shawcross...apologies, you said one.

Now stop wasting valuable time, please.

The best,
Fisherman

I'm wasting no ones time. You asked, I responded, you got personal.

End of.

Well should have been, unfortunately you are unable to let it go, despite others citing their own examples, you argue the toss.

Its not I who is dragging this out. I replied to Scotts well thought out post on a different issue, you pulled it back to, as Rob House points out, this irrelevant, and erroneous, statement of yours.

And you shall continue to do so. Fine, just don't state it is I who is wasting time, when you are the one that perpetuates the matter.

Monty
:)

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 04:17 AM
I'm wasting no ones time. You asked, I responded, you got personal.
Monty
:)

Nope. I asked, and you responded tauntingly. Thatīs where the personal element was introduced:

My original question:

Can you think of one serial killer that frequently masturbated in public? I canīt.

Your original answer:

Dahmer, Shawcross...apologies, you said one.

I asked for serialists who frequently masturbated in public.
You answered another question and tried to be funny about it.
Itīs there and it wonīt go away.

Thatīs all there is to it, really. But Iīm certain that you - after having stated that I am the one perpetuating the errand - will go on doing just that.

Myself, Iīve wasted enough time on it by now.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 04:24 AM
Clearly I'm extra dense tonight but how does it change things one iota if other serial killers masturbated in public [your definition of public or some other] or not.

The original question was whether Kosminskiīs compulsive masturbating, perhaps being carried out in public, would increase his viability as a serial killer or not.

It was presented in a post of Robs, worded:

"If Koz did frequently masturbate in public or in front of us others, this would be the one and only thing about him that might fit the ripper profile..."

The behaviour as such is not something that fits my Ripper profile. But if we had examples of serialists being frequent masturbators in public, it would go along with what Rob wrote.

So thereīs the background.

The best,
Fisherman

robhouse
11-04-2014, 04:43 AM
The original question was whether Kosminskiīs compulsive masturbating, perhaps being carried out in public, would increase his viability as a serial killer or not.

It was presented in a post of Robs, worded:

"If Koz did frequently masturbate in public or in front of us others, this would be the one and only thing about him that might fit the ripper profile..."

The behaviour as such is not something that fits my Ripper profile. But if we had examples of serialists being frequent masturbators in public, it would go along with what Rob wrote.

So thereīs the background.

The best,
Fisherman

I never wrote such a thing. This post was stated by Rocky Sullivan. Nor have I ever stated that Kozminski masturbated in public. He may have masturbated openly, in front of family members for example, but I did not mention this on this thread. So again, this is a straw man argument. I have stated that compulsive masturbation is a common trait among serial killers, and I have given examples of serial killers who masturbated at crime scenes and in front of other people. So yes, Kozminski's noted "solitary vices" does match with the general characteristics of the majority of serial killers.

Rob H

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 05:39 AM
I never wrote such a thing. This post was stated by Rocky Sullivan. Nor have I ever stated that Kozminski masturbated in public. He may have masturbated openly, in front of family members for example, but I did not mention this on this thread. So again, this is a straw man argument. I have stated that compulsive masturbation is a common trait among serial killers, and I have given examples of serial killers who masturbated at crime scenes and in front of other people. So yes, Kozminski's noted "solitary vices" does match with the general characteristics of the majority of serial killers.

Rob H

Rob!

Totally correct about the origin of that post, of course, and my sincere apologies!
I got it right the first time, so why I should get it wrong this time, I canīt say. Anyways, as I said, my apologies!

As for the masturbation bit, I know quite well that many killers have masturbated in front of victims, over dead victims etcetera, just as there are singular examples of them masturbating in public.

What I have failed to find myself, however, is any example of a serialist who have masturbated frequently in public. Once again, I am not saying that Kosminski did, but this was what Rocky Sullivan (and NOT you) posited as a typical Ripper trait.

I donīt object to the idea that serialists can and often will be masturbators - we know quite well that they often relive their deeds while masturbating. Just how many of them that have professed to being compulsive masturbators, I donīt know - but I do know that masturbating in public is another thing than doing it in private.

There! I think I got it right this time. And once again sorry about my mistake! Once we make mistakes, we owe it to ourselves and the members of the boards to straighten them out!

RockySullivan
11-04-2014, 06:14 AM
I never wrote such a thing. This post was stated by Rocky Sullivan. Nor have I ever stated that Kozminski masturbated in public. He may have masturbated openly, in front of family members for example, but I did not mention this on this thread. So again, this is a straw man argument. I have stated that compulsive masturbation is a common trait among serial killers, and I have given examples of serial killers who masturbated at crime scenes and in front of other people. So yes, Kozminski's noted "solitary vices" does match with the general characteristics of the majority of serial killers.

Rob H

Yes I posted that. I'm not claiming Koz was a compulsive masturbator tho, I'm wondering where that ideas come from? Would Koz really he admitted to an asylum for "self abuse". That doesn't seem like enough of a cause to be locked up as insane. What's the full story with this?

Fisherman
11-04-2014, 06:45 AM
Yes I posted that. I'm not claiming Koz was a compulsive masturbator tho, I'm wondering where that ideas come from? Would Koz really he admitted to an asylum for "self abuse". That doesn't seem like enough of a cause to be locked up as insane. What's the full story with this?

It was thought that Kosminskis insanity owed to masturbation, Rocky. He was not locked up for self-abuse - he was locked up for a madness thought to be the result of that self-abuse.

The best,
Fisherman

Monty
11-04-2014, 06:46 AM
Nope. I asked, and you responded tauntingly. Thatīs where the personal element was introduced:

My original question:

Can you think of one serial killer that frequently masturbated in public? I canīt.

Your original answer:

Dahmer, Shawcross...apologies, you said one.

I asked for serialists who frequently masturbated in public.
You answered another question and tried to be funny about it.
Itīs there and it wonīt go away.

Thatīs all there is to it, really. But Iīm certain that you - after having stated that I am the one perpetuating the errand - will go on doing just that.

Myself, Iīve wasted enough time on it by now.

The best,
Fisherman

Damn right I shall. Im not the one who resorted to a childish insult because of what is personally perceived rather than ascertained fact, and nor am I the one who keeps raising the same flawed arguement.

Though, to be fair, historical analysis of your input shows that I should really know better.

Monty
:)

Monty
11-04-2014, 06:49 AM
I never wrote such a thing. This post was stated by Rocky Sullivan. Nor have I ever stated that Kozminski masturbated in public. He may have masturbated openly, in front of family members for example, but I did not mention this on this thread. So again, this is a straw man argument. I have stated that compulsive masturbation is a common trait among serial killers, and I have given examples of serial killers who masturbated at crime scenes and in front of other people. So yes, Kozminski's noted "solitary vices" does match with the general characteristics of the majority of serial killers.

Rob H

Not a Ripper trait Rob, we all know that.

(For the benefit of all, Im being sarcastic)

Monty
:)

RockySullivan
11-04-2014, 06:57 AM
It was thought that Kosminskis insanity owed to masturbation, Rocky. He was not locked up for self-abuse - he was locked up for a madness thought to be the result of that self-abuse.

The best,
Fisherman

Oh thanks fish very scientific indeed! So are there any stories about Koz being caught masturbating or this the only reference?

robhouse
11-04-2014, 07:14 AM
Oh thanks fish very scientific indeed! So are there any stories about Koz being caught masturbating or this the only reference?

3 references to masturbation:

Anderson
Macnaghten
Kozminski's asylum record

Scott Nelson
11-04-2014, 09:04 AM
Why do you think Anderson did not mention in public--as Swanson seemingly did--that the Ripper was long deceased?

Hi Jonathan,

I honestly don't know. Swanson may have been referring to someone else (Grainger?), or to Cohen. Anderson, knowing the suspect was insane, and not being possible to get a court conviction, may have simply stopped keeping tabs on him. There is indirect evidence that Anderson thought the suspect had died in an asylum and Abberline in 1903 confirmed this was known at Scotland Yard.

Of course, my contention is that the City Police are the ones who wanted to conduct the identification proceeding, and the MET went along with it, although no one from the MET was in attendance. When the proceeding failed because the witness refused to proceed with whatever evidence he may have had after identifying the suspect, the City Police returned the suspect to his brothers house and let the matter drop after the suspect was sent back to the workhouse-- so any record of the identification event was probably held by the City Police.

Monty
11-04-2014, 09:09 AM
Hi Jonathan,

I honestly don't know. Swanson may have been referring to someone else (Grainger?), or to Cohen. Anderson, knowing the suspect was insane, and not being possible to get a court conviction, may have simply stopped keeping tabs on him. There is indirect evidence that Anderson thought the suspect had died in an asylum and Abberline in 1903 confirmed this was known at Scotland Yard.

Of course, my contention is that the City Police are the ones who wanted to conduct the identification proceeding, and the MET went along with it, although no one from the MET was in attendance. When the proceeding failed because the witness refused to proceed with whatever evidence he may have had after identifying the suspect, the City Police returned the suspect to his brothers house and let the matter drop after the suspect was sent back to the workhouse-- so any record of the identification event was probably held by the City Police.

We think similar things Scott, though I suspect it was more a joint operation, with City taking the lead.

Monty
:)

Michael W Richards
11-04-2014, 10:19 AM
So he is a likely serial killer because he masturbated in public? Or does that just cement the theory about a serial killer because it appears in modern research about known and convicted, interviewed and documented serial killers ? Sheesh. Why people insist on basing all discussions on what we have learned about serial killers since that time, before we have even a validated series of kills to study, is beyond me. Cart before the horse. They are ALL unsolved, without any known evidence to use as a connection to each other, its all theory and opinion...in case anyone is wondering.

Monty said it best regarding this thread posit....yes, Kosminski is a viable suspect for some of the unsolved murders. There is too much documentation specific to his potential candidacy that matches other more official records that he cannot be excluded at this time.

And also when he said few if any people characterized as "Suspects" actually were, are, or should be considered as such.

Cheers

GUT
11-04-2014, 12:36 PM
The original question was whether Kosminskiīs compulsive masturbating, perhaps being carried out in public, would increase his viability as a serial killer or not.

It was presented in a post of Robs, worded:

"If Koz did frequently masturbate in public or in front of us others, this would be the one and only thing about him that might fit the ripper profile..."

The behaviour as such is not something that fits my Ripper profile. But if we had examples of serialists being frequent masturbators in public, it would go along with what Rob wrote.

So thereīs the background.

The best,
Fisherman


But there is not one iota of proof that Koz frequently masturbated in public.

lynn cates
11-04-2014, 02:20 PM
Hello Scott, Neil.

Eminently sensible speculation.

Cheers.
LC

Jonathan H
11-04-2014, 02:46 PM
To Scott Nelson

I think that Anderson and Swanson were misled by Macnaghten, as how else to explain that the latter knows things about Aaron Kosminski that they did not--worse they think the opposite of what is true?

Macnaghten sexed-up the local, Polish madman for public consumption and then altered the data quite considerably with Sims in 1907 (for example, the "solitary vices" are replaced by a fictional sojourn in a Polish hospital).

I also think that Anderson's conceit and egoism forced him to shy away from admitting, in public, that the Ripper was deceased. He knew it was not a good look; e.g. to accuse a man who was dead and in no position to defend himself (and who was a poor immigrant), and so he did so only in private. Swanson did so just once in 1895, but never again in public.

It is the proof that Anderson's belief in Kosminski's demise is sincere and not propagandist; e.g. it was never widely disseminated for that purpose.

Both Anderson and Macnaghten believed that the fiend was a man who was long deceased, but only one suspect actually was six-foot under, and only one chief knew this.

A few years ago a poster tried to argue that because Anderson believed that the Jewish suspect was dead whilst Macnaghten wrote in 'Aberconway' that he was alive, this meant that Mac was mistaken--even though he was correct?! How does that work? Because Macnaghten had misrecalled what Anderson had told him--or some other such torturous gyration.

This is an excellent measure of how thick the foundational prejudice is for some re: so-called Ripperology.

Bridewell
11-04-2014, 02:51 PM
For whom, apart from Anderson?

The best,
Fisherman
MacNaghten.

Bridewell
11-04-2014, 03:11 PM
He peeped into peopleīs homes, while masturbating - thatīs not what I would call masturbating in public.
Wouldn't that depend on where he was when he did it? If he was outside someone's home looking in when he was masturbating he is more likely to have been in a public place than a private one, surely? If he's in a public place he's doing it in public.

Tom_Wescott
11-04-2014, 03:14 PM
Bridewell you're horrible at quoting! Who says that Aaron was a peeping...er...Bridewell? My understanding was he just did it whenever and wherever, but not necessarily in 1888.

Yours truly

Tom Wescott

Bridewell
11-04-2014, 03:17 PM
3 references to masturbation:

Anderson
Macnaghten
Kozminski's asylum record

All of which is true, but it could just be repeated anecdote from a common source.

Bridewell
11-04-2014, 03:32 PM
Isn't this in danger of becoming a Kosminski masturbation thread rather than a Kosminski as a 'best suspect' one? (And yes I've been posting about it as well before anyone else points that out). But, quite apart from anything else, even if it is accepted that many serial killers masturbate in public, that cannot be considered evidence that people who masturbate in public are therefore serial killers. Shall we all move on from the subject of where and when Aaron Kosminski jacked himself off? Tempers are getting heated and it's not really germane to the subject under discussion.

Best suspect? There are so many claims for who is and is not a valid suspect that the identification of a 'best' seems an exercise in futility. Name any suspect and someone will jump in with an explanation as to why he shouldn't be one. Aaron Kosminski has to be in the top tier because he was named in contemporary documentation as having been suspected contemporaneously. Ditto Druitt.

Jonathan H
11-04-2014, 03:42 PM
Ditto Tumblety.

Harry D
11-04-2014, 03:48 PM
Who was in a position to identify Kosminski (or whoever the Jewish suspect was)? It couldn't have been Lawende, for the simple reason that he was used in the Thomas Sadler identification for the Frances Coles murder. Surely it's unlikely that had Lawende already identified the Ripper and refused to testify, he would've then been used to ID another suspect?

Leaving us only with Schwartz? ...Or does it? Who DID get a good look at the Ripper? Perhaps there is an altogether unknown witness who caught sight of our man and came forward, but whose identity was kept off the record?

On what basis was Kosminski suspected in the first place? Because certain officials got it into their heads that the Ripper was a sexual deviant, and Kosminski was jerking off in public? So many questions, so little answers.

Tom_Wescott
11-04-2014, 04:00 PM
It was Lawende.

Yours truly

Tom Wescott

Jonathan H
11-04-2014, 04:23 PM
I disagree that it is that mysterious.

The masturbation is germane as Anderson refers to it, with much fear and loathing, in the book version of his memoir and, implicitly, yet at length in a letter to the Jewish newspaper.

There was no witness identification of Aaron Kosminski. He was a minor suspect of no consequence to Anderson and Swanson--until revived in 1895.

The eyewitness 'slam dunk' is a mistake by Anderson that only enters the extant record as late as 1910.

An honest, albeit self-serving, ego-driven mistake.

Anderson was suported by nobody in public on this. It is not something whose literal existence could exlude Smith and Macnaghten.

Sadler and Grant are the Ripper suspects who were subjected to a witness dientification by a Jewish witness, almost certainly Lawende both times.

