Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    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

    Comment


    • #32
      He Is the Only Suspect with Evidence Against Him

      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Richard Dewar View Post
        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
        Last edited by RockySullivan; 11-03-2014, 11:40 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
            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

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Richard Dewar View Post
              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

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  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
                  Monty

                  https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                  Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                    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'?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Monty View Post
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Richard Dewar View Post
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by GUT View Post
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by GUT View Post
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X