Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Home office report

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    To Pirate

    Fair enough you do not agree about the disparity between the pantomime aspect and the flat conclusion.
    No. But then I grew up on Dixon of Dock Green, and my step dad was an ex-copper. So it just reads like police speak to me.

    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post

    But could not Swanson's notations in Anderson's book all come from Anderson? The latter reminisced, and Swanson later recorded those comments. That still makes them Swanson's additions, with Anderson as his source -- for Anderson's book.
    The answer to that is 'I dont know'. However I think it unlikely. Swanson was a caney and clever man in charge of the case. I think, personally that Anderson was visited by Matilda and Anderson asked Swanson to sort it out for him and keep it quite.

    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    For example, Swanson asked for clarification about the hoax letter, he asked for clarification about the police official disturbed about a threatening letter, and he asked for clarification about the Polish Jew who was positively identified ... but when -- before or after he was sectioned into a madhouse?
    Firstly I'm not certain he asked for clarification, he was in charge, he was the man to ask? But Before or after works on the premise that someone is insane and stays insane. Schizophrenia doesnt work like that, its a cyclicur illness.

    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    And what happened to that 'suspect'?

    Oh, he died 'soon after' in the asylum.

    At that moment, Swanson remembered whom this must be.
    Unless Swanson was correct and Kosminski went into a Private asylum in 1889? which would tie in with claims made by Harry Cox.

    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    It must be the suspect 'Kosminski' (first name lost) who first came to their attention via Macnaghten in 1895, and who could not recall his first name.
    I personally don't think MacNaughten new diddly squat.

    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    Macnaghten, the officer who turned to jelly over the letter, had discovered this suspect from some 1888 search list, and that he was 'safely caged', and that his family 'suspected the worst', and that he had attacked a female member of his family, and that he hated harlots, and that he had worked in a Polish hospital, and that he masturbated like there was no tomorrow.
    Personally I think Anderson met the suspect and witnessed him Masterbating and was shocked. I'm not convinced Aaron Kosminski was a compulsive masterbator. Schizophrenics tend to have a low sex drive. Its possible his hormones went out of control durring psychotic attacks, but thats just guess work on my part I'm afraid?

    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    Even now, in 1910, Anderson in front of Swanson zeroed in on the chronic masturbation, the 'unmentionable vices', as evidence of the Ripper's brutish disposition.

    This Polish Jew, apparently dead 'soon after' being sectioned, was the man to whom Swanson alluded, in 1895, in the aftermath of a successful identifiication of Grant, as the man seen with the victim Eddowes, by a Jewish witness --a breakthrough which went nowhere.
    Now your confusing me...Who is Grant? When was he seen with Eddows?

    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    For if Swanson had been given a date about all this, say Feb 7th 1891 for 'Kosminski's incarceration, and he recalled that Frances Coles was killed a few days later, then he would have known that the tale was some kind of scrambled egg?!.
    Yes I agree. And he didnt. He clearly describes a completely different incident in great detail. The suspect taken with difficulty to 'the seaside Home' he new he was recognised, the witness (also a jew) refused to give evidence.

    The witness I beleive was Schwartz who witnessed the murder of Liz Stride and had very good sight of BSM.

    Aaron Kosminski lived only yards from this murder in Green Feild Street...I've walked it in about 2-3 minutes. Aaron Kosminski a man who occupied several premises in the east end and from time to time became insane.

    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    The lack of dates (giving the impression that this is taking place much earlier than 1891) is not just a missing element, it is what makes the tale possible if not plausible.
    Dates are easily forgotten and confused. The story of a positive identification is Not.

    Pirate
    Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 06-18-2011, 12:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Pirate, I am referring to the arrest and investigation of William Grant (aka Grainger) for the assault, with a knife, on a prostitue in the East End, and the police thinking he might be the fiend.

      One newspaper refers to him being seen by a witness, who must be Lawende as it is the 'Jack the Sailor' description with Eddowes.

