No known suspect pre 1895 was Jack the Ripper

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich,

What do you believe the police should have done regarding Barnett that they did not do?

No one knows what they did, c.d.
There is only the record that they had Joseph Barnett in custody for 4 hours. There is no reason to believe that they even tried to corroborate his alibi that he was asleep from about midnight on the night of the murder, no note that they went to his lodging or checked people who knew he was there for the entire time.
I would have charged him with the murder of May Kelly on the grounds that he admitted to having been with her on the night of the murder, had had a long standing relationship with her, even sharing the address in Miller's Court, knew how to gain entrance without a key, had admitted to having argued with Mary Kelly on the night of the murder, disapproved of her prostitution and consorting with prostitutes for whom he had a contempt, was used to working at the fish market with knowledge of using a filleting knife, had kept track of the other murders as reported in the press, reading these accounts to Mary Kelly, and being the person with means, motive, and opportunity like none other.

[Lechmere]

The title of the thread is slightly wrongly worded perhaps but...

I think it shows that the names proffered by the police were not contemporary suspects (i.e. they weren’t suspects in 1888-1891 or possibly up to 1895) and strongly suggests they were plucked out by working backwards, based on when information about them came to light from a variety of sources.
This does not necessarily ‘clear’ any of them yet it severely weakens any case based on the argument that as they were police suspects they are stronger than other non-police suspects. Particularly as they are almost certainly proffered as a means of saying:
“I am an important policeman and during my watch the Ripper struck. He was never found and people still wonder who he was. But being a superior sort of detective I can tell you based on my inside knowledge that I have the answer but I couldn’t do anything about it at the time for whatever reason”.
It makes them suspect as suspects!
I think it also undermines efforts to link what is known about contemporary investigations (1888-91) with any of these names – as it implies that none of these names were even known during that period - i.e. they weren’t suspects during that period.
There is no similarity with Ridgeway there.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is an extremely misleading thread.

Where does Swanson 'pin a label' and what type of label is he pinning?

How is it deduced information has been held back?

Again the memoranda does not name favoured suspects, only those considered more likey than Cutbush.

Swanson named a suspect who was sent for identification, he doesn't allude to guilt.

Monty

But as I said in a previous post in order to suspect somebody you have to have some evidence which raises a suspicion. Where is the evidence or even suspicion to bring Kosminsky to the notice of the police in the first instance.

There was none in 1888 at the time of the murders.

What was there in 1891 none, other than the fact that he was dragging his nuts around the gutters of Whitechapel and he threatened his sister with a knife.

[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.

[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

[Robert]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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