The Marginalia is the giveaway and arguably confirmation that the tale is not literally true:

1. The bizarre Seaside Home element is a refraction of the Sailor's Home of 1891.

2. A chastened Anderson has, in retelling Swanson, softened his damnation of the witness; e.g. he was fearful of the suspect being hanged (How? If he is already "safely caged" in an asylum? Here the timline was altered too, and the blame for the whole matter shifted to the City Police).

3. On the other hand, the guilt of the witness is amplified by having him 'confess' via his guilt-ridden facial reactions to being positively identified.

Author of "Jack the Ripper-Case Solved, 1891"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Case-Solved-1891-Hainsworth/dp/0786496762/ref=zg_bsnr_276306_7/277-3461494-8612157

Phil Carter
11-04-2014, 05:52 PM
Answer:

No

Imho a damned useful patsy... over promoted beyond reason.


Phil

Paddy
11-04-2014, 06:02 PM
Personally I think Anderson, knowing the law as he did, gave just enough information about the prime suspect to avoid litigation. I dont think he was a racist man.
The fact that he stated that it was a Jew was interesting, why would he give that info out?
Macnaghten appeared (to me) to be practicing damage limitation.

Monro stated to one of his family that the case was a "Hot Potato" I believe? A political situation could have been playing out "in camera" since Andersons "Jew" statement. I think it was supressed to stem the rising tide of socialism. It appears throughout misinformation was used to bury the case.

Harry Cox stated in his memoir that the CID watched a Jewish man who lived among the tailors, and that it was thought widely that this man was connected to the murders. Quite rightly at the end he said there was no proof that this was the murderer. What he did say was this man was a very high suspect !

Just my opinion !

Pat...................

GUT
11-04-2014, 06:03 PM
G'day Pat

Personally I think Anderson, knowing the law as he did, gave just enough information about the prime suspect to avoid litigation. I dont think he was a racist man.

What litigation?

and

Why do you think Anderson would know anything about civil law?

GUT
11-04-2014, 06:20 PM
Every time a I see this thread the word "still" really bugs me. I'm not sure that he ever was the best suspect let alone still being the best suspect. [vent over].

Paddy
11-04-2014, 06:42 PM
Hi GUT,

Anderson did practice as a barrister when he was younger so would have known about civil law.
I apologise if litigation is the wrong term. What I meant is that he may have laid himself or the force open to legal action from the family of the suspect or the Jewish Establishment.
I am regarding the suspects presented on these boards so far.
As I thought then, I think now .....still.

Pat...............................................

GUT
11-04-2014, 06:53 PM
G'day Pat

Anderson did practice as a barrister when he was younger so would have known about civil law.

Most barristers know little outside their area of practice, was the point I was trying to get across.

And I am not sure that in about 1910 in the UK that there was any form of legal action that either the family or the Jewish community would have been able to take.

Now it may have been simple courtesy, that I wouldn't argue with.

Paddy
11-04-2014, 07:15 PM
Clearly you are a man with legal knowledge GUT so any information on that point is of interest to me.
Was there no law to protect people from libel in that time ? I mean if they had financial backing?
What about the Force or the Home Office. Could they have sued Anderson for misuse of information, or something along those lines ?
I am interested in this so I appreciate any information,
Thanks
Pat

GUT
11-04-2014, 07:38 PM
Libel laws certainly existed, but libeling the dead is the issue and I am all but certain that in 1910 that was not possible in the UK, now if he said that Koz's family knew he was Jack it may have opened the door for them to sue, a similar issue certainly stopped the publication of a JtR book in Australia, as I understand it the author was saying that relatives of Druitt knew he was Jack, and if any of them were still alive they may have been able to sue [that may have been Farson or Cullen but I'd have to check on that].

Home office would really depend on what type of confidentiality agreements were in place, I suspect none. And were and Official Secrets involved, which may have been an issue.

And admit freely that I am one of those Barristers I alluded to earlier who may [but I am probably not] be experts in a couple of areas of law but have to do a bit of research in most other areas.

Paddy
11-04-2014, 08:40 PM
Hi again GUT,

When Anderson made this statement in 1910 the suspect was not dead and Andersion did imply that his "people" had covered up for him?
This could have implicated the immediate family or the Jewish community.
He could have been seen to either place the family in danger or be stirring racial hatred. Surely this would have stirred up a storm behind closed doors?

Some laws or absence of them absolutely baffle me, sometimes they appear to fly in the face of logic. I expect Anderson thought that to regarding the arrest laws.
Thanks for your advice, its much appreciated.

Pat............................

GUT
11-04-2014, 08:55 PM
G'day Pat

I think racial hatred and/or protecting his family was probably the reason.

Yes I was getting Koz and Klosowski's dates of death mixed up so yes libel may have been an issue.

And yes many [read most] laws don't make a lot of sense, even to lawyers.

Scott Nelson
11-04-2014, 09:28 PM
It was Lawende

Huge assumption.

Roy Corduroy
11-04-2014, 09:30 PM
Jacob Levy was arrested, also went to asylum, died in 1891 and he lived right there on the border with the City. How he fits with Cohen, Kozminski, and Kasminsky, if at all, I don't know.

Discounting the City police surveillance recollections and instead casting this as a play among top dogs with Macnaghten having Anderson and Swanson eat from a bowl is one dimensional. Yes it can be looked at that way Jonathan, but it treats certain other clues and connections as if they don't exist.

Roy

Jonathan H
11-04-2014, 09:56 PM
Like what, Roy?

Be specific.

J6123
11-04-2014, 10:51 PM
I think him and David Cohen are the two best suspects. I understand there's not really any evidence against either of them (the Kosminski DNA claim is interesting but doesn't cut it for me), but it's just what we know about them, plus Anderson's suspicions against Kosminki, that make them the two most interesting suspects.

I understand that one problem with Kosminski is that he didn't appear violent in the asylum, yet the Ripper murders were tremendously violent. Still, I would not rule Kosminski out completely.

Trevor Marriott
11-05-2014, 01:13 AM
Personally I think Anderson, knowing the law as he did, gave just enough information about the prime suspect to avoid litigation. I dont think he was a racist man.
The fact that he stated that it was a Jew was interesting, why would he give that info out?
Macnaghten appeared (to me) to be practicing damage limitation.

Monro stated to one of his family that the case was a "Hot Potato" I believe? A political situation could have been playing out "in camera" since Andersons "Jew" statement. I think it was supressed to stem the rising tide of socialism. It appears throughout misinformation was used to bury the case.

Harry Cox stated in his memoir that the CID watched a Jewish man who lived among the tailors, and that it was thought widely that this man was connected to the murders. Quite rightly at the end he said there was no proof that this was the murderer. What he did say was this man was a very high suspect !

Just my opinion !

Pat...................

The fact is that the police did not have a clue as I have said before.

Below is a quote from Abberline in 1903 in which he makes the point that even if they knew the killer and that the killer was incarcerated then they could have gone public without the need to actually identify that person.

“Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

Monty
11-05-2014, 01:28 AM
The fact is that the police did not have a clue as I have said before.

Below is a quote from Abberline in 1903 in which he makes the point that even if they knew the killer and that the killer was incarcerated then they could have gone public without the need to actually identify that person.

“Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

The police had a better clue then than any of us.

And Abberlines word fit with a Fido Kosminski. Besides, by 90 he had been removed from the case, so whilst in close touch, he was not involved.

Monty
:)

Jonathan H
11-05-2014, 02:19 AM
Poor Abberline was completely out of the loop regarding Druitt, Kosminski (and Tumblety).

His 1903 comment about how the police would have announced their success to the public is exactly what Macnaghten had been doing for five years via cronies:

Major Arthur Griffiths. "Mysteries of Police and Crime", 1898:

'The outside public may think that the identity of that later miscreant, "Jack the Ripper," was never revealed. So far as actual knowledge goes, this is undoubtedly true. But the police, after the last murder, had brought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. ... The third person was of the same type, but the suspicion in his case was stronger, and there was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him. He was also a doctor in the prime of life, was believed to be insane or on the borderland of insanity, and he disappeared immediately after the last murder, that in Miller's Court, on the 9th November, 1888. On the last day of that year, seven weeks later, his body was found floating in the Thames, and was said to have been in the water a month. The theory in this case was that after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and committed suicide. ...'

Followed by George R. Sims (persistently, until his 1917 memoir) as Dagonet in his "Mustard and cress" column in "The Referee", whose opinion carried enormous weight with the public (confirmed in 1904/5 by the exoneration of Adolph Beck) on matters of true crime:

January 22, 1899:

'... I don't quite see how the real Jack could have confessed, seeing that he committed suicide after the horrible mutilation of the woman in the house in Dorset-street, Spitalfields. ... Almost immediately after this murder he drowned himself in the Thames. his name is perfectly well known to the police. If he hadn't committed suicide he would have been arrested.

February 16, 1902:

'... The homicidal maniac who Shocked the World as Jack the Ripper
had been once - I am not sure that it was not twice - in a lunatic asylum. At the time his dead body was found in the Thames, his friends, who were terrified at his disappearance from their midst, were endeavouring to have him found and placed under restraint again.

July 13, 1902:

'... If the authorities thought it worth while to spend money and time, they might eventually get at the identity of the woman by the same process of exhaustion which enabled them at last to know the real name and address of Jack the Ripper.

In that case they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series. ... the police were in search of him alive when they found him dead. ...'

Not everybody was fooled. William Le Queux, also an enormously popular (though right-wing) writer took it head-on:

"The Manchester Times" of February 10th 1899:

“Of course the mystery is still unsolved, and failing authority for this statement, we are left to adopt any of the thousand and one plausible hypotheses to explain away police failure. ... [the Drowned Doctor solution] was only long after the final crime that the theory above given was started in order to satisfy the public, and to account for the failure to make an arrest.”

Trevor Marriott
11-05-2014, 02:28 AM
The police had a better clue then than any of us.

And Abberlines word fit with a Fido Kosminski. Besides, by 90 he had been removed from the case, so whilst in close touch, he was not involved.

Monty
:)

I beg to differ I would say that the police didn't have any clues but many simply had their own opinions, which is clearly shown by the different documented opinions given by different police officials.

And of course not forgetting those officials who publicly stated that they didn't have a clue.

Fisherman
11-05-2014, 02:46 AM
But there is not one iota of proof that Koz frequently masturbated in public.

No, and I am not saying that there is.

I am discussing what evidence there is for ANY serialist ever having masturbated frequently in public. And the reason I do so, is that I believe that we need to differentiate between the groupings that can be identified.

For example, Rob tells us that there have been many serialists that have been compulsive masturbators. And he says that if Kosminski was a compulsive masturbator, then that means that he answers to this trait that can be found in serialists.

I can see the superficial logic of the argument, but I think we need to go a bit deeper. Now, I donīt have all the facts on hand, so I am going to have to make a few guesses along the way, but if I am wrong, Iīm sure people will correct me.

My supposition is that the serialists spoken about as being compulsive masturbators, are to a great extent killers who have revealed this themselves in interviews carried out after they have been caught. My next supposition is that the masturbation they have engaged in has been fuelled by violent fantasies - they have fantazised about tormenting, hurting and killing. We have examples like Peter Kürten, who could only be sexually aroused by fantasizing about extreme violence - until he realized that performing it gave him an even greater kick.

Next supposition: This act of masturbation on behalf of developing serialists will be a very private act, and not something they will do in public - on the contrary, it will belong to the spheres they closely safeguard.

Moving on, I would say that the overwhelming part of the compulsive masturbators do not fantazise about hurting or killing people when they masturbate.

As I said before, when it comes to the ones who do not mind being watched when they masturbate, two groups can be immediately identified:

The ones who enjoy being watched and get a kick from it.

Those who are mentally challenged, and are to a greater or lesser degree oblivious of others watching.

Neither of these groups are likely to be serialists - the first group get the kick they want without even pondering anything sinister, and the second group contains people that will normally be quite harmless to others.

If we are to place Kosminski in any one of the three groups I outline, which one would be the more credible one? My choice would be the last one, and if I had to swop groups, Iīd go for group two.

My guess is that the compulsive masturbation Kosminski supposedly engaged in was of a type where he was anything but cautious about getting caught in the act, so to speak, and that what little caution he showed decreased further as he was incarcerated and his brain successively gave way.

In all of this, we can only guess, but given the picture that emerges of Kosminskis mental health problems, my best guess is that yes, he was a compulsive masturbator, but no, he was not the type of compulsive masturbator that inhabits serialists.

Others may guess differently and be equally entitled to their guesses, but this is where I am coming from in the Kosminski/masturbation issue.

The best,
Fisherman

Jonathan H
11-05-2014, 02:47 AM
Trevor

I think you're dead wrong.

I think it was "in all probability" solved, albeit posthumously and along the Old Boy Net, thus avoiding normal police channels. What other police who were not in the loop said is close to irrelevant.

Furthermore, it is a modern misconception that it is a mystery at all.

Here is that solution, already being disguised:

"The Bristol Times and Mirror"Feb 11, 1891:

'I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder. I can't give details, for fear of a libel action; but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it. He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania. I do not know what the police think of the story, but I believe that before long a clean breast will be made, and that the accusation will be sifted thoroughly.'

Here is the disguise about the same suspect now full blown, but the element of certainty remains the same:

"The Referee", Dagonet in "Mustard and Cress", March 29, 1903.

'... It is perfectly well known at Scotland Yard who "Jack" was, and the reasons for the police conclusions were given in the report to the Home Office, which was considered by the authorities to be final and conclusive.
... The genuine "Jack" was a doctor. His body was found in the Thames on December 31, 1888.'

I realize you regard this as impossible to be the solution.

Monty
11-05-2014, 02:51 AM
I beg to differ I would say that the police didn't have any clues but many simply had their own opinions, which is clearly shown by the different documented opinions given by different police officials.

And of course not forgetting those officials who publicly stated that they didn't have a clue.

Define 'clue'.

I don't think we are in a position to dismiss Kosmiski, or many of the contemporary suspects, with ease, as we are not in command of the full details.

Clearly Kosminski was a suspect. Why, and to what degree is unclear.

Monty
:)

Lechmere
11-05-2014, 03:12 AM
We may not be in command of the full details but the primary reasons for suspecting Kosminski are known...

This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

The primary reason for suspicion was that he was insane and a masturbator. Hmmm. What are we to make of that...
Then there is the bit about hating women. I have always suspected that was a reference to homosexuality.
Strong homicidal tendencies? If true this is not given reference in Aaron Kosminski's medical records indeed it is explicitly contradicted.
removed to a Lunatic Asylum not long after what Macnaghten thought as the last murder - although Aaron Kosminski wasn't.

And of course Macnaghten was inclined to exonerate him anyway.
Given the primary reason for suspicion I think we can say that we are in a better position to evaluate his guilt that the late Victorian police with all their prejudices and misconceptions - when their case was very clearly not primarily based on any criminal evidence or crime scene information.

Jonathan H
11-05-2014, 03:15 AM
Why do you quote this version, and not the other?

In the other a witness, a cop no less, may have been able to place Kosminski with a victim.

Fisherman
11-05-2014, 03:30 AM
MacNaghten.

You should ask Jonathan how much he thinks MacNaghten believed Kosminski to be a major suspect... ;)

Anyways, Mac only says that "the terrible three" were better suspects than Cutbush. They need not have been major suspects in his eyes, and indeed, it would seem that he favoured one of them to such a degree that he cannot have ranked the other two as anything but sidekicks.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-05-2014, 03:50 AM
Poor Abberline was completely out of the loop regarding Druitt, Kosminski (and Tumblety).