      Apparently and remarkably the witness said 'yes', and yet it went nowhere. In the same issue Swanson is quoted -- out of the blue -- about a dead chief suspect.

      I theorize this is when Mac deployed 'Kosminski' unrecognizeable to the real Aaron Kosminski as he was redacted back into the 1888 investigation, and his incarceration in early 1889, and he was supposedly deceased.

      You see it is too much of a coincidence for me; a Jewish witness who said 'yes' (Grant) and it went nowhere (the same Jewish witness having said 'no' to Sadler four years before) and in another alleged incident with a Polish Jew suspect, a Jewish witness who said yes and no and it went nowhere ...

      That is why I believe the Anderson tale is the mythological version-fusion of Lawende, Sadler/Grant, with the first sailor being 'confronted' a few days after a Kosminski had been sectioned, and a few days after that another young and pretty harlot had been brutally killed.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
        Pirate, I am referring to the arrest and investigation of William Grant (aka Grainger) for the assault, with a knife, on a prostitue in the East End, and the police thinking he might be the fiend.

        One newspaper refers to him being seen by a witness, who must be Lawende as it is the 'Jack the Sailor' description with Eddowes.

        Apparently and remarkably the witness said 'yes', and yet it went nowhere. In the same issue Swanson is quoted -- out of the blue -- about a dead chief suspect.

        I theorize this is when Mac deployed 'Kosminski' unrecognizeable to the real Aaron Kosminski as he was redacted back into the 1888 investigation, and his incarceration in early 1889, and he was supposedly deceased.

        You see it is too much of a coincidence for me; a Jewish witness who said 'yes' (Grant) and it went nowhere (the same Jewish witness having said 'no' to Sadler four years before) and in another alleged incident with a Polish Jew suspect, a Jewish witness who said yes and no and it went nowhere ...

        That is why I believe the Anderson tale is the mythological version-fusion of Lawende, Sadler/Grant, with the first sailor being 'confronted' a few days after a Kosminski had been sectioned, and a few days after that another young and pretty harlot had been brutally killed.
        Well i've check the entry on Grant in the A to Z...this incident doesnt take place until 1895...And grant looks nothing like the man described by Schwartz or Lawende...

        Actually at 5' 10'' hes a better fit for Pipeman..

        Certain doesnt match Mrs Longs suspect...

        You seem to be making your confusion theory more and more complicated.

        I really dont think Swanson would have confused this case. He investigated hundreds why this one in particular?

        He was training with the Cork City Artillary in 1888 which surely provides an alibi? (at least for Tabram and Nichols)

        Yours Jeff
        Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 06-18-2011, 03:30 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          No, no, you're quite confused, mate.

          I know it took place in 1895 -- that is what I keep writing -- which shows how Swanson and Anderson were not certain as to the true identity of the fiend to be still investigating Ripper suspects with Ripper witnesses, well the witness in Lawende.

          If Lawende had already said yes and no to Kosminski why is being wheeled out for this gentile sailor so many years later -- to whom he says yes by the way. Ahh, but you think the key witness was Schwartz. Then why are they not using him?

          And you call my theory (actually a variation on Evans and Rumbelow) confusing ...?

          The grant episode makes it very unlikely that Anderson knew the slightest thing about a Polish Jew suspect.

          For example, Griffiths under his pseudonym Alfred Aylmer in 1896, wrote that there was some speculation at the Yard about a man with two distinct personalities -- but there was not a shred of evidence for such a belief.

          So much for a slam dunk witness identification!

          When Griffiths would shift ground in 1898 towards just such a Jekyll-and-Hyde solution (he calls it 'probable') it will be about the un-named Druitt not the un-named 'Kosminski', at that point still bereft of a witness identification, though we can see the strands being woven towards such a myth with him being possibly seen by a beat cop with the fourth victim.

          After this acute disappointment with Grant, Swenason makes his commect about a deceased chief suspect. This could refer to Druitt, but I think it more likely refers to a fictionalized version of 'Kosminski' -- which we know first emerged in Mac's Report the previous year.

