Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

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

  • #31
    Yes, sorry Roger. It could have been.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      ?

      Since Aaron Kosminski wasn’t dead in 1895, why would this be a ‘likely’ reference to him?

      It sounds more like a reference to MJ Druitt.
      If for some reason, Swanson and others believed that by early 95 the suspect was dead, it would I suggest reference him RJP.

      For me, what may be important is that in February 94 Macnaghten says his Kosminski is alive, yet by early 95, he is dead.
      Did something happen during that period?
      That's a rhetorical question.

      Steve

      Comment


      • #33
        Or if Cohen (anglicized) was Kosminski, he was dead by that time as well.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
          Or if Cohen (anglicized) was Kosminski, he was dead by that time as well.
          Fair point Scott.
          Or if "Kosminski" was an unknown to us Kosminski.


          Steve

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

            Yes, it would have Monty. He tells us as much. Somehow the suspect's family was able to throw a wrench into the works. Sir Bob would have been better off as a police commissioner in France.
            Exactly. You can see his frustration as a barrister.

            However, he is no policeman. Claiming the graffiti as a ‘clew’ makes clear his liability to jump to hopeful assumption.

            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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

              I disagree John, hearsay would be Swanson or Abberline saying they had been told there was an Identification.
              There do not say that, they very clearly say there was an identification, or which they were personally aware.
              I suppose it's down to ones definition of hearsay.

              Steve
              Swanson merely clarifies who was the subject of the identification parade Anderson describes, he doesn’t conclude on the basis of that identification.

              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by Monty View Post

                Swanson merely clarifies who was the subject of the identification parade Anderson describes, he doesn’t conclude on the basis of that identification.

                Monty
                I interpret it as personal knowledge of the Identification, which to me is not hearsay, but it's something to which we have no conclusive answer.
                But that's simply my view.

                Steve

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                  I interpret it as personal knowledge of the Identification, which to me is not hearsay, but it's something to which we have no conclusive answer.
                  But that's simply my view.

                  Steve
                  And unless Anderson or Swanson was present at that ID parade what they said or wrote after that is hearsay.

                  And what puzzles me about this mythical ID parade is the fact that we have no evidence from anyone directly involved in the setting up of the parade or how the parade was conducted. An Inspector or above would have no doubt been responsible for organising the parade and for the running of the parade yet we see no evidence from any police officers who would have to have been directly involved in later years.

                  It reads like a direct confrontation which irrespective of the final outcome would have been of very little evidential value as there were guidelines in place to ensure fairness to the suspect see below extract from Sir Howard Vincent Victorian police codes on identifications
                  (a) The officer in charge of the case against the prisoner, although present, should take no part in the particular proceedings connected with the identification, which should be carried out by the officer on duty in charge of the station or court.
                  (b) The witnesses should not be allowed to see the accused before he is placed with others for the purpose of identification, nor should they be shown photographs of him or verbal or written descriptions.
                  (c) The accused should be placed among a number of persons (not police)—eight or more, of similar age, height, general appearance, and class of life. He should be invited to stand where he pleases among them, and to change his position after each witness has been called in. He should be asked if he has any objection to any of the persons present, or the arrangements made, and, if he wishes, his solicitor or a friend actually in attendance may be allowed to be present.
                  (d) The witnesses should be brought in one by one, and be directed to touch the person they identify. On leaving they should not be allowed to communicate with any other witness in waiting.
                  (e) Every circumstance attending the identification should be carefully noted by the officer carrying it out, and whether the accused be identified or not, care being taken that when a witness fails to identify the fact should be as carefully recorded with name and address as in the contrary case—the object being that no subsequent allegation of unfairness can lie.
                  (f) Any statement made by the person suspected must be recorded at once and read over to the officer in charge of the case in the presence of the prisoner, who should be invited to sign it.
                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-10-2023, 10:58 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    And unless Anderson or Swanson was present at that ID parade what they said or wrote thereafter is hearsay

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    If they were we cannot know, but I suspect Anderson certainly wasn't.
                    So an official report of such, including not only the result of the ID, but details of travel arrangements, fares, possible costs, which they may have authorised would be hearsay?