His 1903 comment about how the police would have announced their success to the public is exactly what Macnaghten had been doing for five years via cronies:

Major Arthur Griffiths. "Mysteries of Police and Crime", 1898:

'The outside public may think that the identity of that later miscreant, "Jack the Ripper," was never revealed. So far as actual knowledge goes, this is undoubtedly true. But the police, after the last murder, had brought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. ... The third person was of the same type, but the suspicion in his case was stronger, and there was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him. He was also a doctor in the prime of life, was believed to be insane or on the borderland of insanity, and he disappeared immediately after the last murder, that in Miller's Court, on the 9th November, 1888. On the last day of that year, seven weeks later, his body was found floating in the Thames, and was said to have been in the water a month. The theory in this case was that after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and committed suicide. ...'


Hereīs what I see, Jonathan:

The police strongly suspected several persons (equates to not knowing, and - not least - to going on type instead of evidence. If they had been going on evidence, they would NOT have strongly suspected several persons).

Against the three mentioned men, the police held "very plausible and reasonable" suspicion (equates once again to going on treats of peronality instead of having any hard evidence at all. It is always plausible and reasonable to suspect that extremely violent homicidal maniacs - which is how they were described - will kill).

For the third man, the suspicion was stronger (equates to having no hard evidence).

There was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him (equates to not even having proof that they did, and IF they did, it would prove nothing anyway).

He was also a doctor in the prime of life (equates to presenting this as evidence that he had the anatomical and/or surgical experience some thought that the killer had. Of course, it was wrong - Druitt was not a doctor, he was a barrister).

... he disappeared immediately after the last murder (equates to getting it all wrong in an attempt to sharpen the arguments against Druitt).

... after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and committed suicide (equates to (understandably) not having understood how a serialist functions.

To me, this has never given away Druitt as the killer. It has instead given away how wrong the ones who suspected Druitt were.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
11-05-2014, 03:54 AM
I beg to differ I would say that the police didn't have any clues but many simply had their own opinions, which is clearly shown by the different documented opinions given by different police officials.

And of course not forgetting those officials who publicly stated that they didn't have a clue.

51 words, and it sums up everything admirably. Bravo, Trevor.

The best,
Fisherman

Trevor Marriott
11-05-2014, 04:06 AM
Define 'clue'.

I don't think we are in a position to dismiss Kosmiski, or many of the contemporary suspects, with ease, as we are not in command of the full details.

Clearly Kosminski was a suspect. Why, and to what degree is unclear.

Monty
:)

You cant speculate as to what might have been known, when in fact nothing may have been known.

Suspects based on opinions have no evidential value and should not be regarded as suspects but simply persons of interest.

Clearly that term had not been invented in 1888 otherwise we may be looking at these so called suspects in a different light.

Harry D
11-05-2014, 04:44 AM
It was Lawende.

Yours truly

Tom Wescott

Then how do you reconcile that with the Sadler identification? Or are you also an adherent to the idea that Anderson was having memory failure? Not likely, in my book. It was one of the most high profile cases of his career. I think he would remember if the Ripper had been positively ID'ed or not, nor do I suspect he was making it up.

Jonathan H
11-05-2014, 05:02 AM
To Fisherman

What you misunderstand--which William Le Queux did get in 1899--is that Macnaghten is launching a propaganda offensive.

A very effective one.

e.g. The police were not clueless as we had three (count 'em--three!) major suspects, one of which was just like "Jekyll and Hyde" (Major Griffiths had specifically denied this two years earlier.)

To the discomfort of the better classes the pair of Russian swill are sidelined in favor of one of their own-- an English gentleman!

Why then didn't the police arrest the mad doctor?

Well, his "friends" only had a suspicion and so the cops arrived too late (Sims will amplify this element into cops who are too late by a few hours. In 1905 Guy Logan will go even further with his melodrama by having a posse of cops observe from the riverbank as the Macnaghten-figure wrestles with the Druitt-figure on a bridge over the Thames).

Behind all this deflective data is the truth that we can get a better handle on than Edwardians: Kosminski was harmless (as Old Etonian Macnaghten knew that masturbation did not send people into spasms of ultra-violence), Michael Ostrog the defiler of beloved Eton had been cleared by late 1894, and Druitt, a young barrister and not a middle-aged medico, was not not arrested due to a lack of evidence but the lack of a pulse.

His 1914 memoir is much closer to the truth, because it matches other primary sources:

'Although, as I shall endeavour to show in this chapter, the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November i888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.

At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn, and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated, were by the same maniac's hand. Indeed, I remember three cases - two in 1888, and one early in 1891, which the Press ascribed to the so-called Jack the Ripper, to whom, at one time or another, some fourteen murders were attributed-some before, and some after, his veritable reign of terror in 1888. ...

The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms, as will be shown later on in other cases. Sexual murders are the most difficult of all for police to bring home to the perpetrators, for motives there are none ; only a lust for blood, and in many cases a hatred of woman as woman. Not infrequently the maniac possesses a diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel murderer ...

... I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings. I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.'

There is mixture here of candour and deceit, of fact and fiction. e.g. Warren did not resign over the Whitechapel murders whilst Druitt really was a lodger. Despite the hyperbole about the Ripper being omnipotent against the forces of the state, candour arguably wins out.

Furthermore Macnaghten's evocative description of [the un-named] Druitt as "Protean"; as a killer virtually undetectable because he could deploy multiple faces--barrister, teacher, cricketer--with slippery ease is spot on.

Monty
11-05-2014, 05:32 AM
We may not be in command of the full details but the primary reasons for suspecting Kosminski are known...

This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

The primary reason for suspicion was that he was insane and a masturbator. Hmmm. What arŕe we to make of that...
Then there is the bit about hating women. I have always suspected that was a reference to homosexuality.
Strong homicidal tendencies? If true this is not given reference in Aaron Kosminski's medical records indeed it is explicitly contradicted.
removed to a Lunatic Asylum not long after what Macnaghten thought as the last murder - although Aaron Kosminski wasn't.

And of course Macnaghten was inclined to exonerate him anyway.
Given the primary reason for suspicion I think we can say that we are in a better position to evaluate his guilt that the late Victorian police with all their prejudices and misconceptions - when their case was very clearly not primarily based on any criminal evidence or crime scene information.

This is an assumption, not ascertained fact.

There has been no laying down of an official reason why Kosminski was a suspect, merely explainations given in person. There may or may not be some truth in what has been stated, however as we have no authoritative clarification, what has been stated before should be noted, but not assumed.

Monty
:)

Monty
11-05-2014, 05:38 AM
You cant speculate as to what might have been known, when in fact nothing may have been known.

Suspects based on opinions have no evidential value and should not be regarded as suspects but simply persons of interest.

Clearly that term had not been invented in 1888 otherwise we may be looking at these so called suspects in a different light.

Well yes, however theres a flip side to that coin. Again, we are not party to the full facts, therefore we are building conclusions upon incomplete foundations.

Kosminski is named as a suspect by two contemporary constables, and alluded to by another. Im sure they are fully aware of the label of 'suspect', and had valid enough reason as to why.

Whether you like it not, Kosminski was clearly a suspect. Doesnt make him a killer mind.

Monty
:)

Trevor Marriott
11-05-2014, 06:09 AM
Well yes, however theres a flip side to that coin. Again, we are not party to the full facts, therefore we are building conclusions upon incomplete foundations.

Kosminski is named as a suspect by two contemporary constables, and alluded to by another. Im sure they are fully aware of the label of 'suspect', and had valid enough reason as to why.

Whether you like it not, Kosminski was clearly a suspect. Doesnt make him a killer mind.

Monty
:)

No the ones who are building facts are those who suggest that the police had enough evidence to make that person a suspect and that evidence was never disclosed.

Clearly we know there was no other hidden evidence otherwise it would have been disclosed in some way shape or form over the ensuing years, and the statements made by the police officials corroborates that.

We give the police in 1888 to much credit. Sure they did the best they could but their means of crime detection was based on three principles

Catching someone in the act
Having enough witnesses who saw the crime being committed
Having a suspect who would make a full confession

Now take a look at examples of their mindset in 1888.

Trying to link John Pizer to the murder of Chapman simply because they found a leather apron near the body and someone suggested Pizer was known as leather apron, and worked with long sharp knives in the leather trade.

Believing that by taking a photograph of a victims eyes it would show the last image that the victim saw.

Some suggesting using blood hounds at a crime scene when half of London had walked over the scene.

You can now see where the opinions came from about suspects i.e.

Aaron Kosminski a man living in Whitechapel who threatens his sister with a knife.

George Chapman a resident of Whitechapel a barber using cuthroat razors

there are many more.

So you can see how easy it would have been for these officials to have looked on some of these as suspects.

Now in modern times researchers have gone into a feeding frenzy with some of these names mentioned, and in some case elevating some to prime suspect status, and now they wont accept that the status of suspects they talk and write about is poorly deserved.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper--Secret-Police-Files-ebook/dp/B00F4QS0H0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1415193145&sr=8-2&keywords=trevor+marriott

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ripper-A-Century-Investigation-Recorded-Theatre/dp/B00KNRE4NY/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1415193145&sr=8-10&keywords=trevor+marriott

Harry D
11-05-2014, 06:23 AM
Hello, Trevor.

Is it still your belief that Feigenbaum was the Ripper?

Trevor Marriott
11-05-2014, 06:35 AM
Hello, Trevor.

Is it still your belief that Feigenbaum was the Ripper?

Carl Feigenbaum should not be ruled out from being concerned in one or more of the murders by reason of his antecedents

It is now clear that all of the murders were not committed by the same hand and that there was no Jack the Ripper in the form we have been led to believe.

It is clear that three of the murders were committed in Ripper like fashion by an unknown killer whose name could have been Jack John or Fred !

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-...revor+marriott

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ripper-A-Cen...revor+marriott

Chris
11-05-2014, 07:02 AM
Trying to link John Pizer to the murder of Chapman simply because they found a leather apron near the body and someone suggested Pizer was known as leather apron, and worked with long sharp knives in the leather trade.

That's quite wrong. The Leather Apron scare and the interest of the police and others in Pizer pre-dated the murder of Annie Chapman.

Trevor Marriott
11-05-2014, 07:07 AM
That's quite wrong. The Leather Apron scare and the interest of the police and others in Pizer pre-dated the murder of Annie Chapman.

He was arrested on Sept 10. Two days after the Chapman murder. Clearly the need to arrest him became more urgent following the murder of Chapman and the finding of the leather apron

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-...revor+marriott

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ripper-A-Cen...revor+marriott

Monty
11-05-2014, 07:10 AM
No the ones who are building facts are those who suggest that the police had enough evidence to make that person a suspect and that evidence was never disclosed.

Clearly we know there was no other hidden evidence otherwise it would have been disclosed in some way shape or form over the ensuing years, and the statements made by the police officials corroborates that.

We give the police in 1888 to much credit. Sure they did the best they could but their means of crime detection was based on three principles

Catching someone in the act
Having enough witnesses who saw the crime being committed
Having a suspect who would make a full confession

Now take a look at examples of their mindset in 1888.

Trying to link John Pizer to the murder of Chapman simply because they found a leather apron near the body and someone suggested Pizer was known as leather apron, and worked with long sharp knives in the leather trade.

Believing that by taking a photograph of a victims eyes it would show the last image that the victim saw.

Some suggesting using blood hounds at a crime scene when half of London had walked over the scene.

You can now see where the opinions came from about suspects i.e.

Aaron Kosminski a man living in Whitechapel who threatens his sister with a knife.

George Chapman a resident of Whitechapel a barber using cuthroat razors

there are many more.

So you can see how easy it would have been for these officials to have looked on some of these as suspects.

Now in modern times researchers have gone into a feeding frenzy with some of these names mentioned, and in some case elevating some to prime suspect status, and now they wont accept that the status of suspects they talk and write about is poorly deserved.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper--Secret-Police-Files-ebook/dp/B00F4QS0H0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1415193145&sr=8-2&keywords=trevor+marriott

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ripper-A-Century-Investigation-Recorded-Theatre/dp/B00KNRE4NY/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1415193145&sr=8-10&keywords=trevor+marriott

Swanson clearly states that Kosminski was a suspect. He had been in the force at least 30 year by the time he stated that, experience enough to know what it took to label a suspect.

The modern method is no better than the one used in 1888, due to the fact that there no further evidence has come to light concerning the arrest, if he was arrested that is.

Pizer was investigated as he should have been, a good job done. Are you stating he should have been left alone?

The police never believed photographing the eyes of the dead brought forth the image of the killer, that is an unsupported myth, and one any informed student of the case is aware of.

Bloodhounds were (and still are in New York) a useful tool. However even Brough doubted their use for these murders. None the less, they were experimental, and were not intended for use in the manner you presume. You need to read the file to comprehend the intention.

Again, you are completely unaware of what methods were used. However, fear not, my book shall educate you.

Monty
:)

Chris
11-05-2014, 07:11 AM
He was arrested on Sept 10.

I'm not talking about the date of his arrest.

Trevor Marriott
11-05-2014, 07:37 AM
Swanson clearly states that Kosminski was a suspect. He had been in the force at least 30 year by the time he stated that, experience enough to know what it took to label a suspect.

The modern method is no better than the one used in 1888, due to the fact that there no further evidence has come to light concerning the arrest, if he was arrested that is.

Pizer was investigated as he should have been, a good job done. Are you stating he should have been left alone?

I am not saying that. he was a person on interest who needed to be spoken to and was, and eliminated.

The rest coincidentally couldn't be interviewed because they were eithere dead or in jail, Now how convenient is that when you are drawing up a list of suspects. Pick some who cant defend themselves and because you are a senior officer everyone will listen, and take notice, and believe.

Well with MM and Swanson it all went tits up didnt it ?

The police never believed photographing the eyes of the dead brought forth the image of the killer, that is an unsupported myth, and one any informed student of the case is aware of.

No more unsupported that the opinions of officers concerning suspects

Bloodhounds were (and still are in New York) a useful tool. However even Brough doubted their use for these murders. None the less, they were experimental, and were not intended for use in the manner you presume. You need to read the file to comprehend the intention.

Again, you are completely unaware of what methods were used. However, fear not, my book shall educate you.

Monty
:)

I am fully aware thank you but you like so many cant seem to come to terms with the interpretation of a suspect and what it takes for someone to be a real suspect.

It doesn't matter what the dogs were intended for, the point is that someone wanted to use them. What are blood hounds trained for tracking a scent !

"The bloodhound is a large scent hound originally bred for hunting deer and wild boar, but also used from the Middle Ages onwards for tracking human beings, and now most often bred specifically for that purpose.

This dog is famed for its ability to discern human odors even days later, over great distances, even across water. Its extraordinarily keen sense of smell is combined with a strong and tenacious tracking instinct, producing the ideal scent hound, and it is used by police and law enforcement all over the world to track escaped prisoners, missing people, lost children and lost pets"

So what were they wanting to use them for skydiving demonstrations !

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-...revor+marriott

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ripper-A-Cen...revor+marriott

Trevor Marriott
11-05-2014, 07:40 AM
I'm not talking about the date of his arrest.

I know you are not, and I am talking about the mindset of the police as to how he came to be a suspect !