          William Grant is a perfect fit for Lawende's 'Jack the Sailor', except for the tattoos and scars. That is presumably why the witness affirmed, if the newspaper has that detail correct (if only we had a photo of Druitt from 1888 and one of Grant -- would they be virtual twins?)

          I am not for a moment suggesting that Grant was 'Jack the Ripper', despite his indiscreet lawyer thinking so, and saying so, in public, years later (he wrongly thought this suspect was deceased too?)

          I do not think Swanson muddled any of this up, as I keep writing much good it does me.

          I think that later, much later, Anderson's memory muddled this all up.

          When Swanson recorded his ex-chief's account he wrote that 'Kosminski was the suspect' because the one detail he recognized from that scrambled egg was that this suspect was deceased soon after the final murder -- which Aaron Kosminski wasn't anyhow.

          At the time, Abberline, Reid, Smith, Anderson and Swanson (though his opinion, if it was his opinion, remained private) were sources all crushed under the wheels of Mac's 'Drowned Doctor' juggernaut. It is a modern revision that this was an entirely empty chariot, and that it was these flattened and battered sources which deserve to be rescued, nursed back to health and treated with greater reverence.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            No, no, you're quite confused, mate.

            I know it took place in 1895 -- that is what I keep writing -- which shows how Swanson and Anderson were not certain as to the true identity of the fiend to be still investigating Ripper suspects with Ripper witnesses, well the witness in Lawende.

            If Lawende had already said yes and no to Kosminski why is being wheeled out for this gentile sailor so many years later -
            Absolutely Absolutely. Paul Begg has been pointing this out for years and been ignored. Lawende would not have been used again in the Sadler ID (I dont know where Lawende is named in the Grant ID)

            However yes yes yes....Lawende WAS NOT THE WITNESS! I agree...

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            - to whom he says yes by the way. Ahh, but you think the key witness was Schwartz. Then why are they not using him?
            Um Now this is a hard one? Lets think shall we Jonathon, lets just stop for five seconds running away with wild theories and think about what your saying here...

            WHY WOULD THEY NOT USE SCHWARTZ?

            Um very difficult.....Oh yes Schwartz had already made a positive ID hadnt he? So why use him again?

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            And you call my theory (actually a variation on Evans and Rumbelow) confusing ...?.
            Your theory is complicated and confusing. It also relies on Anderson being muddled, confused and forgetful. A premise you make on one incident when late at night and tierd, he confused two cases. It also ignors the fact that Anderson was known to have kept a diary.

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            The grant episode makes it very unlikely that Anderson knew the slightest thing about a Polish Jew suspect.

            For example, Griffiths under his pseudonym Alfred Aylmer in 1896, wrote that there was some speculation at the Yard about a man with two distinct personalities -- but there was not a shred of evidence for such a belief.

            So much for a slam dunk witness identification!
            Isnt there some doubt about Griffiths and Aylmer being the same person? They appear to have published in the same magazine the following year?

            And you still need to explain why Anderson would threaten has immortal soul and lie over such a trivial matter?

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            When Griffiths would shift ground in 1898 towards just such a Jekyll-and-Hyde solution (he calls it 'probable') it will be about the un-named Druitt not the un-named 'Kosminski', at that point still bereft of a witness identification, though we can see the strands being woven towards such a myth with him being possibly seen by a beat cop with the fourth victim..
            And? Anderson continued with his claim.

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            After this acute disappointment with Grant, Swenason makes his commect about a deceased chief suspect. This could refer to Druitt, but I think it more likely refers to a fictionalized version of 'Kosminski' -- which we know first emerged in Mac's Report the previous year..
            Swanson was in charge it was his duty to investigate any lead.

            He had 14 unsolved murders on the case file, are you saying that it never occured to Swanson that he may be looking for more than one person in connection with the file?

            Your hero Mcnaughten only connected five.

