Goddamnit Phil H....you are always beating me to the punch.
Christer,
So you are, as you sit at home typing today, in a better position than Donald Swanson and Sir Robert Anderson who were experiencing the investigation at the time, to decide if Kosminski can NOT be called a good suspect?
Firstly Anderson would have been aware of any key incident, and it shows he was. You really need to do some research into the structure of the Met force at the time and gain some knowledge on Warrens tenure and what he expected from his men. To dismiss Anderson as a desk jockey really does show a gap in your knowledge of both how the upper enchelons of the met worked as well as Warren and Andersons personas.
Witness testimony is evidence therefore there is evidence that Kosminski was a violent man. How you dismiss this based on?
Evidence also supports that he was in the area at the time of the murders.
Evidence supports that he attended an Identity Parade with regards the murders.
Evidence supports that Kosminski was suspected with regards the murders.
Monty
Christer,
Read me a bit more discerning, Rob! I am saying that we can NOT call him a strong suspect today. I am also saying we can NOT call him a good suspect today. BUT I acknowledge that he was apparently considered a good suspect BACK THEN!! Anderson very apparently thought him a very good suspect, MacNaghten less so - but still good enough to exemplify how one could trump Cutbush. Thatīs where the "good suspect" judgement enters my discussion
We may - and should - realize that whatever it was that made him a suspect, it made Anderson enthusiastic. But to begin with, Anderson was a long way away from the factual epicenter of things, sitting behind his desk. He would have relied on what others told him, and others may have been only too willing to please the commisioner. No matter what happened and how, it earned Kosminski a place in the memoranda as a crafty guy, strongly homicidal and with a great hatred of women, particularly the prostitute class. As you well know, not many of us recognize this as an apt description of Aaron Kosminski. And when we look at the discrepancy between the memoranda Ostrog and the real one, our suspicions are further fed! If "Kosminski" WAS Aaron - and there is a vary fair chance that he was - then we may be facing a very unbecoming fitting up of the man.
Witness testimony is evidence therefore there is evidence that Kosminski was a violent man. How you dismiss this based on?
Evidence also supports that he was in the area at the time of the murders.
Evidence supports that he attended an Identity Parade with regards the murders.
Evidence supports that Kosminski was suspected with regards the murders.
Monty
Comment