No known suspect pre 1895 was Jack the Ripper

[Trevor Marriott]

In that respect, would you say the new evidence you've found is more conclusive than Phil's argument above, less conclusive, or about the same?

Wouldnt you like to know

[Chris]

According to the same official that named Kosminski at some time between 1910 and 1924, in 1895 he said the Ripper was dead. Kosminski was alive in 1895. Therefore, whomever Swanson was talking about in 1895, it wasn't Aaron Kosminski.

To be a bit more exact, Swanson's views were reported in a newspaper article as follows:
"The theory entitled to most respect, because it was presumably based upon the best knowledge, was that of Chief Inspector Swanson, the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead. Latterly, however, the police have been busy investigating the case of William Grant Grainger, ..."

It's interesting that Swanson's theory actually seems to be placed in the past, in contrast with the current investigation of Grainger.

Of course, logically there are two possibilities here, assuming the report to be accurate:
(1) Swanson's theory concerned someone other than Aaron Kozminski, and
(2) Swanson's theory concerned Aaron Kozminski, whom he mistakenly thought was dead.

[Trevor Marriott]

Its not an excuse Trevor, its a fact. The suspect files are incomplete.

I deal in facts, that's why I do not hold to a suspect unlike some, who rely on News clippings and....and....and...

You, and Phil, have completely misunderstood the context of the memoranda. It was never written with the intention on laying down the major suspects at all.

And I agree, it should not be held as the 'Holy Grail'. I suspect Macnagten felt the same.

Monty

I know that it wasnt written for that purpose, but because of what it contains it has quite wrongly elevetad Kosminski to as some describe "Prime Suspect". I have no doubt that because of the incident with his sister he was "looked" at and following his incarceration he became a suitable "patsy"

I think the starting off point is the MM and Mcs motives for including the names that he did now we have more than one patsy, none of which were really in any position to protest their innoncence or aware of what was being wriiten in police files.

[Monty]

Monty,

How do YOU know there was/is evidence against Kosminski, since the files are incomplete? Answer, you don't. No one does. Because, it isn't in existence, unless someone has found a cache of notes in someone's loft put there by their great grandfather?

I thought you worked on facts Monty? Well, show us some. I have shown that 5 top policemen, from Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, 2 Chief Inspectors and a Superintendent ALL said that the case was unsolved and none of them had a whisp of an idea who the Ripper was, 1888-1895.

As we do not know if it (evidence) was lacking in 1888, 1891 and 1895, it is wrong to presume there was any! How can you presume something that isn't in existance, and base your suspicion upon a person upon that?

According to the same official that named Kosminski at some time between 1910 and 1924, in 1895 he said the Ripper was dead. Kosminski was alive in 1895. Therefore, whomever Swanson was talking about in 1895, it wasn't Aaron Kosminski. So who was it Swanson was talking about when he talked of the Ripper being dead Monty? Please tell us?


Phil

Oh Philip,

Again you misunderstand. My point is just that, no one knows either way.

And you quoted one Home Office report (in connection to Anderson only) whilst the rest are news reports, which are not completely reliable.

Monty

[Chris]

I think Phil Carter has done an excellent job of doing that already

In that respect, would you say the new evidence you've found is more conclusive than Phil's argument above, less conclusive, or about the same?

[Monty]

Trevor has apparently discovered some new evidence in original documents, which - if I understand correctly - is going to rule out Kosminski as a suspect.

Then I wait with baited breath Chris.....I just hope I don't pass out.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Trevor,

Sorry, how do you know there was/is no evidence against Kosminski? Seeing as the files are incomplete on both the Met and City side.

We both know that, as it stands today, the evidence is lacking. What we do not know is if it was lacking in 1888, 91 or 95.

And surely, as a Policeman of some years standing, you know the difference between suspect and perp.

Kosminski sat in the mind of a man who was centred in the case, and thought as a likely suspect by a Senior official. There must have been sufficient evidence for this to have happened. That or his name was picked out of the ether.