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            William Grant is a perfect fit for Lawende's 'Jack the Sailor', except for the tattoos and scars. That is presumably why the witness affirmed, if the newspaper has that detail correct (if only we had a photo of Druitt from 1888 and one of Grant -- would they be virtual twins?)
            Described as a tall and gaunt man and wild haggered-looking he was 5' 10'', with grey eyes, a pale complexion, black mostache and tattoes on his arms and hands....

            The only description this could possiby match is pipeman.

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            I am not for a moment suggesting that Grant was 'Jack the Ripper', despite his indiscreet lawyer thinking so, and saying so, in public, years later (he wrongly thought this suspect was deceased too?)

            I do not think Swanson muddled any of this up, as I keep writing much good it does me.
            No but your trying to make him Andersons patsie...and there is no evidence for this what so ever. Swanson was a shrude reliable copper. He simply made notes in the margin as he had done all his carrier.

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            I think that later, much later, Anderson's memory muddled this all up.
            There is no evidence for this apart from one incident long after he had started his caged lunatic story.

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            When Swanson recorded his ex-chief's account he wrote that 'Kosminski was the suspect' because the one detail he recognized from that scrambled egg was that this suspect was deceased soon after the final murder -- which Aaron Kosminski wasn't anyhow.
            Theres a scene in the life of Brian where a spaceship swoops down catches a falling Brian and takes him on an interstella space trip before crashing...

            Of course its NOT impossible.......but highly highly improbable.

            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            At the time, Abberline, Reid, Smith, Anderson and Swanson (though his opinion, if it was his opinion, remained private) were sources all crushed under the wheels of Mac's 'Drowned Doctor' juggernaut. It is a modern revision that this was an entirely empty chariot, and that it was these flattened and battered sources which deserve to be rescued, nursed back to health and treated with greater reverence.
            As suspects Kosminski is simply a better fit than Druit. What you require is evidence that Druit had a reason to only kill prostitutes in Whitechapel?

            Why? It doesnt make sense.

            Yours Pirate
            Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 06-19-2011, 01:44 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              As suspects Kosminski is simply a better fit than Druit. What you require is evidence that Druit had a reason to only kill prostitutes in Whitechapel?

              Is Kosminski a better fit? I am not sure we have anything but hearsay evidence against him.

              OK, he ended up in a mental institution/asylum, as MJD committed suicide - which could explain the end of the killings, BUT ONLY if the last murder was that of Kelly, or she was a JtR victim. But we have no evidence that places him at a crime scene, or in a mental state to commit the murders.

              He is mentioned by three policeman (Anderson, without naming him, Swanson, and MM). Swanson's annotations contain anomalies that we cannot explain and are related to Anderson's claims; MM mentions also Ostro, whom we now know is a non-rummer as a suspect (whereabouts and type of crimes he did). Which somewhat undermines any case against Kosminski - though he must, of course, remain a contemporary suspect.

              On Druitt - and I speak as a one-time Druittist - we have NOTHING but hearsay evidence (family) - no connection to the East End, no record of contemporary suspicion, no record that he was inclined to crime or murder - indeed, the opposite, a wholly conventional, cricket loving middle-class man.

              I say that, recognising that there may have been files at the time on AK or MJD, but we have not had sight of them, and thus must read the evidence we have - though of course, our analysis will change should new evidence come to light.

              Thus I do NOT believe we can assert that AK is a better fit than Druitt - neither man can be "fitted" against JtR in any real sense.


              Phil
              Last edited by Phil H; 06-19-2011, 04:01 PM. Reason: to clarify my conclusion.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                As suspects Kosminski is simply a better fit than Druit. What you require is evidence that Druit had a reason to only kill prostitutes in Whitechapel?

                Is Kosminski a better fit? I am not sure we have anything but hearsay evidence against him.

                OK, he ended up in a mental institution/asylum, as MJD committed suicide - which could explain the end of the killings, BUT ONLY if the last murder was that of Kelly, or she was a JtR victim. But we have no evidence that places him at a crime scene, or in a mental state to commit the murders.