Abby Normal
11-05-2014, 08:12 AM
We may not be in command of the full details but the primary reasons for suspecting Kosminski are known...

This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

The primary reason for suspicion was that he was insane and a masturbator. Hmmm. What are we to make of that...
Then there is the bit about hating women. I have always suspected that was a reference to homosexuality.
Strong homicidal tendencies? If true this is not given reference in Aaron Kosminski's medical records indeed it is explicitly contradicted.
removed to a Lunatic Asylum not long after what Macnaghten thought as the last murder - although Aaron Kosminski wasn't.

And of course Macnaghten was inclined to exonerate him anyway.
Given the primary reason for suspicion I think we can say that we are in a better position to evaluate his guilt that the late Victorian police with all their prejudices and misconceptions - when their case was very clearly not primarily based on any criminal evidence or crime scene information.

Hi Lech
Then there is the bit about hating women. I have always suspected that was a reference to homosexuality.
But he adds-especially prostitutes-so I don't see how that's connected to a belief about being a homosexual. but it could I suppose-there is just no evidence they thought he was gay.

Strong homicidal tendencies? If true this is not given reference in Aaron Kosminski's medical records indeed it is explicitly contradicted.

This probably comes from him threatening his sister with a knife.

There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'

This is probably related to the ID.

Harry D
11-05-2014, 08:33 AM
One question about the ID: If the witness had been brought to the Seaside Home specifically to identify a Ripper suspect, and was said to have immediately recognised him (Kosminski?) but refused to testify, why wouldn't the witness have simply lied and said he wasn't the same man?

Fisherman
11-05-2014, 08:33 AM
To Fisherman

What you misunderstand--which William Le Queux did get in 1899--is that Macnaghten is launching a propaganda offensive.

A very effective one.

e.g. The police were not clueless as we had three (count 'em--three!) major suspects, one of which was just like "Jekyll and Hyde" (Major Griffiths had specifically denied this two years earlier.)

To the discomfort of the better classes the pair of Russian swill are sidelined in favor of one of their own-- an English gentleman!

Why then didn't the police arrest the mad doctor?

Well, his "friends" only had a suspicion and so the cops arrived too late (Sims will amplify this element into cops who are too late by a few hours. In 1905 Guy Logan will go even further with his melodrama by having a posse of cops observe from the riverbank as the Macnaghten-figure wrestles with the Druitt-figure on a bridge over the Thames).

Behind all this deflective data is the truth that we can get a better handle on than Edwardians: Kosminski was harmless (as Old Etonian Macnaghten knew that masturbation did not send people into spasms of ultra-violence), Michael Ostrog the defiler of beloved Eton had been cleared by late 1894, and Druitt, a young barrister and not a middle-aged medico, was not not arrested due to a lack of evidence but the lack of a pulse.

His 1914 memoir is much closer to the truth, because it matches other primary sources:

'Although, as I shall endeavour to show in this chapter, the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November i888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.

At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn, and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated, were by the same maniac's hand. Indeed, I remember three cases - two in 1888, and one early in 1891, which the Press ascribed to the so-called Jack the Ripper, to whom, at one time or another, some fourteen murders were attributed-some before, and some after, his veritable reign of terror in 1888. ...

The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms, as will be shown later on in other cases. Sexual murders are the most difficult of all for police to bring home to the perpetrators, for motives there are none ; only a lust for blood, and in many cases a hatred of woman as woman. Not infrequently the maniac possesses a diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel murderer ...

... I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings. I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.'

There is mixture here of candour and deceit, of fact and fiction. e.g. Warren did not resign over the Whitechapel murders whilst Druitt really was a lodger. Despite the hyperbole about the Ripper being omnipotent against the forces of the state, candour arguably wins out.

Furthermore Macnaghten's evocative description of [the un-named] Druitt as "Protean"; as a killer virtually undetectable because he could deploy multiple faces--barrister, teacher, cricketer--with slippery ease is spot on.

First - I donīt misunderstand it, Jonathan. I can see how you argue your case, and I have much respect for your efforts. I just donīt agree!

I like the bit where MacNaghten says that a killer of the Ripper ilk would be a motiveless one; clearly, Mac has insights that some of the 1888 coppers lacked, and I salute him for that.

What I donīt salute him for is having found out who the Ripper was. I donīt think he did.

The best,
Fisherman

Lechmere
11-05-2014, 08:45 AM
The question isn't whether or not Kosminski was regarded as a suspect by a least some policemen involved in some way or another at some point.

It is whether he is the best suspect.
His suspect status hangs on him being identified as a suspect by senior policemen.
When identifying him they gave reasons.
These reasons cannot be glossed over - they are the main reasons for suspicion. To try and seek solace in unmentioned reasons is false thinking on a grand scale. If the reasons given are glossed over, wished away or brushed under the carpet - which Kosminski advocates tend to do - it just underlines the weekness of his case.

Chris
11-05-2014, 09:24 AM
I know you are not, and I am talking about the mindset of the police as to how he came to be a suspect !

Yes, and clearly his "coming to be a suspect" can have nothing to do with a leather apron at the scene of Annie Chapman's murder, because the day before that murder the police were already making a careful search for him:
The inquiry has revealed the fact that a man named Jack Pizer, alias Leather Apron, has, for some considerable period been in the habit of ill-using prostitutes in this, and other parts of the Metropolis, and careful search has been, and is continued to be made to find this man in order that his movements may be accounted for on the night in question, although at present there is no evidence whatsoever against him.

The night in question, of course, was the night of Nichols's murder.

Fisherman
11-05-2014, 09:28 AM
The question isn't whether or not Kosminski was regarded as a suspect by a least some policemen involved in some way or another at some point.

It is whether he is the best suspect.
His suspect status hangs on him being identified as a suspect by senior policemen.
When identifying him they gave reasons.
These reasons cannot be glossed over - they are the main reasons for suspicion. To try and seek solace in unmentioned reasons is false thinking on a grand scale. If the reasons given are glossed over, wished away or brushed under the carpet - which Kosminski advocates tend to do - it just underlines the weekness of his case.

Bingo.

If the killer WAS identified, it predisposes that there was a hush-hush surrounding it, so that nobody should be able to find out the name. Nevertheless, the bigwigs that did the identifying were so pumped up by their own importance that they felt a need to gab about it anyway. And once they DID, they gave away a glaring ignorance about the suggested suspects.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Nor does it make sense that the police would sit around doing nothing when one man after another gave away one suspect after another IF the killer HAD been plucked. If the Ripper was apprehended, the only clever thing to do would be to inform the police, down to the last PC about it, not necessarily disclosing the name if they feared legal actions, but nevertheless. It would save themselves the embarassment of flaunting their inability to agree with each other, and it would ensure that no policemen went on crusades of their own with the aim to catch the killer.

I dislike the argument that history demands that we place the contemporary suspects at the top of the list. The self same history tells us that the police got it very wrong in many cases, and we can be certain that men that were pointed a finger at were actually innocent, like Ostrog. So why not embrace history from that angle - the practical one - instead from the ideological angle?

The best,
Fisherman

Abby Normal
11-05-2014, 11:59 AM
One question about the ID: If the witness had been brought to the Seaside Home specifically to identify a Ripper suspect, and was said to have immediately recognised him (Kosminski?) but refused to testify, why wouldn't the witness have simply lied and said he wasn't the same man?

Because the witness probably said something along the lines of -it could be him but I cant swear to it. Which with the passage of time, andersons wishfulness, boastful nature and prejudice- morphed into-the witness wouldn't swear to it because he was a jew.
All things considered, its rather obvious this is what happened. At least to me anyway.

Abby Normal
11-05-2014, 12:02 PM
Bingo.

If the killer WAS identified, it predisposes that there was a hush-hush surrounding it, so that nobody should be able to find out the name. Nevertheless, the bigwigs that did the identifying were so pumped up by their own importance that they felt a need to gab about it anyway. And once they DID, they gave away a glaring ignorance about the suggested suspects.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Nor does it make sense that the police would sit around doing nothing when one man after another gave away one suspect after another IF the killer HAD been plucked. If the Ripper was apprehended, the only clever thing to do would be to inform the police, down to the last PC about it, not necessarily disclosing the name if they feared legal actions, but nevertheless. It would save themselves the embarassment of flaunting their inability to agree with each other, and it would ensure that no policemen went on crusades of their own with the aim to catch the killer.

I dislike the argument that history demands that we place the contemporary suspects at the top of the list. The self same history tells us that the police got it very wrong in many cases, and we can be certain that men that were pointed a finger at were actually innocent, like Ostrog. So why not embrace history from that angle - the practical one - instead from the ideological angle?

The best,
Fisherman

The police knew some things we don't, and we know some things they didn't.

that's really the answer to the whole "who knows more" debate.

Bridewell
11-05-2014, 12:31 PM
Why do you quote this version, and not the other?

In the other a witness, a cop no less, may have been able to place Kosminski with a victim.
Well said.

Bridewell
11-05-2014, 01:17 PM
Who DID get a good look at the Ripper? Perhaps there is an altogether unknown witness who caught sight of our man and came forward, but whose identity was kept off the record?

The Aberconway version of the MacNaghten Memoranda, alluded to earlier by Jonathan H, includes a famous reference to such an individual:

"No-one ever saw the Ripper unless, perhaps, it was the City PC that was (sic) a beat near Mitre Square." (quoted from memory so apologies for any minor error of detail).

There is a fairly straightforward reason why his identity might be kept off the record.

I've always wondered why MacNaghten passed on to his daughter a version of the document which was so intriguingly different from the copy placed on file at Scotland Yard. Did he delete an error in the file copy or did he add an embarrassing fact to the other one? If the latter I would conclude that Anderson's witness was neither Schwartz nor Lawende but a City PC who was on duty that night, who was dismissed for reasons unknown in July 1889 and who had family links to East Sussex.

GUT
11-05-2014, 01:23 PM
G'day Bridewell

If the latter I would conclude that Anderson's witness was neither Schwartz nor Lawende but a City PC who was on duty that night, who was dismissed for reasons unknown in July 1889 and who had family links to East Sussex.

Why those particular details as opposed to any other PC.

Bridewell
11-05-2014, 01:27 PM
No the ones who are building facts are those who suggest that the police had enough evidence to make that person a suspect

Enough evidence to make that person a suspect?

The powers of arrest for an arrestable offence in our day required that a constable have "reasonable cause to suspect", not necessarily -at that stage -evidence.

Example: Burglary occurs at 3am on your patch; 200 yards away you see a man with 50 burglary convictions walking along the road. Evidence? None. Reasonable cause to suspect? I would have said so. You don't need evidence to make a person a suspect.

PaulB
11-05-2014, 01:34 PM
I've always wondered why MacNaghten passed on to his daughter a version of the document which was so intriguingly different from the copy placed on file at Scotland Yard.

My understanding is that Macnaghten's papers were inherited by his daughter Julia Donner and then by her son Gerald Donner and then lost. Lady Aberconway borrowed the memoranda from her sister and her secretary copied it except for the part about the suspects which Lady Aberconway transcribed by hand. It is thought that the Aberconway version was a draft of the copy Macnaghten placed in the files.

Bridewell
11-05-2014, 01:41 PM
G'day Bridewell

Why those particular details as opposed to any other PC.

If MacNaghten's reference to a "City PC" does in fact relate to an unnamed police witness (most think it a reference to Lawende), he (Harvey) is the likely candidate. Watkins was not on a beat near Mitre Square, because his beat passed through that location. Harvey's took him along Church Passage to the edge of, but not into, the Square. His personal file (held at the London Metropolitan Archive) retains the documents, references etc, justifying his appointment - but nothing else, no reason for the loss of his job, just the word Dismissed underlined and in heavy pencil. I'd like to know who removed those documents, when and why. There may be an innocent explanation but (to me) it is strange that the documents which justify his appointment are still there, but the documents which justify his dismissal are not.

GUT
11-05-2014, 01:47 PM
If MacNaghten's reference to a "City PC" does in fact relate to an unnamed police witness (most think it a reference to Lawende), he (Harvey) is the likely candidate. Watkins was not on a beat near Mitre Square, because his beat passed through that location. Harvey's took him along Church Passage to the edge of, but not into, the Square. His personal file (held at the London Metropolitan Archive) retains the documents, references etc, justifying his appointment - but nothing else, no reason for the loss of his job, just the word Dismissed underlined and in heavy pencil. I'd like to know who removed those documents, when and why. There may be an innocent explanation but (to me) it is strange that the documents which justify his appointment are still there, but the documents which justify his dismissal are not.

I'd like to know who removed so many Ripper documents, because there may be a slight chance that the famliy still has them floating around.

Bridewell
11-05-2014, 01:47 PM
My understanding is that Macnaghten's papers were inherited by his daughter Julia Donner and then by her son Gerald Donner and then lost. Lady Aberconway borrowed the memoranda from her sister and her secretary copied it except for the part about the suspects which Lady Aberconway transcribed by hand. It is thought that the Aberconway version was a draft of the copy Macnaghten placed in the files.

Thanks for the clarification, Paul. Would you not expect the "City PC" sentence to be amended in the final version rather than omitted altogether though? Something like:

"No-one ever saw the Ripper unless perhaps it was the City Police witness who, with friends, passed close to an alley that led to Mitre Square"?

Scott Nelson
11-05-2014, 02:14 PM
Lackeys, toadies!

Stupid and spurious opinions!

The horse has left the barn!

Don’t have any perspectives of your own on the case!!

Objectivity long ago flew the coop!!!

GUT
11-05-2014, 02:23 PM
Lackeys, toadies!

Stupid and spurious opinions!

The horse has left the barn!

Don’t have any perspectives of your own on the case!!

Objectivity long ago flew the coop!!!



What?

Who?

Chris
11-05-2014, 02:48 PM
What?

Who?

It's an acrostic, referring to the recently discovered Czech slaughterman, Jaroslav Lstdo. Now there's a good suspect.

lynn cates
11-05-2014, 03:42 PM
Hello Scott. Haiku, perhaps? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Jonathan H
11-05-2014, 04:15 PM
To some extent Christabel, the Lady Aberconway (after 1911) was estranged from her siblings, as she admits with bracing candor in her 1966 memoirs. She thus seems to have sought to preserve her father's legacy as the sleuth who cracked the Whitechapel mystery by making a copy of what she called his "notes", under the radar so to speak.

Lady Aberconway was totally vinidcated in this covert action by the fact that the original was 'lost', having never been brought forth to the public by her sister's family. In 1972, two years before she died, there was an attempt to sabotage what she had done by Phillip Loftus, a crony of her nephew (e.g. the fictitious 'third' version, in which her father is slandered as even more of a hopeless blunderer).

Only at this juncture did Lady Aberconway grasp that it was her father's memoir that should have been the document that secured the beach-head of history for Sir Melville--and wrote as much. Too late by then.

I subscribe to the theory that the 'Aberconway' version was written second, a theory first proposed by Don Rumbelow in 1975 (and not amended in 2013) and backed by Martin Fido in 1987.

In 1898, when he wrotehis so-called "notes", Macnaghten was attempting to sex-up the trio of suspects for public consumption--which they were.

The Polish madman gets a cop witness, which I think Mac cribbed from the famous moment of the Coles murder where the young PC believed he was seconds too late (though he did not claim to have seen a man) and this bit of maix-and-match certainly fooled Sir Basil Thomson, in the second version of his memoirs.

