Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Did JtR start and stop within the autumn, or was that period actually a spike in activity?
    If that later, could there have been an external motivation at work, lasting just that period?
    Without identifying a motive we can't answer these questions with any certainty.


    If the coroner does the choosing, what would 'deliberately omitted' actually mean, other than the coroner excluding an apparently important witness, for no obvious reason?
    "Deliberately omitted" more often indicates a belief in a conspiracy among the higher police officials. I was merely pointing out that the coroner is not ruled by these same police officials.

    Do you suppose Schwartz was not believed by Baxter, because the police had had no luck in finding Schwartz' first or second man, or because he didn't believe his story?
    We'll likely never know.
    Though, we do know the testimony of James Brown must have conflicted with the story given by Schwartz, but there was a second couple in Berner St. that night.

    Does the failure to call several specific witnesses, across the investigation, who are individually studied in depth by modern Ripperologists, suggest that the attitude back then was more discerning than now - perhaps due to the relative scarcity of information now available, that leads researchers to possibly take some witnesses of marginal value, too seriously?
    Yes, in my opinion, the authorities at the time knew far more about the case & the background of any witness claims than we do today. They were better able to accept or reject a story given by a witness. Whereas today modern theorists tend to criticize police for believing a witness when there is no surviving supporting evidence. "Surviving" being the operative word, just because this evidence no longer survives does not mean it never existed.
    However, that void does permit a broader playing field for the modern theorist.


    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      Without identifying a motive we can't answer these questions with any certainty.
      In #39 you said:

      There was one candidate responsible for at least five murders, and that person did not merely stop killing. In order to stop he must have been incarcerated or died. If he was incarcerated he will remain nameless, if he died the best candidate is Druitt.
      The other side of that coin, is that we can't refer to the killer stopping without defining what murder-free timespan after a murder, counts as having stopped.
      Is a year without a murder to be regarded as the killer having stopped?
      What about 6 months, or 3 months, or 6 weeks - after which we can confidently say, 'the Ripper must now be behind bars, or dead'.
      Why is the rate of killing in the late August to early/mid-November period, the Ripper's 'natural' rate of killing, and not an anomaly to that rate?
      There is really no more certainty in your opinion as to the fate of JtR, than in supposing that other factors were at play in the autumn of '88, regardless of ones ability to identify that factor or factors.

      We'll likely never know.
      Though, we do know the testimony of James Brown must have conflicted with the story given by Schwartz, but there was a second couple in Berner St. that night.
      On the other hand, it could be said that Schwartz' testimony conflicted with James Brown's story, so why not leave Brown out?
      This is a crucial question - Schwartz conceivably witnessed the victim, her killer, and another witness, while Brown doesn't even witness Schwartz.
      Did Baxter make a terrible mistake in not calling Schwartz, or was there stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        The other side of that coin, is that we can't refer to the killer stopping without defining what murder-free timespan after a murder, counts as having stopped.
        Is a year without a murder to be regarded as the killer having stopped?
        What about 6 months, or 3 months, or 6 weeks - after which we can confidently say, 'the Ripper must now be behind bars, or dead'.
        Why is the rate of killing in the late August to early/mid-November period, the Ripper's 'natural' rate of killing, and not an anomaly to that rate?
        There is really no more certainty in your opinion as to the fate of JtR, than in supposing that other factors were at play in the autumn of '88, regardless of ones ability to identify that factor or factors.
        This is true, we know of serial killers who have stopped. Chikatilo has often been cited, and when you read his story there was a reason why, but he did start up again. Though it is equally true that very few have been known to just stop killing. So, because "he stopped" happens so infrequently does that make a "he just stopped" argument considered Special Pleading?
        And, if JtR did just stop, why didn't he start up again?
        Which then begs the question, how many S.K's have stopped for good, and continued their life?
        Not many? - so another case of Special Pleading?

        The conclusion I arrived at was, as I said, based on the best remaining evidence.

        The counter argument for me in this is, not many S.K's have committed suicide shortly after, so that could also be labeled Special Pleading.
        In recent years we've had a spate of mass shootings in the US where the killer turned the gun on himself. This is a recent phenomena and not readily comparable to the Jack the Ripper murders.
        The fact remains, in general S.K's do not normally kill themselves.


        On the other hand, it could be said that Schwartz' testimony conflicted with James Brown's story, so why not leave Brown out?
        This is a crucial question - Schwartz conceivably witnessed the victim, her killer, and another witness, while Brown doesn't even witness Schwartz.
        Did Baxter make a terrible mistake in not calling Schwartz, or was there stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?
        This is what I mean, the authorities at the time knew more than we do today.

        In providing the conclusions I have, I was not pretending to have the right answers, just what the evidence suggests to me. But, like I said, there's much we do not know.
        Last edited by Wickerman; 04-02-2020, 03:26 AM.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          This is what I mean, the authorities at the time knew more than we do today.

          In providing the conclusions I have, I was not pretending to have the right answers, just what the evidence suggests to me. But, like I said, there's much we do not know.
          Yes, and of course you're not suggesting you have the right answers.
          Nonetheless, you must be very curious about Baxter's decision regarding Schwartz.
          And I wonder what Scotland Yard made of it?
          It really is an enigma.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
            ........
            Nonetheless, you must be very curious about Baxter's decision regarding Schwartz.
            And I wonder what Scotland Yard made of it?
            It really is an enigma.
            Well, I've been curious for a long time

            Yet, there are clues as to why Schwartz was not called by Baxter.
            We know Schwartz gave a statement to police on the evening of the 30th Sept., yet the very next day (Oct. 1st) as the story broke in the press we read:

            "The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted".