                He is mentioned by three policeman (Anderson, without naming him, Swanson, and MM). Swanson's annotations contain anomalies that we cannot explain and are related to Anderson's claims; MM mentions also Ostro, whom we now know is a non-rummer as a suspect (whereabouts and type of crimes he did). Which somewhat undermines any case against Kosminski - though he must, of course, remain a contemporary suspect.

                On Druitt - and I speak as a one-time Druittist - we have NOTHING but hearsay evidence (family) - no connection to the East End, no record of contemporary suspicion, no record that he was inclined to crime or murder - indeed, the opposite, a wholly conventional, cricket loving middle-class man.

                I say that, recognising that there may have been files at the time on AK or MJD, but we have not had sight of them, and thus must read the evidence we have - though of course, our analysis will change should new evidence come to light.

                Thus I do NOT believe we can assert that AK is a better fit than Druitt - neither man can be "fitted" against JtR in any real sense.

                Phil
                I think your slightly missing my reasoning..

                Yes we have both Druit and Kosminski mentioned by contempary policeman. So hopefully you except they are credible suspects.

                However I was talking about Druit and Kosminski as possible JtR matches in there own right.

                Kosminski is a local man...it seems reasonable to conclude Jack worked on foot. In a recent analysis of Kosminski's case notes Dr Lars Davidson concluded that he was probably suffering from Hebophenic Schizophrenia an illness that attacks the sufferer in waves known as Psychotic episodes usually 16-18 in length. He lives in a number of family premises, brother of a wealthy Tailoring family. probably Green feild street in 1888....(Walk to the top of Greenfeild street cross Whitechapel High road and your quickly on Old Montigue street.....the linking point of the whitechapel murders).

                It seems probable that the JtR murders were opportunistic, random acts taking extreme chances. A far better match for a psychotic serial killer than the planned psychopath.

                A local man, who would know the area, who would fit in unnoticed.

                Druit on the other hand is a travelling serial killer, he comes from Blackheath and heads to Whitchappel...why?
                His nearest station is Cannon Street, his nearest source of pray is Elephant and Castle. If he was JtR surely we would have a wider spread of kills with Cannon Street the epicentre?
                Druit doesnt fit the witness descriptions particularly well. And would sure have been conspicuous on Whitechapel streets?

                So although its it much to go on, I'll stand by my claim that on paper Kosminski seems the more probable of the two suspects.

                Pirate

                Comment


                • #53
                  Yes we have both Druit and Kosminski mentioned by contempary policeman. So hopefully you except they are credible suspects.

                  No - not if the word "credible" is properly used.

                  they are as you say, both mentioned by policemen serving in the 1890s, but one of those (MM) was NOT in post at the time of the "canonical 5" (his term!) and there is no evidence 9at least that survives that points a finger at them until after the murder.

                  At best I would call both "contemporary suspects" - but no more. ostrog has the same credentials - are you arguing he too is now a "credible" suspect?

                  However I was talking about Druit and Kosminski as possible JtR matches in there own right.

                  So why raise the first point?

                  Kosminski is a local man...it seems reasonable to conclude Jack worked on foot.

                  Was "Kosminski" as named by DSS, AARON KOSMINSKI? If you think so PROVE IT.

                  But even if we accept that Kosminski means AK, then the second half of your sentence remains an assumption. A reasonable one, I grant you, but its speculation. "Jack" could have come from outside the area and still done the murders on foot, could he not?

                  In a recent analysis of Kosminski's case notes Dr Lars Davidson concluded that he was probably suffering from Hebophenic Schizophrenia an illness that attacks the sufferer in waves known as Psychotic episodes usually 16-18 in length.

                  Sorry, not really interested in modern diagnoses of a man who may not be our suspect anyway. However qualified, it remains Dr Davidson's opinion, does it not?

                  He lives in a number of family premises, brother of a wealthy Tailoring family. probably Green feild street in 1888....(Walk to the top of Greenfeild street cross Whitechapel High road and your quickly on Old Montigue street.....the linking point of the whitechapel murders).