The cop witness is an attempt to bury Lawende who had seen a man whom Macnaghten believed not only resembled Druitt, it was the barrister.

In his his 1914 memoir Macnaghten dismisses the cop witness as nothing, but tellingly mentions that he saw a man and the victim a few minutes before the murder--aligning the tale with what Lawende had testified to rather than the way Sims had propagated it.

In Guy Logan's 1905 semi-fictional account of the Druitt solution the Polish and Russia suspects are dropped altogether. Lawende sees the Druitt figure (disguised with a fair moustahce) chatting with Catherine Eddowes.

I also believe that Macnaghten's linking the Polish suspect with a witness, first mentioned by Griffiths in 1898 and then by Sims in 1907, inadvertently set in motion Anderson thinking there had been a witness identification--and it had said yes to "Kosminski".

The cop witness became a cop location mixed in with the seamen suspects (Salder and Grant) creating the Seaside Home.

A previous poster said this kind of memory malfunction was not possible for Anderson.

Really?

In a 1908 interview the aged Sir Robvert Anderson, a very anti-socialistic, fundamentalist Tory, quite unfairly blamed the Liberal government, and the Liberal Home Secretary, William Harcourt, for putting him under undue pressure over this hysteria-driven 'crisis'. This administration had been out of power for two years by the time of the reign of terror. His default position is egocentric and partisan.

He also unfairly blamed a medico for busting a pipe at the Kelly murder, confusing and conflating that crime scene with that of 'Clay-Pipe Alice' in July 1889 (a telling slip as his fading memory was picking up signals, quickly smothered, that his sense of the case being unsolved went on for a long, long time after the Miller's Ct. atrocity.)

Monty
11-06-2014, 12:41 AM
I am fully aware thank you but you like so many cant seem to come to terms with the interpretation of a suspect and what it takes for someone to be a real suspect.

It doesn't matter what the dogs were intended for, the point is that someone wanted to use them. What are blood hounds trained for tracking a scent !

"The bloodhound is a large scent hound originally bred for hunting deer and wild boar, but also used from the Middle Ages onwards for tracking human beings, and now most often bred specifically for that purpose.

This dog is famed for its ability to discern human odors even days later, over great distances, even across water. Its extraordinarily keen sense of smell is combined with a strong and tenacious tracking instinct, producing the ideal scent hound, and it is used by police and law enforcement all over the world to track escaped prisoners, missing people, lost children and lost pets"

So what were they wanting to use them for skydiving demonstrations !


And always used at SOC?

Read Broughs words. The dogs were also used as a deterrent. And they were quite effective at that.

You know what it takes to name a suspect? You chose Feigenbaum as Jack the Ripper...I don't need to say any more.

Monty
:)

mickreed
11-06-2014, 01:14 AM
It's an acrostic, referring to the recently discovered Czech slaughterman, Jaroslav Lstdo. Now there's a good suspect.

Acrostics, eh? That puts me in mind of Lewis Carroll.

Now there was a really good suspect.:rolleyes2:

Chris
11-06-2014, 01:36 AM
Acrostics, eh? That puts me in mind of Lewis Carroll.

Now there was a really good suspect.:rolleyes2:

Not just a suspect. The patron saint of Ripperology.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 03:00 AM
And always used at SOC?

Read Broughs words. The dogs were also used as a deterrent. And they were quite effective at that.

You know what it takes to name a suspect? You chose Feigenbaum as Jack the Ripper...I don't need to say any more.

Monty
:)

Blood hounds used as a deterrent, now doesn't that show you the mindset of the police back then in 1888 ? You have been reading to much about the 1888 police and their methods, You are starting to believe in it now, take a break !

And Feigenbaun is still a more of a viable suspect than the others. At least he did actually murder a female by cutting her throat with a long bladed knife, which is more than can be said for others. That with what else is known about him make his a suspect in the true sense. Not a suspect based on ageing police officers opinions

Jonathan H
11-06-2014, 03:17 AM
Sir Melville Macnaghten was not yet forty when he found Druitt. Is that old?

Monty
11-06-2014, 03:23 AM
Blood hounds used as a deterrent, now doesn't that show you the mindset of the police back then in 1888 ? You have been reading to much about the 1888 police and their methods, You are starting to believe in it now, take a break !

And Feigenbaun is still a more of a viable suspect than the others. At least he did actually murder a female by cutting her throat with a long bladed knife, which is more than can be said for others. That with what else is known about him make his a suspect in the true sense. Not a suspect based on ageing police officers opinions

Any murders in October Trev? When the dogs were in London? The evidence is self evident.

At least we know Kosminski was in the country during the murders.

Monty
:)

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 03:33 AM
Any murders in October Trev? When the dogs were in London? The evidence is self evident.

At least we know Kosminski was in the country during the murders.

Monty
:)

Two blood hounds covering all of London that must have been some deterrent I bet their paws were sore at the end of each tour of duty :laugh4:

Yes Kosminski was in the country but which one? La La land me thinks

Monty
11-06-2014, 05:46 AM
Two blood hounds covering all of London that must have been some deterrent I bet their paws were sore at the end of each tour of duty :laugh4:

Yes Kosminski was in the country but which one? La La land me thinks

Their reputation alone kept Jack at bay. Just like you keep the common sense posters at bay here.

Monty
:)

PaulB
11-06-2014, 06:12 AM
Blood hounds used as a deterrent, now doesn't that show you the mindset of the police back then in 1888 ? You have been reading to much about the 1888 police and their methods, You are starting to believe in it now, take a break !

And Feigenbaun is still a more of a viable suspect than the others. At least he did actually murder a female by cutting her throat with a long bladed knife, which is more than can be said for others. That with what else is known about him make his a suspect in the true sense. Not a suspect based on ageing police officers opinions

Isn't Feigenbaum's guilt your opinion, Trevor?

Errata
11-06-2014, 07:38 AM
Do we really need to know what the police though if we know that the base the cops were operating off of was a little... unrealistic? Crazy even?

I mean, if the cops though Jack had to be a redhead because gingers are evil, do we have to look for a ginger? Or can we discard their opinions on suspects because their opinions were frankly, biased and wrongheaded? It's nice to know that Anderson etc. thought that Kosminski was the Ripper, but the important thing to get out of that particular line of suspicion was that they had no idea what a serial killer looks like, and made a ton of assumptions based nowhere in fact.

PaulB
11-06-2014, 08:04 AM
Do we really need to know what the police though if we know that the base the cops were operating off of was a little... unrealistic? Crazy even?

I mean, if the cops though Jack had to be a redhead because gingers are evil, do we have to look for a ginger? Or can we discard their opinions on suspects because their opinions were frankly, biased and wrongheaded? It's nice to know that Anderson etc. thought that Kosminski was the Ripper, but the important thing to get out of that particular line of suspicion was that they had no idea what a serial killer looks like, and made a ton of assumptions based nowhere in fact.

Biased and wrongheaded? Your evidence for that is...?

Abby Normal
11-06-2014, 08:07 AM
Do we really need to know what the police though if we know that the base the cops were operating off of was a little... unrealistic? Crazy even?

I mean, if the cops though Jack had to be a redhead because gingers are evil, do we have to look for a ginger? Or can we discard their opinions on suspects because their opinions were frankly, biased and wrongheaded? It's nice to know that Anderson etc. thought that Kosminski was the Ripper, but the important thing to get out of that particular line of suspicion was that they had no idea what a serial killer looks like, and made a ton of assumptions based nowhere in fact.

agree to some extant. but you cant throw the baby out with the bathwater. their WAS a possible ID, and Anderson isn't the only senior police who mentions him. And since the major piece of evidence against Koz is a possible ID-that has nothing to do with misguided assumptions per se-eventhough I think Anderson had plenty.

Fisherman
11-06-2014, 08:37 AM
Biased and wrongheaded? Your evidence for that is...?

In all honesty, Paul - whereīs the evidence that the 1888 Victorian police had a fair picture of what a serial killer is about...? And if they didnīt know, what did they have to go on, other than guesswork?

You know how Kos, Os and Dru are described in the memoranda, and you also know that the descriptions are very wrong, going by the collected evidence we have. Homicidal maniacs, sexually insane etcetera.

You will know that a search of the asylums was ordered. I think it was Williamson who bluntly stated that it was done since the public believed a maniac to be at large!

The press created a monster, half beast, half human - and although the press are not equivalent with the police, they still mirror what was thought and reasoned generally. Today, not even the tabloids would invent that crude type of a killer portrait.

I think it is slightly disingenious not to admit that the police were faced with something they did not know how to perceive. In an era where people were thought to go mad as a result of masturbation, we should not expect the police to be able to be aquainted with the finer points of psychology and diagnoze a man like the Ripper correctly. To them, a deranged killer was to be expected, a Kosminski, an Issenschmid.

I actually think that my own suspect bears witness to what the police were NOT looking for - an ordinary, seemingly sane, British working man. They had a guy who was found by a freshly killed victim, they only had his own words to go on when it came to how long time he had spent with that victim - and they apparently bought his story without checking it out thoroughly, as per the fact that they never found out who he really was!

We have no instruction manuals to go by, telling us that the police specifically targetted special types of people, but we have a lot of indicators hidden all over the case. And that case was played out in an era when many people still believed that poverty was something you had deserved and that long fingers pointed to pick-pocket vices. Yes, Bertillon was the name of the day, and his ideas were intended to identify criminals by physical traits - but it was contemporarily thought that Bertillons pictures would also serve eminently to identify criminal TYPES.

If we are to honour historical facts, then letīs do it properly and weigh it all in. The Victorian society of 1888 was an extremely prejudiced one in many respects, and to think that the police would not be affected in any shape or form will be doing history a disservice.

I think we must promote double approaches on the search for Ripper candidates - itīs fine and dandy to look at the "police suspects", as they are called (they donīt look much like traditional police suspects to me), but trying to find the kind of man that conforms to our own knowledge about what a serial killer is about can do absolutely no harm - on the contrary.

The best,
Fisherman

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 08:44 AM
Their reputation alone kept Jack at bay. Just like you keep the common sense posters at bay here.

Monty
:)

Now you are having a laugh ! :laugh4:

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 08:51 AM
Isn't Feigenbaum's guilt your opinion, Trevor?

I don't side with opinions. Look at the damage the opinions of those senior officers have caused in later years. Leading people to falsely believe they knew the identity of the ripper :1tongue:

PaulB
11-06-2014, 09:14 AM
I don't side with opinions. Look at the damage the opinions of those senior officers have caused in later years. Leading people to falsely believe they knew the identity of the ripper :1tongue:

It's all comes down to the same thing.

Tom_Wescott
11-06-2014, 09:14 AM
agree to some extant. but you cant throw the baby out with the bathwater. their WAS a possible ID, and Anderson isn't the only senior police who mentions him. And since the major piece of evidence against Koz is a possible ID-that has nothing to do with misguided assumptions per se-eventhough I think Anderson had plenty.

The alleged ID of Kosminski is useless. And let's not forget that the witness actually DID NOT identify Kos as the man he'd seen. But even if he had, it was too long after the fact to be of any use.

What intrigues me is what evidence led to the suspicious against Kos in the first place. What made the ID attempt necessary? Something did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 09:52 AM
The alleged ID of Kosminski is useless. And let's not forget that the witness actually DID NOT identify Kos as the man he'd seen. But even if he had, it was too long after the fact to be of any use.

What intrigues me is what evidence led to the suspicious against Kos in the first place. What made the ID attempt necessary? Something did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom
I don't believe this ever took place in the way it has been suggested.

Under what grounds would Kosminski have been taken to the seaside home?

The police couldn't simply drag him off the streets and say your coming with us.

Under arrest? If that had been the case his arrest would have been recorded and with regards to such an important case many would have known about it, and so would we today.

As a volunteer, well I doubt that. Can you see the police knocking on his door and saying "Would you mind coming with us we think you are the Ripper and we want to put you on an ID parade"

There is also the question of consent that a person suffering from a mental illness is incapable of giving consent by reason of their illness, and would certainly not be capable of understanding the events leading up to and surrounding such an important identification procedure.

The above applies should it be suggested he was taken from and asylum which is highly unlikely as the authorities would not have permitted it

So if you or anyone else knows how all of this is suppose to have unfolded feel free to enlighten us

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

PaulB
11-06-2014, 10:11 AM
[QUOTE=Fisherman;316890]In all honesty, Paul - whereīs the evidence that the 1888 Victorian police had a fair picture of what a serial killer is about...? And if they didnīt know, what did they have to go on, other than guesswork?

You know how Kos, Os and Dru are described in the memoranda, and you also know that the descriptions are very wrong, going by the collected evidence we have. Homicidal maniacs, sexually insane etcetera.

You will know that a search of the asylums was ordered. I think it was Williamson who bluntly stated that it was done since the public believed a maniac to be at large!

The press created a monster, half beast, half human - and although the press are not equivalent with the police, they still mirror what was thought and reasoned generally. Today, not even the tabloids would invent that crude type of a killer portrait.

I think it is slightly disingenious not to admit that the police were faced with something they did not know how to perceive. In an era where people were thought to go mad as a result of masturbation, we should not expect the police to be able to be aquainted with the finer points of psychology and diagnoze a man like the Ripper correctly. To them, a deranged killer was to be expected, a Kosminski, an Issenschmid.

I actually think that my own suspect bears witness to what the police were NOT looking for - an ordinary, seemingly sane, British working man. They had a guy who was found by a freshly killed victim, they only had his own words to go on when it came to how long time he had spent with that victim - and they apparently bought his story without checking it out thoroughly, as per the fact that they never found out who he really was!

We have no instruction manuals to go by, telling us that the police specifically targetted special types of people, but we have a lot of indicators hidden all over the case. And that case was played out in an era when many people still believed that poverty was something you had deserved and that long fingers pointed to pick-pocket vices. Yes, Bertillon was the name of the day, and his ideas were intended to identify criminals by physical traits - but it was contemporarily thought that Bertillons pictures would also serve eminently to identify criminal TYPES.

If we are to honour historical facts, then letīs do it properly and weigh it all in. The Victorian society of 1888 was an extremely prejudiced one in many respects, and to think that the police would not be affected in any shape or form will be doing history a disservice.

I think we must promote double approaches on the search for Ripper candidates - itīs fine and dandy to look at the "police suspects", as they are called (they donīt look much like traditional police suspects to me), but trying to find the kind of man that conforms to our own knowledge about what a serial killer is about can do absolutely no harm - on the contrary.

The best,
Fishermanc

1. There is ample evidence that the senior policemen, medical men, and legal practitioners knew what a serial killer was, but they didn't use the same terminology that we do. As for what they had to go on, they had little or nothing. They still managed to solve crimes thought.

2. It has always been recognised that Macnaghten got details wrong, but the question is what the "evidence" was that they had against those named (or anyone else for that matter).

3. Yes, they searched the asylums but as far as we know "Kosminski" wasn't in an asylum when they were searched.

4. I admire your confidence in the British press.

5. Like I said, there was an awareness of serial killers, I think we found reports of lectures on the subject going back to the 1850s, but obviously the terminology was different and the whole subject was couched in a refined language.