            Then again, on the 2nd, we read:

            "In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts."

            It appears the police attempted to investigate the story given by Schwartz but could not confirm it in any way. Baxter may have taken this into account.

            What has always caused contention in this is the subsequent report by Swanson where he suggests the statement given to police by Schwartz is believable. Yet Swanson only addresses the initial statement not the results of any follow up, whether they found the suspects who were described, or found confirmation of the statement.

            Swanson was writing a report covering all the murders from Tabram to Eddowes that had been requested by Warren on his return in mid September, this is when he assigned Swanson to take charge of the investigation. Even though the report was completed on 19th Oct. it was most likely compiled in his spare time over the previous 4 weeks from police reports & statements. So, it may not be true to say Schwartz was still believed as late as 19th Oct.
            In fact, the first day of the inquest was 1st Oct. so Baxter had already chosen his witnesses before the police had completed their investigation into Schwartz's story, if we are to believe the press.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by DJA View Post
              Click image for larger version

Name:	a513c1523ffb37323093d932c8b88ed4.jpg
Views:	199
Size:	89.3 KB
ID:	733820
              Just saying...

              Where I come from we shoot first, then ask questions.

              Of course, we don't get so many answers that way!

              Write something...

              Comment


              • #52
                You've got to think Anderson and Swanson had more reason for suspecting "Kosminski" than him being a demented Jew.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                  You've got to think Anderson and Swanson had more reason for suspecting "Kosminski" than him being a demented Jew.
                  Probably because he hadn't paid for a dog licence!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                    You've got to think Anderson and Swanson had more reason for suspecting "Kosminski" than him being a demented Jew.
                    I think Harry that at least in the case of Anderson, we likely have antisemitism as a possible motivator. I think Anderson worked hard to make these about an Immigrant Jew, even though I cannot see any evidence myself that would make that a clear choice. He stated that after the door to door searches, this was "ascertained". So, in September, while he is away, evidence surfaces that an immigrant Jew did the crimes, and later, that another one refused to testify against his "own kind". Based on what?
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Anderson read Macnaghten's memorandum and selected the Polish Jew.

                      QED
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Once again I remind us all that the thread question still lingers....but it seems to be less dubious a claim as time goes by. These men gave opinions, they were varied, some didnt think anyone was fingered, some seem to suggests he was known but the lack of French Authority style policing prevented his capture. Some thought the best bets were a man who was in jail at the time of the murders, a suicide victim, and a feeble minded Immigrant Jew. Remember...these men I refer to, most of them, saw the most updated and complete intelligence that was gathered. More data than exists today. And one man, a man who earned his stripes in that area, one promoted to Senior Officer status at Scotland Yard, didnt believe anyone knew who the killer was and how many were killed by him...until 1903, when a serial poisoner who lived in the area at that time was executed. Things suddenly "dovetailed" apparently for Abberline. 15 years later.

                        Might this Pall Mall Gazette interview be Abberline releasing himself from personal guilt at not catching the real killer, using a known killer, now deceased, to hide his failure behind?

                        Seems to me a fair amount of these men received high praise and awards for their service, despite ALL of them being unable to solve what was arguably the most terrifying murder spree in recent memory. One walked away, and took his "hot potato" with him. Maybe he was the one that should have been praised. For helping save the face of many, many, less principled men....by taking a secret to his grave.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          All these policemen knew exactly what had been going on, so all these policemen invented their various "solutions."
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                            You've got to think Anderson and Swanson had more reason for suspecting "Kosminski" than him being a demented Jew.

                            ...undiscovered murders are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not in that category...I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him...In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact"




                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              What would prevent the police from arresting a strong suspect - presumably Kosminski - in the case that a key witness had (supposedly) refused to testify against him?

                              If there is no evidence that Kosminski was ever arrested, what impact does this have on the confidence in him being JtR?

                              What supporting evidence do we have, for Anderson's claim that Scotland Yard suspected in advance, that certain sub-cultures in the East End would refuse to testify against there own 'kind'?

                              If the key witness is regarded as being Lawende, do we go along with Anderson's categorization of 'low-class Polish Jews' from the East End, in describing Lawende?

                              If the key witness is not Lawende, then who is it, and why?

                              If the witness were Schwartz, then why didn't Baxter want him at the inquest, when the search for his 1st and 2nd man was in it's very early stage?

                              Is it conceivable, that what Anderson says about the JtR case in TLSofMOL, is just an exercise in protecting the reputation of Scotland Yard and himself, and that the identity of JtR was not known to the yard by the time RA retired, as Abberline's subsequent comments would also suggest?

                              Other than these comments by Anderson, and Swanson's marginal note, is the case against Kosminski actually very weak?
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                If there is no evidence that Kosminski was ever arrested, what impact does this have on the confidence in him being JtR?
                                His hands were tied behind his back when he was brought to the workhouse. Maybe a policeman's handcuffs weren't working. Or he didn't have them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X