                  I know all that, but it is simply circumstantial - we don't know he did it. An awful lot of people lived in the east End, many of whom have been viewed as potential suspects by some and some on better evidence than AK.

                  A local man, who would know the area, who would fit in unnoticed.

                  there were 10s of 1,000s of people to whom that would apply. the East End was probably the most densely populated area of London in 1888.

                  Druit on the other hand is a travelling serial killer, he comes from Blackheath and heads to Whitchappel...why?

                  Tell me, you are now questioning a suspect you want to dismiss by opposing exactly the sort of arguments that you support (it seems 0 for AK)!! Years ago it was argued that MJD had links to the East End (Minories), these were later shown to be wrong - but who knows he might have had "digs" in Whitechapel!!

                  His nearest station is Cannon Street, his nearest source of pray is Elephant and Castle. If he was JtR surely we would have a wider spread of kills with Cannon Street the epicentre?

                  What a strange argument - WE do not have a scrap of evidence to link MJD with ANY mirders, or even the desire to murder. Only MM did, if there was any beyond hearsay.

                  Druit doesnt fit the witness descriptions particularly well. And would sure have been conspicuous on Whitechapel streets?

                  But if it were shown that MM's evidence was strong - say if a file emerged - we'd all be amazed that MJD managed to pull it off. What a strange argument you promote - one could equally argue that none of the facts known about AK fit him to be the Ripper either.

                  So although its it much to go on, I'll stand by my claim that on paper Kosminski seems the more probable of the two suspects.

                  That is just patent illogic. Any case against either man you named is circumstantial and based on hearsay. That you have a PREFERENCE is fine, but don't dress it up as scientific or evidence based when it clearly is not.

                  QED my point proved.

                  phil

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                    Glyn

                    It's debate and discussion that hones arguments and cases and makes them stronger. There's nothing to say that I am right!! I have no more idea of what's going on, perhaps less, than you do. We can only try to pull the facts we have together in a way that makes sense to us.

                    So I hope you'll go on flying kites here.

                    There are vested interests on this site - see the current one about the Nichols killing - who will desperately try to knock down anything that contradicts their own (usually over-intricate and wobbly - theory. You sometimes have to "shout" quite hard to make your voice heard, but my advice is PERSIST.

                    Phil
                    Thanks for the advice Phil,I guess there are "vested interests" in evidence here,but theres nothing wrong with a little passion.As for Druitt, I get a vague impression that some here,or at least in "Ripperworld" generally,know far more about Druitt than they are willing to admit.I find it inconceivable to think that the surviving Druitt family havent been "grilled"(for want of a better world) by someone. Maybe answers have been given,on condition of silence,I have no way of knowing. Again no evidence to support this,just a feeling.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                      Was "Kosminski" as named by DSS, AARON KOSMINSKI? If you think so PROVE IT.
                      I find it a bit difficult to know what people expect when they say things like this. An obvious approach to identifying Swanson's "Kosminski" would be to search the Colney Hatch admissions register from someone with that surname. Of course, that's been done and there is only one.

                      Sceptics can certainly respond by saying "But maybe Swanson got the name of the asylum wrong" or "But maybe 'Kosminski' was admitted under a different surname." But that doesn't seem a particularly rational response to me. I think it would be better if they could explain the grounds for their scepticism in the first place - or better still produce a reference to an alternative candidate from any one of the records in which he should be mentioned.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Chris - I agree with what you say. My remark, which you highlighted, needs to be seen in the context of Pirate's post. He was comparing Druitt and Kosminski as suspects.

                        My point was simply that Swanson does not mention a first/forename for his Kosminski, and the details he gives do not wholly tally with what we know of Aaron's life. That DSS is talking about Aaron, I personally do not doubt for a moment, but we cannot PROVE it 100%, thus (IMHO) we should make an assumption without noting the element of doubt.

                        MM got details of MJD wrong too - but I have not a hesitation in thinking that he was talking about Monty.

                        In my discussion with Pirate, I was simply seeking to show that there are uncertainties in both the suspects he mentioned, and their suitability - no matter how much we discuss it here - is at present circumstantial.