Monty

Monty,

How do YOU know there was/is evidence against Kosminski, since the files are incomplete? Answer, you don't. No one does. Because, it isn't in existence, unless someone has found a cache of notes in someone's loft put there by their great grandfather?

I thought you worked on facts Monty? Well, show us some. I have shown that 5 top policemen, from Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, 2 Chief Inspectors and a Superintendent ALL said that the case was unsolved and none of them had a whisp of an idea who the Ripper was, 1888-1895.

As we do not know if it (evidence) was lacking in 1888, 1891 and 1895, it is wrong to presume there was any! How can you presume something that isn't in existance, and base your suspicion upon a person upon that?

According to the same official that named Kosminski at some time between 1910 and 1924, in 1895 he said the Ripper was dead. Kosminski was alive in 1895. Therefore, whomever Swanson was talking about in 1895, it wasn't Aaron Kosminski. So who was it Swanson was talking about when he talked of the Ripper being dead Monty? Please tell us?


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor has apparently discovered some new evidence in original documents, which - if I understand correctly - is going to rule out Kosminski as a suspect.

I think Phil Carter has done an excellent job of doing that already

[Monty]

Its not an excuse Trevor, its a fact. The suspect files are incomplete.

I deal in facts, that's why I do not hold to a suspect unlike some, who rely on News clippings and....and....and...

You, and Phil, have completely misunderstood the context of the memoranda. It was never written with the intention on laying down the major suspects at all.

And I agree, it should not be held as the 'Holy Grail'. I suspect Macnagten felt the same.

Monty

[Chris]

Sorry, how do you know there was/is no evidence against Kosminski? Seeing as the files are incomplete on both the Met and City side.

Trevor has apparently discovered some new evidence in original documents, which - if I understand correctly - is going to rule out Kosminski as a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the police were on the look out for mad Jews and when this one was brought to their attention he became a suspect.

But a big difference between being brought to their attention and being categorised as a suspect. i am sure many people were brought to their attention in 1888. But as the years ensued and no sign of catching the killer they became desparate.

The end result of that desparation showed in later years when all the rabbits started coming out of the hats of scotland yards finest. But of course none of them appeared to know what the other was saying or had said otherwise they might have at least all come out with the same suspects name.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Sorry, how do you know there was/is no evidence against Kosminski? Seeing as the files are incomplete on both the Met and City side.

We both know that, as it stands today, the evidence is lacking. What we do not know is if it was lacking in 1888, 91 or 95.

And surely, as a Policeman of some years standing, you know the difference between suspect and perp.

Kosminski sat in the mind of a man who was centred in the case, and thought as a likely suspect by a Senior official. There must have been sufficient evidence for this to have happened. That or his name was picked out of the ether.

Monty

Here we go the same old nutmeg "Files are incomplete" "Files stolen" these excuses are wearing thin now.

Swanson couldnt have suspected Kosminski, Phil has gone to great lengths to point this out in the very first post and in follow up posts.

In May 1895 whilst becoming involved in the Grainger case swanson went public saying that the Ripper was dead. Kosminsky was still alive and kicking then.

If you take The Coles murder it seems the police were so desparate to still catch JTR and in the beleif that sadler could have been the ripper brought a witness (Lawende) from 1888 to try to identify him. Swanson even interviewed Sadler

All of this makes the content of the marginalia about as reliable as a paper hat in a hurricane yet some still look upon it as the holy grail or ripperology.

[Robert]

Heinrich, where does Barnett admit to arguing with Mary on the night of the murder?

[Monty]

Trevor,

Sorry, how do you know there was/is no evidence against Kosminski? Seeing as the files are incomplete on both the Met and City side.

We both know that, as it stands today, the evidence is lacking. What we do not know is if it was lacking in 1888, 91 or 95.

And surely, as a Policeman of some years standing, you know the difference between suspect and perp.

Kosminski sat in the mind of a man who was centred in the case, and thought as a likely suspect by a Senior official. There must have been sufficient evidence for this to have happened. That or his name was picked out of the ether.

Monty

[Lechmere]

I think the police were on the look out for mad Jews and when this one was brought to their attention he became a suspect.