6. Yes, your suspect does indcate what the police were NOT looking for.

7. Can ypu point me to some records where a TYPE was specified as being looked for.

8. I don't think anyone with any awareness of Victorian society in 1888 would suggest that it wasn't orejudiced, or that the police weren't prejudiced either, but the mere existance of prejudice doesn't mean that everyone is prejudiced to the same degree or that they would allow prejudice to influence their conclusions. But the outstanding question is where the evidence is that the men were seriously prejudiced. It was a chanrge (if it was a charge) that Anderson emphatically denied.

9. Sadly history is all about sources. It's about weighing and evaluating source material. If the head of the CID at the time of the crimes says that Jack the Ripper was "Kosminski" then it is only right and proper that all ourresources are brought to bear in an effort to assess whether he was right or not, or, at the very least, try to understand the evidence on which his conclusion was based. There is no, or should be no, acceptence that he is right and that his suspect was the Ripper. That does not mean that other people can't be looked at closely, and doing so has always been an accepted part of Ripper studies. But it is inevitable and only right that a suggestion by somebody who was there, who was in a position to know, and who was intelligent, should be given priotity to a suspect who was never suspected by anybody, no matter how good a candidate we think he looks. And if he looks that good he should be investogated. I don't see that this does a disservice to history.

10. What some people like Trevor seem to forget is that we're not saying, or shouldn't be saying, that "Kosminski" et al was Jack the Ripper. We're trying to find out why people said he was. And Ditto anyone else.

That's my pennyworth.

PaulB
11-06-2014, 10:22 AM
Tom
I don't believe this ever took place in the way it has been suggested.

Under what grounds would Kosminski have been taken to the seaside home?

The police couldn't simply drag him off the streets and say your coming with us.

Under arrest? If that had been the case his arrest would have been recorded and with regards to such an important case many would have known about it, and so would we today.

As a volunteer, well I doubt that. Can you see the police knocking on his door and saying "Would you mind coming with us we think you are the Ripper and we want to put you on an ID parade"

There is also the question of consent that a person suffering from a mental illness is incapable of giving consent by reason of their illness, and would certainly not be capable of understanding the events leading up to and surrounding such an important identification procedure.

The above applies should it be suggested he was taken from and asylum which is highly unlikely as the authorities would not have permitted it

So if you or anyone else knows how all of this is suppose to have unfolded feel free to enlighten us

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Trevor,
Why do you persist in asking how and why something took place when you are told by an authoritative voice of someone who was there that it did take place?

And as Donald Rumbelow once observed, the police would have had no trouble doing whatever they wanted in a case that high profiled. And you know that all the copper's would have to say is, "We think you might be able to help with our inquiries" and they'd have got him toddling off to the identification.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 10:22 AM
[QUOTE=Fisherman;316890]In all honesty, Paul - whereīs the evidence that the 1888 Victorian police had a fair picture of what a serial killer is about...? And if they didnīt know, what did they have to go on, other than guesswork?

You know how Kos, Os and Dru are described in the memoranda, and you also know that the descriptions are very wrong, going by the collected evidence we have. Homicidal maniacs, sexually insane etcetera.

You will know that a search of the asylums was ordered. I think it was Williamson who bluntly stated that it was done since the public believed a maniac to be at large!

The press created a monster, half beast, half human - and although the press are not equivalent with the police, they still mirror what was thought and reasoned generally. Today, not even the tabloids would invent that crude type of a killer portrait.

I think it is slightly disingenious not to admit that the police were faced with something they did not know how to perceive. In an era where people were thought to go mad as a result of masturbation, we should not expect the police to be able to be aquainted with the finer points of psychology and diagnoze a man like the Ripper correctly. To them, a deranged killer was to be expected, a Kosminski, an Issenschmid.

I actually think that my own suspect bears witness to what the police were NOT looking for - an ordinary, seemingly sane, British working man. They had a guy who was found by a freshly killed victim, they only had his own words to go on when it came to how long time he had spent with that victim - and they apparently bought his story without checking it out thoroughly, as per the fact that they never found out who he really was!

We have no instruction manuals to go by, telling us that the police specifically targetted special types of people, but we have a lot of indicators hidden all over the case. And that case was played out in an era when many people still believed that poverty was something you had deserved and that long fingers pointed to pick-pocket vices. Yes, Bertillon was the name of the day, and his ideas were intended to identify criminals by physical traits - but it was contemporarily thought that Bertillons pictures would also serve eminently to identify criminal TYPES.

If we are to honour historical facts, then letīs do it properly and weigh it all in. The Victorian society of 1888 was an extremely prejudiced one in many respects, and to think that the police would not be affected in any shape or form will be doing history a disservice.

I think we must promote double approaches on the search for Ripper candidates - itīs fine and dandy to look at the "police suspects", as they are called (they donīt look much like traditional police suspects to me), but trying to find the kind of man that conforms to our own knowledge about what a serial killer is about can do absolutely no harm - on the contrary.

The best,
Fishermanc

1. There is ample evidence that the senior policemen, medical men, and legal practitioners knew what a serial killer was, but they didn't use the same terminology that we do. As for what they had to go on, they had little or nothing. They still managed to solve crimes thought.

2. It has always been recognised that Macnaghten got details wrong, but the question is what the "evidence" was that they had against those named (or anyone else for that matter).

3. Yes, they searched the asylums but as far as we know "Kosminski" wasn't in an asylum when they were searched.

4. I admire your confidence in the British press.

5. Like I said, there was an awareness of serial killers, I think we found reports of lectures on the subject going back to the 1850s, but obviously the terminology was different and the whole subject was couched in a refined language.

6. Yes, your suspect does indcate what the police were NOT looking for.

7. Can ypu point me to some records where a TYPE was specified as being looked for.

8. I don't think anyone with any awareness of Victorian society in 1888 would suggest that it wasn't orejudiced, or that the police weren't prejudiced either, but the mere existance of prejudice doesn't mean that everyone is prejudiced to the same degree or that they would allow prejudice to influence their conclusions. But the outstanding question is where the evidence is that the men were seriously prejudiced. It was a chanrge (if it was a charge) that Anderson emphatically denied.

9. Sadly history is all about sources. It's about weighing and evaluating source material. If the head of the CID at the time of the crimes says that Jack the Ripper was "Kosminski" then it is only right and proper that all ourresources are brought to bear in an effort to assess whether he was right or not, or, at the very least, try to understand the evidence on which his conclusion was based. There is no, or should be no, acceptence that he is right and that his suspect was the Ripper. That does not mean that other people can't be looked at closely, and doing so has always been an accepted part of Ripper studies. But it is inevitable and only right that a suggestion by somebody who was there, who was in a position to know, and who was intelligent, should be given priotity to a suspect who was never suspected by anybody, no matter how good a candidate we think he looks. And if he looks that good he should be investogated. I don't see that this does a disservice to history.

10. What some people like Trevor seem to forget is that we're not saying, or shouldn't be saying, that "Kosminski" et al was Jack the Ripper. We're trying to find out why people said he was. And Ditto anyone else.

That's my pennyworth.

And the answer to the last para could be that anyone involved in any type of knife offence involving a female was looked on as a suspect. Many were and many eliminated.

Its sad for those who for whatever reason couldn't give alibis or simply couldn't remember where there were, or what they were doing on the dates of the murders. Some of those were ultimately used to form opinions I suspect.

PaulB
11-06-2014, 10:24 AM
I have just bought your DVD, by the way. I look forward to watching it. It's a great opportunity for everyone who hasn't seen your show.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 10:25 AM
Trevor,
Why do you persist in asking how and why something took place when you are told by an authoritative voice of someone who was there that it did take place?

And as Donald Rumbelow once observed, the police would have had no trouble doing whatever they wanted in a case that high profiled. And you know that all the copper's would have to say is, "We think you might be able to help with our inquiries" and they'd have got him toddling off to the identification.

You clearly need to read up on police procedures for 1888.

Some authoritative voices then were clearly descendants of the red indians, they spoke with forked tongues :anxious:

PaulB
11-06-2014, 10:28 AM
[QUOTE=PaulB;316904]

And the answer to the last para could be that anyone involved in any type of knife offence involving a female was looked on as a suspect. Many were and many eliminated.

Its sad for those who for whatever reason couldn't give alibis or simply couldn't remember where there were, or what they were doing on the dates of the murders. Some of those were ultimately used to form opinions I suspect.

I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone with a knowledge of the East End in the late 19th century that a domestic involving a knife raise much of an eyebrow. They were extremely common.

Monty
11-06-2014, 10:37 AM
Now you are having a laugh ! :laugh4:

Clearly

Monty
:)

PaulB
11-06-2014, 10:38 AM
You clearly need to read up on police procedures for 1888.

Some authoritative voices then were clearly descendants of the red indians, they spoke with forked tongues :anxious:

That's not an answer, Trevor. I cited the opinion of an experienced policeman and one of the polite ways in which the police encourage someone to assist their inquiries. I you think police proceedures in 1888 prove me wrong, cite those procedures. If you think Swanson was lying or didn't know what he was talking about, give your evidence. But please, your one line inanities cut no ice.

Oh, and you will of course appreciate that we're told that the suspect was "sent" not "taken", so whether or not the events could have happened as described rather depends on who was doing the sending.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 10:43 AM
[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;316907]

I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone with a knowledge of the East End in the late 19th century that a domestic involving a knife raise much of an eyebrow. They were extremely common.

Well it did with Aaron Kosminski did it not?

With regards to police procedures you might be interested in these facts

The police had a lawful right to question anyone at any time whilst gathering evidence following the commission of a crime. This may also include and involve speaking to a person who may later becomes a suspect, However the police guidelines state that as soon as that person becomes a suspect and is ‘Charged/arrested’ no more questions can be put to him.

The offence of murder was classed as a felony and the police had the power to arrest anyone without a warrant. That arrest however would have warranted reasonable suspicion or direct evidence.

A person so arrested would have been then taken to a police station and the facts together with any corroborating evidence relayed to a station Sgt or Inspector.

That officer would have to either accept that ‘charge’ against that person on the basis that there was a prima facie case and then that person would then be formally charged with the offence providing there was sufficient evidence, and then detained and taken before the next available court. If there was not sufficient evidence then the accused would be discharged (released). It should be noted that the police did not conduct formal interviews of persons arrested in 1888.

The second option open to the police having so arrested a person on suspicion would be for the arrested person to be detained at the police station without formal charge for up to twenty four hours for further enquiries to be carried out with a view to the police perhaps obtaining enough evidence to be able to subsequently prefer a ‘charge’.

At the expiration of that time or before if applicable, the arrested person would either be formally ‘charged’ and detained to appear at the next available court or released (discharged).

Any breach of these rules and guidelines would have jeopardized any subsequent prosecution


http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 10:46 AM
That's not an answer, Trevor. I cited the opinion of an experienced policeman and one of the polite ways in which the police encourage someone to assist their inquiries. I you think police proceedures in 1888 prove me wrong, cite those procedures. If you think Swanson was lying or didn't know what he was talking about, give your evidence. But please, your one line inanities cut no ice.

Oh, and you will of course appreciate that we're told that the suspect was "sent" not "taken", so whether or not the events could have happened as described rather depends on who was doing the sending.

See my previous post Maybe you should stop trying to twist things around !

There weren't to many options as to who the sender was were there ?

Monty
11-06-2014, 10:48 AM
Paul,

I suspect the 1824 Vagrancy Act, Incorrigible Rogues, came in to effect with Kosiminski.

Monty
:)

Monty
11-06-2014, 10:51 AM
As Paul states,

Care to cite those 1888 proedures Trevor?

Monty
:)

Abby Normal
11-06-2014, 11:00 AM
The alleged ID of Kosminski is useless. And let's not forget that the witness actually DID NOT identify Kos as the man he'd seen. But even if he had, it was too long after the fact to be of any use.

What intrigues me is what evidence led to the suspicious against Kos in the first place. What made the ID attempt necessary? Something did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I pretty much agree with you-but the fact remains he is the ONLY suspect that has any possible direct evidence against him. Eyewitness evidence.

I would imagine threatening his sister with a knife was the last straw for his family and they had him committed and maybe also contacted police.

Abby Normal
11-06-2014, 11:09 AM
[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;316907]

I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone with a knowledge of the East End in the late 19th century that a domestic involving a knife raise much of an eyebrow. They were extremely common.

with all due respect Mr. Begg
I think a crazy Jew who threatened a women with a knife during the ripper era would raise a lot of eyebrows.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 11:42 AM
As Paul states,

Care to cite those 1888 proedures Trevor?

Monty
:)
Already done old chap you should have gone to specsavers

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 11:49 AM
I have just bought your DVD, by the way. I look forward to watching it. It's a great opportunity for everyone who hasn't seen your show.

Thank you for that I will be able to have meat now on sunday intsead of sausages !

Monty
11-06-2014, 11:50 AM
Already done old chap you should have gone to specsavers

No you haven't.

Monty
:)

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 11:53 AM
In laymans terms yes

PaulB
11-06-2014, 11:56 AM
See my previous post Maybe you should stop trying to twist things around !

There weren't to many options as to who the sender was were there ?

I'm not trying to twist things around.

You said the identification as described by a Superintendent of police could not have taken place because it would have been in breach of procedures. I asked you to cite the specific procedures.

Your "previous post" concerns someone arrested and/or charged. As far as we are aware "Kosminski" was never arrested or charged with anything, so the points you make would appear irrelevant.

As to who the sender was, one option would be "Kosminski's" family.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 12:00 PM
Paul,

I suspect the 1824 Vagrancy Act, Incorrigible Rogues, came in to effect with Kosiminski.

Monty
:)

and what did they do with such persons, they arrested them and charged them soon after arrest as per guidelines. They didnt send them on holiday to the seaside

PaulB
11-06-2014, 12:01 PM
In laymans terms yes

You weren't asked for "layman's terms". How is a layman supposed to know whether your are citing current procedure or 1888 procedure (or if there is a difference)? And whilst I know you are not making anything up, how would a layman know?

And as already pointed out, "Kosminski" was neither arrested nor charged.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 12:03 PM
I'm not trying to twist things around.

You said the identification as described by a Superintendent of police could not have taken place because it would have been in breach of procedures. I asked you to cite the specific procedures.

Your "previous post" concerns someone arrested and/or charged. As far as we are aware "Kosminski" was never arrested or charged with anything, so the points you make would appear irrelevant.

As to who the sender was, one option would be "Kosminski's" family.
Now can you see that Kosminksi`s family allowing him to be subjected to an Id parade for a crime which if found guilty would result in him hanging

You are also forgetting the consent issue they couldnt consent on his behalf

PaulB
11-06-2014, 12:05 PM
and what did they do with such persons, they arrested them and charged them soon after arrest as per guidelines. They didnt send them on holiday to the seaside

The identification took place at the seaside. No arrest followed, but we are told 24-hour surveillance was maintained. What intentions the police had were curtailed when the family had him certified insane and committed.

Again, Nobody was arrested. Nobody was charged. The points you made are irrelevant. So we are back to square one: what procedures prevented the police arranging for "Kosminski" to be identified?

Chris
11-06-2014, 12:13 PM
As to who the sender was, one option would be "Kosminski's" family.

Yes. An obvious possibility is that the police, with the cooperation of the family, arranged for him to stay at a convalescent home to facilitate a confrontation with the witness.