                        I hope that explains why I wrote what I did - if explanation were needed?

                        Phil

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          Yes we have both Druit and Kosminski mentioned by contempary policeman. So hopefully you except they are credible suspects.

                          No - not if the word "credible" is properly used.
                          What as in credible ripperologist?

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          they are as you say, both mentioned by policemen serving in the 1890s, but one of those (MM) was NOT in post at the time of the "canonical 5" (his term!) and there is no evidence 9at least that survives that points a finger at them until after the murder.

                          At best I would call both "contemporary suspects" - but no more. ostrog has the same credentials - are you arguing he too is now a "credible" suspect?
                          Are you arguing that Prince Eddie or James Maybrick was JtR?

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          However I was talking about Druit and Kosminski as possible JtR matches in there own right.

                          So why raise the first point?
                          Which first point Phil? I simply stated that as Suspects AK seems a better fit than MJD. And I provided fairly solid reasoning for that conclusion.

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          Kosminski is a local man...it seems reasonable to conclude Jack worked on foot.

                          Was "Kosminski" as named by DSS, AARON KOSMINSKI? If you think so PROVE IT.
                          Why have you come across another possibility in the record base?

                          Retorical. No you havent

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          But even if we accept that Kosminski means AK, then the second half of your sentence remains an assumption. A reasonable one, I grant you, but its speculation. "Jack" could have come from outside the area and still done the murders on foot, could he not?
                          Well yes he could have done. But we do have examples of other serial killers. And while there are examples of serial killers tralling to a specific area or club to pick up victims, they are the exception to the rule.

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          In a recent analysis of Kosminski's case notes Dr Lars Davidson concluded that he was probably suffering from Hebophenic Schizophrenia an illness that attacks the sufferer in waves known as Psychotic episodes usually 16-18 in length.

                          Sorry, not really interested in modern diagnoses of a man who may not be our suspect anyway. However qualified, it remains Dr Davidson's opinion, does it not?
                          OK we'll just through all expert opinion out the window and make it all up as we go along.

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          He lives in a number of family premises, brother of a wealthy Tailoring family. probably Green feild street in 1888....(Walk to the top of Greenfeild street cross Whitechapel High road and your quickly on Old Montigue street.....the linking point of the whitechapel murders).

                          I know all that, but it is simply circumstantial - we don't know he did it. An awful lot of people lived in the east End, many of whom have been viewed as potential suspects by some and some on better evidence than AK.
                          Well i cant think of any, who did you have in mind the elephant man?

                          Surely what we are doing here is considering the viability of a suspect.

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          A local man, who would know the area, who would fit in unnoticed.

                          there were 10s of 1,000s of people to whom that would apply. the East End was probably the most densely populated area of London in 1888.
                          Yes but my piont was that it didnt apply to Druit where as it does to AK. Admittedly hardly damn in itself. What we are considering is the weight of evidence. Even though in both cases there is not a lot (although better than most)

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          Druit on the other hand is a travelling serial killer, he comes from Blackheath and heads to Whitchappel...why?

                          Tell me, you are now questioning a suspect you want to dismiss by opposing exactly the sort of arguments that you support (it seems 0 for AK)!! Years ago it was argued that MJD had links to the East End (Minories), these were later shown to be wrong - but who knows he might have had "digs" in Whitechapel!!
                          We do know that AK's family were in Greenfeild street and at the time of teh murders MJD was in Blackheath.

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          His nearest station is Cannon Street, his nearest source of pray is Elephant and Castle. If he was JtR surely we would have a wider spread of kills with Cannon Street the epicentre?

                          What a strange argument - WE do not have a scrap of evidence to link MJD with ANY mirders, or even the desire to murder. Only MM did, if there was any beyond hearsay.
                          No its only strange to a complete dig bat. To everyone else it seems perfectly logical that if Druit were JtR it seems more feesable to have had a wide spread of kills....the logic for this is simply that prostitution was common in many parts of London not just Whitchapel

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          Druit doesnt fit the witness descriptions particularly well. And would sure have been conspicuous on Whitechapel streets?

