Why do you think Jack stopped?

[DVV]

Phew ! - sanity's back.

[The Good Michael]

Correct, Mike. And it may have something to do with people who are absolutely convinced there is nothing suspicious in Hutch's account, including the Sunday sighting, and with those who are absolutely convinced the signatures match.

No one is absolutely convinced of this.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Correct, Mike. And it may have something to do with people who are absolutely convinced there is nothing suspicious in Hutch's account, including the Sunday sighting, and with those who are absolutely convinced the signatures match.

Dave.
Every situation begins from a default position. Hutchinson's default position is as a witness who assisted police and passed scrutiny by Abberline.
Being "convinced" of anything to the contrary requires stepping away from the default position.

It is precisely because absolutes are being wrongfully used against him that this(ese) whole debate(s) began in the first place. Especially when his culpability relies on nothing more than "ifs", "buts" & "maybe's". Hutchinson is being wrongly fingered on what we "do not know" about him, not on what we do, which might have passed for justice by the Spanish Inquisition, or Salem Witch Trials, but not by educated thinkers of today.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

It's important for us all to avoid absolutes in these cases while trying to remain logical. This is difficult to do as witnessed in Hutchinson threads.

Mike

Correct, Mike. And it may have something to do with people who are absolutely convinced there is nothing suspicious in Hutch's account, including the Sunday sighting, and with those who are absolutely convinced the signatures match.

[The Good Michael]

Correct Dave, but I admit Mike rightly pulled me up.

So on that basis I "believe" Kosminski was not suspected.

Jon,

Thanks for that. I agree that by current evidence (which is nothing, really), Kosminski was most likely not suspected at the time. I do think it's possible he was looked at along with hundreds of others. I don't know, however. It's important for us all to avoid absolutes in these cases while trying to remain logical. This is difficult to do as witnessed in Hutchinson threads.

Mike

Mike

[Wickerman]

All right, Mike, but I guess Jon meant "he wasn't a suspect as later intended by Anderson", and I suspect he was speaking in a "there is no evidence that he was already a suspect" mode, as we all often do.

Correct Dave, but I admit Mike rightly pulled me up.
I was considering that because both Anderson & Swanson had ample opportunity to make reference to Kosminski "being suspected at the time" if it had been true. A fact, no doubt, which would have bolstered Anderson's claim, like I said, "if it had been true".
An opportunity Anderson would surely not have let slip by. I mean, he did want people to think he was right, didn't he. So any reference to picking up Kosminski in October or November would have just allowed him to add a subtle "I told you so"-type footnote.

So on that basis I "believe" Kosminski was not suspected.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

All right, Mike, but I guess Jon meant "he wasn't a suspect as later intended by Anderson", and I suspect he was speaking in a "there is no evidence that he was already a suspect" mode, as we all often do.
But well, I take your point, it's just that I have some time to kill waiting for my girlfriend.

[The Good Michael]

Ok, Mike, we don't "know", but Jon is quite right on this. Chances are that he wasn't suspected at the time of the murders (C5 I mean).
At best, as you said, he might have been brought in for questioning, like hundreds of other guys. Who knows ? So many would have been brought in and cleared within half an hour. This is hardly relevant and doesn't make him a prime suspect watched day and night, nor even a suspect, I believe.

David,

I agree that it isn't probable he was a suspect at the time. But Jon said, 'Suspected' and he said he absolutely wasn't. I don't like absolutes so I called him on it, and I'm sure he'll agree that it was the wrong thing to have said.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

I took it to mean a near relation (in contrast to a distant relation), such as a brother or a sister.

-Ginger

Yes, Ginger. 'Nearly related' is just Victorian speak for closely related.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

You don't know this. You believe this. You don't know all the people that were brought in for questioning. You don't know that name of the person who was under surveillance. No one knows.

Mike

Ok, Mike, we don't "know", but Jon is quite right on this. Chances are that he wasn't suspected at the time of the murders (C5 I mean).
At best, as you said, he might have been brought in for questioning, like hundreds of other guys. Who knows ? So many would have been brought in and cleared within half an hour. This is hardly relevant and doesn't make him a prime suspect watched day and night, nor even a suspect, I believe.

[The Good Michael]

We must not forget Kosminski was not suspected at the time of the murders.

You don't know this. You believe this. You don't know all the people that were brought in for questioning. You don't know that name of the person who was under surveillance. No one knows.

Mike

[Beowulf]

I took it to mean a near relation (in contrast to a distant relation), such as a brother or a sister.

-Ginger

Why didn't I see this? Yes. That would make sense. Just a strange phrasing there.

[Ginger]

Yes, 'nearly related' is a crazy statement, even for the 1800s, when they called women's legs 'limbs' because they did not want to get too suggestive...

I think that statement might mean she was married into the family, or perhaps she was a half sister, but what difference does my opinion mean, it cannot reflect a fact, and so it remains ambiguous.

I took it to mean a near relation (in contrast to a distant relation), such as a brother or a sister.

-Ginger

[Beowulf]

Had the letter been dated it would have helped immensely.


I guess we are left to wonder what "nearly related" is supposed to mean.

We must not forget Kosminski was not suspected at the time of the murders. So if the letter had anything to do with Kosminski's first visit in July 1890 to the Mile End Infirmary then the woman can hardly have been too worried, almost 2 years after the last murder (Kelly).

On the other hand, if Anderson truely thought this was a lead worth pursuing, it would have been taken up by Scotland Yard, which then leaves us wondering why Kosminski was taken to Mile End by his brother and not a detective, or some official, or doctor, and even then, released.

Regards, Jon S.

Yes, 'nearly related' is a crazy statement, even for the 1800s, when they called women's legs 'limbs' because they did not want to get too suggestive...

I think that statement might mean she was married into the family, or perhaps she was a half sister, but what difference does my opinion mean, it cannot reflect a fact, and so it remains ambiguous.

This is the real statement that blows me away, "...if the letter had anything to do with Kosminski's first visit in July 1890 to the Mile End Infirmary then the woman can hardly have been too worried, almost 2 years after the last murder (Kelly)."

Oh, darn. Logic. Makes for a very good point.

As for why was he not taken to Mile End by a brother and not a detective, well, supposedly because it was to diffuse the fuse, so as not to cause an uproar with the rabble.

[lynn cates]

not brash

Hello Jon. Did you say brash or spot on?

Cheers.
LC