If the Crawford letter referred to Aaron Kozminski, this would all fit together rather nicely. The family might have wished to assist the police, but might have wanted at all costs to avoid arousing public suspicion (especially considering what had happened to Pizer). Sending him away discreetly to a place where a confrontation could take place would be a way of doing that.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 12:13 PM
You weren't asked for "layman's terms". How is a layman supposed to know whether your are citing current procedure or 1888 procedure (or if there is a difference)? And whilst I know you are not making anything up, how would a layman know?

And as already pointed out, "Kosminski" was neither arrested nor charged.
The procedures referred to were the arrest procedures and the guidelines they had to adhere to

My original question was for anyone to explain how they would have come to take him or send him to this ID parade miles away from London when they could have just as well conducted one as any of the local police stationsand under what procedure did this occur

If you are confused then please go back and read again my relevant post

Chris
11-06-2014, 12:18 PM
Now can you see that Kosminksi`s family allowing him to be subjected to an Id parade for a crime which if found guilty would result in him hanging


That's an interesting point. It's pure speculation, of course, but if the family did make some sort of deal with the police to arrange an identification, a condition might have been that the police would ensure he didn't hang, but was sent to an asylum instead.

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 12:18 PM
The identification took place at the seaside. No arrest followed, but we are told 24-hour surveillance was maintained. What intentions the police had were curtailed when the family had him certified insane and committed.

Again, Nobody was arrested. Nobody was charged. The points you made are irrelevant. So we are back to square one: what procedures prevented the police arranging for "Kosminski" to be identified?

The ones that i mentioned in my original post and i dont recall saying prevented.. I was asking how he was sent or taken i.e under arrest or as a volunteer it had to be one or the other.

I highlighted the problems with both cases i cant see what the big argument is on this?

PaulB
11-06-2014, 12:19 PM
Now can you see that Kosminksi`s family allowing him to be subjected to an Id parade for a crime which if found guilty would result in him hanging

You are also forgetting the consent issue they couldnt consent on his behalf

It rather depends on what they were told why he was wanted.

And they may have felt they had no option. And if they didn't suspect he was guilty, why would they refuse?

Monty
11-06-2014, 12:20 PM
and what did they do with such persons, they arrested them and charged them soon after arrest as per guidelines. They didnt send them on holiday to the seaside

I thought you were aware of 1888 procedure?

The Vagrancy Act was a catch all, it gave the police great scope to arrest those of which there was suspicion, but no defined offence.

The location of a parade is due to either convenience or valid reasoning.

Tell me, have the arrest, charge and stop books survived?

Monty
:)

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 12:24 PM
That's an interesting point. It's pure speculation, of course, but if the family did make some sort of deal with the police to arrange an identification, a condition might have been that the police would ensure he didn't hang, but was sent to an asylum instead.

As you say speculation. but of course that couldn't have happened because they had a positive ID and took him home not to an asylum

Which when you look at that it rings the warning bells. Here we have the police who have in their hands the Ripper and what do they do simply drop him off home. Surely the first place he would have been taken to would be an asylum

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 12:27 PM
I thought you were aware of 1888 procedure?

The Vagrancy Act was a catch all, it gave the police great scope to arrest those of which there was suspicion, but no defined offence.

The location of a parade is due to either convenience or valid reasoning.

Tell me, have the arrest, charge and stop books survived?

Monty
:)

Why arrest for vagrancy when he is suspected of murder I dont buy that one another example of square peg into a round hole

PaulB
11-06-2014, 12:41 PM
The ones that i mentioned in my original post and i dont recall saying prevented.. I was asking how he was sent or taken i.e under arrest or as a volunteer it had to be one or the other.

I highlighted the problems with both cases i cant see what the big argument is on this?

There isn't any big argument, Trevor. You did indeed ask some questions in your original post, albeit prefaced by a statement that you didn't think the identification happened as described. I asked why you insisted on asking questions about how something was done when we had it on the authority of an experienced Superintendent that it did happen. And I cited Don Rumbelow and also a commonplace method of arranging to talk to someone. You then said I needed to read up on police procedures and you said Swanson was lying
(was speaking with forked tongue). The procedures you duly cited were irrelevant. And thus we end up here

So, why couldn't the identification have happened as Superintendent Swanson described it?

Monty
11-06-2014, 12:42 PM
Why arrest for vagrancy when he is suspected of murder I dont buy that one another example of square peg into a round hole

Seriously? You ask that question?

Because there was no evidence to arrest on murder. The use of the VA in such matters was why it was dropped in the 70s.

Monty
:)

Chris
11-06-2014, 01:17 PM
As you say speculation. but of course that couldn't have happened because they had a positive ID and took him home not to an asylum


Hardly a positive ID, when the witness refused to testify. That would make it rather difficult to get a verdict of "guilty but insane", wouldn't it?

And note that Swanson doesn't say they took the suspect home, any more than he says they took him to the Seaside Home.

Fisherman
11-06-2014, 01:38 PM
PaulB:

1. There is ample evidence that the senior policemen, medical men, and legal practitioners knew what a serial killer was, but they didn't use the same terminology that we do. As for what they had to go on, they had little or nothing. They still managed to solve crimes thought.

If they had had the same kind of knowledge as we do - and, of course, they simply couldnīt - they would have sought after other types of perps. Of course they managed to solve crimes, by the way - if they had not, their existence would not have been required.

2. It has always been recognised that Macnaghten got details wrong, but the question is what the "evidence" was that they had against those named (or anyone else for that matter).

The basic point is that it IS a question. And that there is no answer. And of course, there need not be any more evidence than what we have - his friends suspected him, and he had taken his own life after the Kelly slaying, claiming to be afraid to go insane.

3. Yes, they searched the asylums but as far as we know "Kosminski" wasn't in an asylum when they were searched.

No, but thatīs not the point I am making. What I am pointing to is how the combined pressure from the press and public had the police searching the asylums, thinking that the Ripper would have that background.

4. I admire your confidence in the British press.

Please donīt be ironic, Paul - what I am saying is that it would have mirrored societal perceptions to a large degree. Not that it was to be trusted - the 1888 society had some vary strange perceptions about things. Serial killers, not least.

5. Like I said, there was an awareness of serial killers, I think we found reports of lectures on the subject going back to the 1850s, but obviously the terminology was different and the whole subject was couched in a refined language.

They had little to go on anyway. And it would have been the Gilles de Rais-stuff to a large extent. The grey men, the likes of Shawcross, of Armstrong, of Kürten - they would not have been around in the material they studied. And we can see that they either thought themselves that they should look for external madness - or they were pushed to into accepting it.

They were not looking where todays police forces would look, and as I said - the Lechmere example tells that story.

6. Yes, your suspect does indicate what the police were NOT looking for.

It does, does it not. And why? Because they were prejudiced to some degree.

7. Can you point me to some records where a TYPE was specified as being looked for.

No, and they wonīt exist in the first place. All we can do is to look at the names and specifics adhering to the ones they took an interest in, and work from the suggestion that there may have been a reason for it other than clear, caserelated evidence.

8. I don't think anyone with any awareness of Victorian society in 1888 would suggest that it wasn't orejudiced, or that the police weren't prejudiced either, but the mere existance of prejudice doesn't mean that everyone is prejudiced to the same degree or that they would allow prejudice to influence their conclusions. But the outstanding question is where the evidence is that the men were seriously prejudiced. It was a chanrge (if it was a charge) that Anderson emphatically denied.

Letīs face it - he would do that. And being a deeply religious man, there is every chance that he would feel entitled to do so. I have prejudices that I donīt readily recognize, Iīm sure. I think most people have.
You have a point when you implicate that it would be hard to find a level of prejudice to work from that could be reasonable - itīs foolhardy to think that could be done. But looking away from such an obvious thing as itīs blatant existence would be a much worse thing, to my mind at least.

9. Sadly history is all about sources. It's about weighing and evaluating source material. If the head of the CID at the time of the crimes says that Jack the Ripper was "Kosminski" then it is only right and proper that all ourresources are brought to bear in an effort to assess whether he was right or not, or, at the very least, try to understand the evidence on which his conclusion was based. There is no, or should be no, acceptence that he is right and that his suspect was the Ripper. That does not mean that other people can't be looked at closely, and doing so has always been an accepted part of Ripper studies. But it is inevitable and only right that a suggestion by somebody who was there, who was in a position to know, and who was intelligent, should be given priotity to a suspect who was never suspected by anybody, no matter how good a candidate we think he looks. And if he looks that good he should be investogated. I don't see that this does a disservice to history.

... and thatīs where we disagree. Because history tells me that we are dealing with prejudices, with faulty accusations and with police failure to a large extent as we examine the efforts of the men at the top and their suspects. They have to some degree disqualified themselves when it comes to deserving trust.
Consequentially, when I find a suspect with a lot of things going for him, I have no problems kicking the "police suspects" a step down the ladder.
And in doing so, I will have much more history to go on than Anderson et al did in 1888, when it comes to identifying a serial killer.
If that is breaking the rules, then Iīd much rather get it right by doing it the wrong way, then getting it wrong by doing it the right way.

10. What some people like Trevor seem to forget is that we're not saying, or shouldn't be saying, that "Kosminski" et al was Jack the Ripper. We're trying to find out why people said he was. And Ditto anyone else.

That's my pennyworth.

And I appreciate and command it. But I think we already know why the suspicions against "Kosminski" were there.

Thanks, Paul!
Fisherman

Chris
11-06-2014, 02:10 PM
But I think we already know why the suspicions against "Kosminski" were there.

Given that we don't know what Aaron Kozminski was like in 1888 or why (or when) the police suspected him, I think your confidence is hard to justify.

Tom_Wescott
11-06-2014, 02:16 PM
Great, now the crime enthusiasts are jumping in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Fisherman
11-06-2014, 03:04 PM
Given that we don't know what Aaron Kozminski was like in 1888 or why (or when) the police suspected him, I think your confidence is hard to justify.

You are welcome to that stance. I tink he generally fits in very well with the other police candidates, and that there never was anything much to his candidature. I may be right and I may be wrong (and the exact same goes for those who think the police had very good, damning and caserelated evidence) but thatīs the way I see it.

The best,
Fisherman

Jonathan H
11-06-2014, 03:19 PM
The witness identification did happen, just not the way Anderson likely justified it to Swanson after he had been criticised by English Hebrews. This was the great breakthorugh of Evans and Rumbelow in 2006 at finding the primary source that confirmed a Jewish witness may have been brought in for a "confrontation" with a Ripper suspect in the wake of the murder of a pretty, young harlot.

The 1910 tale is a sincerely mistaken mix of Lawende's no to Sadler (and Lawende's yes to Grant) at the same time Aaron kosminski was sectioned and/or came to Anderson's attention (he has misrecalled the Sailor's Home as the Seaside Home. Plus if this bit comes from Swanson it may have come years later when his memory was not what it was).

Sir Robert Anderson's memory can be shown to be deteriorating two years before his memoir, in which he tosses off the witness i.d. in a footnote in the magazine version (it is a perfect match for his comparable confusion and conflation over pipes at crime and Home Secretaries from different years, parties and administrations).

He seems to have believed, like Swanson that their chief suspect was deceased. He was nothing of the kind and Anderson's No. 2 knew this.

Anderson himself [implicitly] backdates the events to 1889 in his memoir, whilst we know from that same year he was claiming that they had not caught the man--and arguably his 1892 interview confirms this same lack of success.

Smith and Macnaghten could not not know about such an event, yet one does not and the other explictly denies that there was a critical witness to the murderer (Mac goes further in his memoir pointedly rejecting the earlier claim of a Jewish Ripper who had been sectioned).

Plus Macnaghten can arguably be shown to know more accurate data about Kosminski.

Could it have happened just the way Swanson scribbled it, entirely to himself? Of course, but it is not likely, e.g. the balance of probabilities is that it did not happen that way.

Let us not forget what a comforting and self-serving story it is for those who had directly faile, e.g. ther witness i.d. failed but it's ok the monster died soon afterwards--which Aaron Kosminski had not.

Errata
11-06-2014, 03:34 PM
Biased and wrongheaded? Your evidence for that is...?

Their idea was that the killer had to be insane, masturbation being mentioned more than once. And then there is Anderson's absolute certainties.

"One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type ; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders ; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice."

Jack the Ripper was not a "sexual maniac". The very definition of a sexual maniac being that the individual is out of control, usually with some "deviant" behaviors. Even if the Ripper was what was considered a deviant, he certainly wasn't out of control. So that assessment is just plain wrong.

That he lived in the immediate vicinity of the crimes is likely, but not guaranteed.

And there is absolutely no evidence, nor is there any precedence to back up the idea that the people he lived with were shielding him.

The entire first sentence is just wrong. He thinks only an idiot wouldn't know these things, yet everything he says is wrong.

And the rest of it is wrong as well. Polish Jews did give up their own to gentile justice. Routinely. And the idea that they would knowingly abet the Ripper was incredibly stupid, and could only be dreamed up by a cop who was primarily a politician, and so only ever looked at the Polish Jewish community when looking for Socialists or Anarchists. Who granted, the Jewish communities didn't hand over as a rule.

As for the Swanson Marginalia that's even more bizarre than the idiocy of Anderson. So Anderson says that the only guy who got a good look at Jack would not identify him. Well, that''s a suspicious statement in an of itself. Who got the good look at the Ripper? No one saw the murders happen. So asking a witness to identify someone who was in the area is the best they can do. Nobody can put anyone at the scene of a crime.

And the details that Swanson adds to the story are wrong. And we know they are wrong. And the idea that Jew could not bear witness against another Jew is just a flat out lie. Now, I'm not saying Swanson is lying per se. He could have been lied to. Hell the witness might have taken advantage of the cops total ignorance of Judaism and lied about why he wasn't going to testify. But simply asking any Jew as to the validity of that reasoning would have caught out that lie, and evidently no one could be bothered to do that.

So, the killer HAS to be insane. He HAS to be a sexual deviant. He HAS to be a poor Polish Jew. He HAS to visibly be a monster. The kind of person that you can look at and KNOW he is the Ripper.

But everything we know about serial killers tells us that these are ridiculous assumptions, and are almost never true. Hell simple reasoning tells us that. But that's what the cops were looking for. So if they were looking for the wrong kind of man, what are the odds they found the right man?

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 03:35 PM
There isn't any big argument, Trevor. You did indeed ask some questions in your original post, albeit prefaced by a statement that you didn't think the identification happened as described. I asked why you insisted on asking questions about how something was done when we had it on the authority of an experienced Superintendent that it did happen. And I cited Don Rumbelow and also a commonplace method of arranging to talk to someone. You then said I needed to read up on police procedures and you said Swanson was lying
(was speaking with forked tongue). The procedures you duly cited were irrelevant. And thus we end up here

So, why couldn't the identification have happened as Superintendent Swanson described it?

Because the answers to your question lies with the answers to mine.

Not forgetting good old Hans Christian who spins a yarn about such an important event as this ID, that he forgets to mention where it took place, who the witness was and more importantly who the suspect was.

Its time this man Anderson was taken off his pedestal

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 03:45 PM
Seriously? You ask that question?

Because there was no evidence to arrest on murder. The use of the VA in such matters was why it was dropped in the 70s.

Monty
:)

So are you trying to have us believe that they arrested him for vagrancy, which isn't recorded anywhere, and then shipped him off for a day trip to the seaside?

So what was the difference between arresting for vagrancy or murder either way they still had no evidence for the murder. So with no evidence how did he become a suspect?