                          But if it were shown that MM's evidence was strong - say if a file emerged - we'd all be amazed that MJD managed to pull it off. What a strange argument you promote - one could equally argue that none of the facts known about AK fit him to be the Ripper either.
                          You could try and argue that Phil but you'd look pretty silly...but I'm game for a laugh if you are

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          So although its it much to go on, I'll stand by my claim that on paper Kosminski seems the more probable of the two suspects.

                          That is just patent illogic. Any case against either man you named is circumstantial and based on hearsay. That you have a PREFERENCE is fine, but don't dress it up as scientific or evidence based when it clearly is not.

                          QED my point proved.

                          phil
                          Kosminski was the suspect

                          Pirate

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            As for Druitt, I get a vague impression that some here,or at least in "Ripperworld" generally,know far more about Druitt than they are willing to admit.

                            Frankly, I doubt it. If someone had managed to obtain such information, a means would have been found to publish it - the possible financial rewards are too great (probably not enormous, but I'm sure someone with some really hot new information would find a publisher soon enough).

                            I find it inconceivable to think that the surviving Druitt family havent been "grilled"(for want of a better world) by someone.

                            You maybe right, but without written/documentary support it would remain hearsay. Family "oral" history may be interesting, but it could be challenged.

                            People will sometimes (often?) hint at knowledge they do not have, or which is simply an extrapolation from existing information made to sound more interesting. As far as I am aware the most recent Druitt stuff relates to his old school (where I seem to recall some new pictures of MJD were found) and the connection between what a Dorset MP was saying and MJD.

                            But all the MM, MP. MJD links are simply suppositional.

                            What proof could the family hold - a hitherto unrevealed suicide note and confession? MJD's bloody overcoat and hunting knife? Otherwise it would just be rumour.

                            Phil

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Chris View Post
                              I find it a bit difficult to know what people expect when they say things like this. An obvious approach to identifying Swone. Sceptics can certainly respond by saying "But maybe Swanson got the name of the asylum wrong" or "But maybe 'Kosminski' was admitted under a different surname." But that doesn't seem a particularly rational response to me. I think it would be better if they could explain the grounds for their scepticism in the first place - or better still produce a reference to an alternative candidate from any one of the records in which he should be mentioned.
                              Doesnt it also depend on whether Swansons.. "Kosminski was the suspect"... was genuine or a forgery? (as has been suggested by some)
                              The details regarding that suspect,or rather the Seaside Home Affair/identification, to be more precise,seem somewhat muddled.
                              Is there a valid argument somewhere ,whereas one could argue that, similiarly to Druitt being suspected because of his suicide,Kosminski was "pulled out of the hat" mainly because of his committal to an Assylum?
                              On a side note,can anyone give an opinion why Kosminski (according to Swanson) would have had his hands "tied behind his back" when taken for the supposed identification?Surely if taken by the Police ,he would have been handcuffed,not hogtied?And wouldnt the usual practice be to take the witness to the suspect,not the other way round?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                                Chris - I agree with what you say. My remark, which you highlighted, needs to be seen in the context of Pirate's post. He was comparing Druitt and Kosminski as suspects.

                                My point was simply that Swanson does not mention a first/forename for his Kosminski, and the details he gives do not wholly tally with what we know of Aaron's life. That DSS is talking about Aaron, I personally do not doubt for a moment, but we cannot PROVE it 100%, thus (IMHO) we should make an assumption without noting the element of doubt.

                                MM got details of MJD wrong too - but I have not a hesitation in thinking that he was talking about Monty.

                                In my discussion with Pirate, I was simply seeking to show that there are uncertainties in both the suspects he mentioned, and their suitability - no matter how much we discuss it here - is at present circumstantial.

                                I hope that explains why I wrote what I did - if explanation were needed?

                                Phil
                                Your avioding the question ..Why dont you answer it?

                                Pirate

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X