                    Of course we do not know the answers to any of that.
                    But the trend of some to dismiss the comments always amuses

                    Steve

                    Last edited by Elamarna; 01-10-2023, 10:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                      Hi John,

                      I would like to list circumstances, some of them may or may not be connected to Kosminski,


                      1. The Bell Club incident

                      2. The 1887 incident with "Aaron Abrahams

                      3. The Batty street incident

                      4. The Crawford Letter

                      5. Had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class

                      6. Had strong homicidal tendencies

                      7. Schizophrenic, delusional, paranoid and incoherent, sexually insane

                      8. Declared that he is guided and his movements altogether controlled by an instinct that informs his mind

                      9. Took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister

                      10. A Kosminski family lived in the Brunswick buildings on Goulston Street.



                      We of course don't have now the Police file on Kosminski, but those are some bold lines of his profile.

                      Add the 2 identifications to the list, then you have arguably a strong police suspect.​


                      The Baron
                      Hey Baron,

                      Have you changed your prime suspect then? I had you down as favouring Koz as the ripper but noticed this on another thread:

                      03-24-2021, 09:49 PM

                      According to this:

                      From the lower end of the wound opening into the abdomen, on the left side were several superficial cuts little more than penetrating the cuticle, and running down to the pubis. Running downwards from the centre of the pubis to the outer side of the left labium was an incised wound 2 inches in length penetrating the skin and fat. On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle.

                      Bury is the suspect #1

                      With that above, his suspect status outweighs all other suspects combined

                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                        Hey Baron,

                        Have you changed your prime suspect then? I had you down as favouring Koz as the ripper but noticed this on another thread:

                        03-24-2021, 09:49 PM

                        According to this:

                        From the lower end of the wound opening into the abdomen, on the left side were several superficial cuts little more than penetrating the cuticle, and running down to the pubis. Running downwards from the centre of the pubis to the outer side of the left labium was an incised wound 2 inches in length penetrating the skin and fat. On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle.

                        Bury is the suspect #1

                        With that above, his suspect status outweighs all other suspects combined

                        The Baron


                        Hi Wulf,

                        It all goes down to the Mckenzie murder and the witnesses.

                        The wounds similarity in those two cases is astonishing, it is just not enough for me to change my mind.

                        You would notice, that some posters use the same argument of the wound's similarity in order to push the theory that the Whitechapel murders and the torsos are the work of one individual.

                        But if you feel that Mckenzie was not a ripper victim, and the identification is doubtful or didn't take place, then Bury will stand out as the strongest suspect of course.


                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                          Hi Wulf,

                          It all goes down to the Mckenzie murder and the witnesses.

                          The wounds similarity in those two cases is astonishing, it is just not enough for me to change my mind.

                          You would notice, that some posters use the same argument of the wound's similarity in order to push the theory that the Whitechapel murders and the torsos are the work of one individual.

                          But if you feel that Mckenzie was not a ripper victim, and the identification is doubtful or didn't take place, then Bury will stand out as the strongest suspect of course.


                          The Baron
                          Fair enough. I've always been skeptical about Koz as a solid suspect, but the comments on a possible ID are there so he is, I suppose, I decent candidate, although I will always favour the suspect that actually carried out a murder mutilation and was both in the east end and Whitechapel at the right time. I also find the various witness descriptions of a medium to short man with dark hair, swarthy/sallow complexion and fair mustache interesting. I just find it a large coincidence that this evil man, who so closely fits the FBI profile of the killer, was part of the Whitechapel scene at the right time. The info that Norman Hastings uncovered about Bury's whereabouts and police opinion (though clearly not of the top brass) are also interesting.

                          On Koz, what do you make of the GSG? I find it inconceivable that the apron and GSG aren't connected, yet the message seems to be from someone with a grudge/prejudice against the Jews, and brought to the forefront of his mind by the Schwartz incident. I can't see that squaring with a Jewish suspect.