Then we get back to how, and under what circumstances he finished up at the seaside home

The reality is that this ID as described has more holes in it than a golf course.

As to the Swanson marginalia my thoughts on that have been well documented

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Monty
11-06-2014, 03:56 PM
So are you trying to have us believe that they arrested him for vagrancy, which isn't recorded anywhere, and then shipped him off for a day trip to the seaside?

So what was the difference between arresting for vagrancy or murder either way they still had no evidence for the murder. So with no evidence how did he become a suspect?

Then we get back to how, and under what circumstances he finished up at the seaside home

The reality is that this ID as described has more holes in it than a golf course.

As to the Swanson marginalia my thoughts on that have been well documented

Where do you expect it to be recorded?

And are you expecting a charge of murder, bearing in mind Kosminskis alleged mental state at the time?

It is pretty clear that Kosminski was going to be incarcerated (if he was Aaron), and indeed he was. You assume they were looking for prosecution which, under law, would not have occurred because, as a former detective, you would surely be aware that the insane cannot stand trial.

There is an issue with that suggestion, however that may be more down to a religious issue than the legal one assumed.

Monty
:)

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 04:16 PM
Where do you expect it to be recorded?

And are you expecting a charge of murder, bearing in mind Kosminskis alleged mental state at the time?

It is pretty clear that Kosminski was going to be incarcerated (if he was Aaron), and indeed he was. You assume they were looking for prosecution which, under law, would not have occurred because, as a former detective, you would surely be aware that the insane cannot stand trial.

There is an issue with that suggestion, however that may be more down to a religious issue than the legal one assumed.

Monty
:)

Well all arrests are recorded are they not so if he was then it would have been documented.

So how do you get an insane man to the seaside. If he is insane he cannot consent and if they knew he was insane what would have been the point of doing the ID.

By what has been written it appears the police were disappointed by the end result, so they were expecting far more out of this mythical parade than just taking an insane man and putting him on an Id parade, getting a positive ID and then silence. No mention to the public that we know who the killer is but cant bring him to trial because he is insane no need to mention any names

When are you going to wise up to this?

The Met go to all the trouble of doing this ID and in a way get the result they want the identity of the killer. Then they bring him home let him loose and supposedly allow another force to keep watch on him.

This is all fantasy island stuff and you and many others have been suckered into it and you of all people cant see through it all. Priceless !!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Simon Wood
11-06-2014, 04:18 PM
Hi All,

Just a point.

Thomas Cutbush was arraigned and appeared at the London County Sessions.

Although not absolutely insane, he was considered incompetent to plead and thus ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

Regards,

Simon

Trevor Marriott
11-06-2014, 04:23 PM
Hi All,

Just a point.

Thomas Cutbush was arraigned and appeared at the London County Sessions.

Although not absolutely insane, he was considered incompetent to plead and thus ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

Regards,

Simon

Thank you for that Simon.

Just goes to show that what some suggest is written in stone in fact at times it is written in nothing more than sand

Chris
11-06-2014, 04:30 PM
So how do you get an insane man to the seaside. If he is insane he cannot consent and if they knew he was insane what would have been the point of doing the ID.

Obviously the suggestion is that the Seaside Home identification happened before Aaron Kozminski was certified insane and sent to Colney Hatch.

Bridewell
11-06-2014, 04:30 PM
You clearly need to read up on police procedures for 1888.

As do you if you think that an arrest was necessarily formally recorded in Kosminski's case. The man was, at some point, certified as insane. Kosminski is described as having been "sent with difficulty" to the Seaside Home. We both know that a man who is under police arrest is escorted by the police. Kosminski (as has already been pointed out) was not taken, but sent to the Seaside Home. That suggests very strongly, does it not, that he was in the custody of someone other than the police? Otherwise why 'sent' and why 'with difficulty'? He could have been taken in restraints if necessary. I surmise that the 'difficulty' was bureautic in nature because Kosminski was in someone else's charge.

Monty
11-06-2014, 04:33 PM
I think you are missing Simons point.

Monty
:)

Bridewell
11-06-2014, 04:42 PM
Now can you see that Kosminksi`s family allowing him to be subjected to an Id parade for a crime which if found guilty would result in him hanging

You are also forgetting the consent issue they couldnt consent on his behalf
Are you not assuming that a prosecution was the intention? If Kosminski was incurably insane there would be no possibility of that and the purpose of the confrontation would be simply to enable the police to confirm that they had the right man. It would also confirm or allay any suspicions which his own family had about him.You don't need to adhere to strict guidelines if there is no likelihood of prosecution.

Simon Wood
11-06-2014, 04:42 PM
Hi Monty,

Even I think I'm missing Simon's point.

All these tortuous arguments to get the Kosminski scenario back to its default position of guilty without due process are fascinating.

Regards,

Simon

Monty
11-06-2014, 04:43 PM
Well all arrests are recorded are they not so if he was then it would have been documented.

So how do you get an insane man to the seaside. If he is insane he cannot consent and if they knew he was insane what would have been the point of doing the ID.

By what has been written it appears the police were disappointed by the end result, so they were expecting far more out of this mythical parade than just taking an insane man and putting him on an Id parade, getting a positive ID and then silence. No mention to the public that we know who the killer is but cant bring him to trial because he is insane no need to mention any names

When are you going to wise up to this?

The Met go to all the trouble of doing this ID and in a way get the result they want the identity of the killer. Then they bring him home let him loose and supposedly allow another force to keep watch on him.

This is all fantasy island stuff and you and many others have been suckered into it and you of all people cant see through it all. Priceless !!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

I know that his arrest would be recorded, in the arrest book, my question is where would that arrest book be? The fact that no arrest note can be seen in the WM file could be down to the fact he was not arrest for any of the murders in that file.

The insanity issue depends on the exact nature of the insanity.

No doubt the police would have been disappointed. However, that's not to say it wasn't unexpected.

Monty
:)

Monty
11-06-2014, 04:47 PM
Hi Monty,

Even I think I'm missing Simon's point.

All these tortuous arguments to get the Kosminski scenario back to its default position of guilty without due process are fascinating.

Regards,

Simon

The thing is Simon, I don't think he is guilty.

I think Ed, many many many posts ago, is correct. Kosminski is a suspect, but not the best suspect.

I've yet to see the best suspect.

Monty
:)

Monty
11-06-2014, 04:52 PM
Are you not assuming that a prosecution was the intention? If Kosminski was incurably insane there would be no possibility of that and the purpose of the confrontation would simply to enable the police to confirm that they had the right man. It would also confirm or allay any suspicions which his own family had about him.You don't need to adhere to strict guidelines if there is no likelihood of prosecution.

Glad someone gets it Colin.

Monty
:)

Bridewell
11-06-2014, 04:58 PM
Glad someone gets it Colin.

Monty
:)
It's not just me then? :2thumbsup:

Simon Wood
11-06-2014, 05:00 PM
Hi Colin,

Because of the reluctant witness the ID confrontation did not enable the police to confirm they had the right man.

So the cops banged up Kosminski for life on the basis of exactly what?

Regards,

Simon

Wickerman
11-06-2014, 06:44 PM
As do you if you think that an arrest was necessarily formally recorded in Kosminski's case. The man was, at some point, certified as insane. Kosminski is described as having been "sent with difficulty" to the Seaside Home. We both know that a man who is under police arrest is escorted by the police. Kosminski (as has already been pointed out) was not taken, but sent to the Seaside Home. That suggests very strongly, does it not, that he was in the custody of someone other than the police? Otherwise why 'sent' and why 'with difficulty'? He could have been taken in restraints if necessary. I surmise that the 'difficulty' was bureautic in nature because Kosminski was in someone else's charge.

It would surely be the responsibility of the Institution to move an inmate.

drstrange169
11-06-2014, 10:15 PM
Official record of committal,
"... (b) Facts communicated by others, viz.:-
Jacob Cohen 51 Carter Lane St Pauls, City of London says that he goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread out of the gutter & eats them, he drinks water from the tap & he refuses food at the hands of others. He took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister. He says that he is ill and his cure consists in refusing food. He is melancholic, practises self-abuse. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years..."

No mention of "facts communicated by" the police.

Jacob Cohen, apparently didn't think the fact that he was "Jack the ripper" worthy of mention either.

Either Aaron Kosminski wasn't thought to have been jtr when he was committed or we're moving into the world of conspiracy theories and cover ups.

PaulB
11-06-2014, 11:38 PM
Hi Colin,

Because of the reluctant witness the ID confrontation did not enable the police to confirm they had the right man.

So the cops banged up Kosminski for life on the basis of exactly what?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
Needless to point out I'm sure, but it was a positive identification, so the police did confirm they had the right man. Also, the cops didn't bang Kosminski up for life. His family did. (assuming it was Aaron Kosminski)

The Good Michael
11-06-2014, 11:57 PM
If we are talking about an era where just a bit of graffiti had to be erased for fear of some kind of uprising, imagine either a scenario of Kosminski going to trial or Kosminski being arrested and pronounced not guilty be reason of insanity. Wouldn't either scenario be unsettling for all of London? In one case we'd have an uncontrollable mob (remember Pizer), and in the other we'd have...an uncontrollable mob. What would a good solution be for the officials at the time? It would be exactly what is purported (by some) to have happened; a lock-up without a thought about release.

Mike

Amanda
11-07-2014, 12:31 AM
Official record of committal,
"... (b) Facts communicated by others, viz.:-
Jacob Cohen 51 Carter Lane St Pauls, City of London says that he goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread out of the gutter & eats them, he drinks water from the tap & he refuses food at the hands of others. He took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister. He says that he is ill and his cure consists in refusing food. He is melancholic, practises self-abuse. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years..."

No mention of "facts communicated by" the police.

Jacob Cohen, apparently didn't think the fact that he was "Jack the ripper" worthy of mention either.

Either Aaron Kosminski wasn't thought to have been jtr when he was committed or we're moving into the world of conspiracy theories and cover ups.

Hi Dusty,
I'm trying to imagine the scenario where a filthy man, regularly seen eating from the gutter and in many ways anti-social, would get close enough to a woman walking the streets to murder her...
To me this presents many questions:

1) "Refusing food at the hands of others" may suggest that Kosminski was not in the habit of approaching others, and was perhaps afraid of interaction, why then would he be conversing with a prostitute (I presume some conversation must have taken place prior to the murders, otherwise there may have been loud screams of fright) ?

2) Lack of food on a regular basis would result in physical weakness, which is surely not a trait of JtR?

3) Aaron Kosminski's appearance is noted as very dirty (and will not be washed) which is extremely inconsistent with descriptions given of suspects in the area (if we are to believe Hutchinson) , surely a dirty person running away from a crime scene would be very noticeable?

For my mind, the JtR murders seem to have been premeditated and carefully executed with regard to location, victims and opportunity, an unemployed migrant with sanity issues would surely not be capable of such planning?

Amanda:rolleyes2:

PaulB
11-07-2014, 12:39 AM
Because the answers to your question lies with the answers to mine.

Not forgetting good old Hans Christian who spins a yarn about such an important event as this ID, that he forgets to mention where it took place, who the witness was and more importantly who the suspect was.

Its time this man Anderson was taken off his pedestal

The answer to my question lies within my answers to yours? That's too cryptic for me, even by your standards. Anyway, there are no answers anywhere. You have NOT cited pertinent procedures.

As for Anderson, perhaps you would provide the evidence that Anderson "forgot" to mention those things.

Of course, Anderson didn't have to mention them, and would have been in serious trouble if he did. I'm not a policeman, Trevor, but even I know that you can't name someone as Jack the Ripper who was never arrested, charged, tried and convicted of the crime.

PaulB
11-07-2014, 12:49 AM
Hi All,

Just a point.

Thomas Cutbush was arraigned and appeared at the London County Sessions.

Although not absolutely insane, he was considered incompetent to plead and thus ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

Regards,

Simon

And thus he was never convicted of the crime of which he was accused, which upset his family because they believed that had it gone to trial they would have been able to produce evidence that he was innocent. They would then have been able to place him in a private asylum where they believed he would receive better treatment.

It is probable that precisely the same fate would have awaited Kosminski if the witness had agreed to testify, but, for whatever reason, he returned to his home and was committed by his family, thus avoiding further police action.

Jonathan H
11-07-2014, 12:56 AM
To PaulB

When you say the 'police' had their man, you mean just Anderson and Swanson--right? Who were supported by no other police. In fact, were both specifically and implicitly rejected by other police of the day.

The key to the Marginalia is the additional claim that the suspect admitted he was 'Jack the Ripper'.

The tale had to have something extra once Mentor brought up the Beck miscarriage of justice; in which a dozen witnesses were proven to be sincerely mistaken.

A single witness is pathetic, unless the suspect confesses.

GUT
11-07-2014, 01:13 AM
G'day Amanda

Hi Dusty,
I'm trying to imagine the scenario where a filthy man, regularly seen eating from the gutter and in many ways anti-social, would get close enough to a woman walking the streets to murder her...
To me this presents many questions:

1) "Refusing food at the hands of others" may suggest that Kosminski was not in the habit of approaching others, and was perhaps afraid of interaction, why then would he be conversing with a prostitute (I presume some conversation must have taken place prior to the murders, otherwise there may have been loud screams of fright) ?

That is IF he actually conversed with them beforehand and was not merely a sudden blitz attack.



3) Aaron Kosminski's appearance is noted as very dirty (and will not be washed) which is extremely inconsistent with descriptions given of suspects in the area (if we are to believe Hutchinson) , surely a dirty person running away from a crime scene would be very noticeable?

That is if anyone actually saw Jack.

GUT
11-07-2014, 01:15 AM
I'm not a policeman, Trevor, but even I know that you can't name someone as Jack the Ripper who was never arrested, charged, tried and convicted of the crime.

G'day Paul

You can't....:shakehead:

There goes 90% of the ripper industry.:1tongue:

PaulB
11-07-2014, 01:36 AM
To PaulB

When you say the 'police' had their man, you mean just Anderson and Swanson--right? Who were supported by no other police. In fact, were both specifically and implicitly rejected by other police of the day.

The key to the Marginalia is the additional claim that the suspect admitted he was 'Jack the Ripper'.

The tale had to have something extra once Mentor brought up the Beck miscarriage of justice; in which a dozen witnesses were proven to be sincerely mistaken.

A single witness is pathetic, unless the suspect confesses.

Hi Jonathan,
I don't know who I mean. I suppose that as the head of the CID Anderson would have been speaking for the police. But Macnaghten states that there were "many circs" which made "Kosminski" a suspect. We don't know what they were or who brought them to the fore. It's likely that there were others involved in investigating Kosminski, albeit they may not have been party to the identification.

Where did the suspect admit to having been Jack the Ripper? He knew he'd been identified, but we don't know what the witness saw. If it was Lawende then he would have seen the suspect talking with a woman identified by her clothing as Eddowes. Even if the suspect acknowledged that he was the man Lawende saw, that doesn't make him Jack the Ripper. It might have been enough to convince someone that the suspect was Jack the Ripper, and maybe with some justification (if we knew what other evidence the police had), but it remains to be seen whether such an acknowledged identification was tantamount to an admission.

The marginalia wasn't for publication.

PaulB
11-07-2014, 01:38 AM
G'day Paul

You can't....:shakehead:

There goes 90% of the ripper industry.:1tongue:

Oh, more than 90% wouldn't you say?