                          Also, I don't think JTR was some evil genius, but there seems to be a certain level of cunning and guile used in these murders, yet Koz sounds like a bit of an idiot. Although Bury was indeed a total s**t, he is said to have been 'very intelligent'.

                          Torsos - I can't see how the torsos and body parts scattered across the east end are similar IMO.

                          McK - there was some recent discussion that her main abdominal injuries were just scratches. The wounds between ripper victims and EB match more closely than compared to McK IMO.
                          Last edited by Aethelwulf; 01-11-2023, 03:45 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                            .

                            On Koz, what do you make of the GSG? I find it inconceivable that the apron and GSG aren't connected, yet the message seems to be from someone with a grudge/prejudice against the Jews, and brought to the forefront of his mind by the Schwartz incident. I can't see that squaring with a Jewish suspect.


                            According to historian Philip Sugden there are at least three permissible interpretations of the graffiti: All three are feasible, not one capable of proof.”

                            -The first is that the writing was not the work of the murderer at all, the apron piece was dropped near the writing either incidentally or by design.

                            This is of course doesn't rule a jew suspect out.

                            -The second would be to “take the murderer at his word”—a Jew incriminating himself and his people.

                            This is the interpretation I choose.

                            -The third interpretation was, according to Sugden, The chalk message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.

                            Again, this means the message's words do incriminate the jew.


                            Bury is a strong suspect, but when you have a witness pointing to someone else, no amounts of crimes are enough to make Bury a better suspect, and above this, another crime did take place in Whitechapel after Bury had died.



                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                              According to historian Philip Sugden there are at least three permissible interpretations of the graffiti: All three are feasible, not one capable of proof.”

                              -The first is that the writing was not the work of the murderer at all, the apron piece was dropped near the writing either incidentally or by design.

                              This is of course doesn't rule a jew suspect out.

                              -The second would be to “take the murderer at his word”—a Jew incriminating himself and his people.

                              This is the interpretation I choose.

                              -The third interpretation was, according to Sugden, The chalk message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.

                              Again, this means the message's words do incriminate the jew.


                              Bury is a strong suspect, but when you have a witness pointing to someone else, no amounts of crimes are enough to make Bury a better suspect, and above this, another crime did take place in Whitechapel after Bury had died.



                              The Baron
                              the correct reading of the gsg is... the jews wont take the blame for anything.

                              written on the night when the ripper was interupted/seen by several jews that night, including one with a strong jewish appearance, whom he angrily yelled the jewish slur lipski at. The implication is obvious... the ripper was a gentile who was pissed off at all those pesky jews that night.

                              now that being said, koz is still a valid suspect. hes the only suspect with any possible evidence against him.. the ID. but bury is a much stronger suspect IMHO. if it just wasnt for that pesky McKenzie murder!
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                                According to historian Philip Sugden there are at least three permissible interpretations of the graffiti: All three are feasible, not one capable of proof.”

                                -The first is that the writing was not the work of the murderer at all, the apron piece was dropped near the writing either incidentally or by design.

                                This is of course doesn't rule a jew suspect out.

                                -The second would be to “take the murderer at his word”—a Jew incriminating himself and his people.

                                This is the interpretation I choose.

                                -The third interpretation was, according to Sugden, The chalk message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.

                                Again, this means the message's words do incriminate the jew.


                                Bury is a strong suspect, but when you have a witness pointing to someone else, no amounts of crimes are enough to make Bury a better suspect, and above this, another crime did take place in Whitechapel after Bury had died.



                                The Baron
                                Sugden may be a noted historian, but he has missed the most obvious meaning IMO, as per Abby's message above. A non Jew pissed off at Jews for some real or imagined petty grievance, and as I said, he is reminded of his grudge/prejudice by Schwartz.

                                On the graffiti subject, is there another crime scene with chalk messages with misspellings and grammatical error? And there is Bury again.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X