Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk

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

  • #16
    I think the whole of this rests on the supposed seaside home identification, which likely occurred in 1890. David Cohen died in 1889, so therefore cannot be the suspect that (possibly) Joseph Lawende did or did not identify in the seaside home. Cohen works as the police's Jew but it simply cannot be him if the I.D took place in 1890, which is very likely.
    Best regards,
    Adam


    "They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
      I think the whole of this rests on the supposed seaside home identification, which likely occurred in 1890. David Cohen died in 1889, so therefore cannot be the suspect that (possibly) Joseph Lawende did or did not identify in the seaside home. Cohen works as the police's Jew but it simply cannot be him if the I.D took place in 1890, which is very likely.
      The Seaside Home confrontation aspect of the Swanson Marginalia always puzzles me, especially when read in conjunction with the Aberconway version of the MacNaghten memorandum. (I know that MM wasn't a serving officer in 1888 but he arrived not long after and would have had access to the relevant papers). Why hold the ID at the Seaside Home (assuming the Convalescent Home in Brighton is the venue referred to)? You wouldn't need to go that far to escape press attention surely?

      MacNaghten says that 'no-one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square'. Many people must have seen the murderer without realising who he was, so this has to be a reference to an unambiguous sighting IMHO - so not Lawende.

      The 'City PC' sentence is missing from the 'official' version and I think most people think MacNaghten meant City witness (i.e. presumably Lawende). If that's the case why does the sentence not appear, in amended form, in the official version? I wonder if the PC element is in fact correct and the sentence doesn't appear because of the potential embarrassment of a PC having seen the killer and failed to apprehend him. The candidates would be James Harvey (if City PC is correct) or possibly Arnold Long (if PC is correct but City is not). My speculation (and I concede it's nothing more than that, before everyone jumps down my throat) is that Long could have found the apron piece so easily because he saw it being discarded. (In that scenario - with which few will be in agreement I suspect - the 'fellow Jew'reason for the refusal to give evidence would have to be a cover story, but if Long was convalescing there it would explain the choice of location).
      Last edited by Bridewell; 01-06-2019, 01:58 PM.
      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
        The Seaside Home confrontation aspect of the Swanson Marginalia always puzzles me, especially when read in conjunction with the Aberconway version of the MacNaghten memorandum. (I know that MM wasn't a serving officer in 1888 but he arrived not long after and would have had access to the relevant papers). Why hold the ID at the Seaside Home (assuming the Convalescent Home in Brighton is the venue referred to)? You wouldn't need to go that far to escape press attention surely?

        MacNaghten says that 'no-one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square'. Many people must have seen the murderer without realising who he was, so this has to be a reference to an unambiguous sighting IMHO - so not Lawende.

        The 'City PC' sentence is missing from the 'official' version and I think most people think MacNaghten meant City witness (i.e. presumably Lawende). If that's the case why does the sentence not appear, in amended form, in the official version? I wonder if the PC element is in fact correct and the sentence doesn't appear because of the potential embarrassment of a PC having seen the killer and failed to apprehend him. The candidates would be James Harvey (if City PC is correct) or possibly Arnold Long (if PC is correct but City is not). My speculation (and I concede it's nothing more than that, before everyone jumps down my throat) is that Long could have found the apron piece so easily because he saw it being discarded. (In that scenario - with which few will be in agreement I suspect - the 'fellow Jew'reason for the refusal to give evidence would have to be a cover story, but if Long was convalescing there it would explain the choice of location).
        Hes mixing up pc smith at dutfield and lawende at mitre sq
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #19
          Regardless of the who, whys and whats behind the seaside home I.D, it certainly seems to (almost) confirm that Cohen and/or Kaminsky wasn't the suspect involved. The I.D likely took place in 1890, possibly as late as 1891, and Cohen/Kaminsky was dead by this point.
          Best regards,
          Adam


          "They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
            Regardless of the who, whys and whats behind the seaside home I.D, it certainly seems to (almost) confirm that Cohen and/or Kaminsky wasn't the suspect involved. The I.D likely took place in 1890, possibly as late as 1891, and Cohen/Kaminsky was dead by this point.
            agree. the cohen/Kaminsky/koz theory is too convoluted any way.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #21
              Well I guess we'll just have to accept youse guys word for it then.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                Well I guess we'll just have to accept youse guys word for it then.
                "The youse are the guys that won't be blamed for blinking"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  agree. the cohen/Kaminsky/koz theory is too convoluted any way.
                  Very much so Abby. Kosminski would have to be ruled out too as countless evidence shows he just can't be Anderson's Jewish suspect. Harmless imbecile, as declared by the doctors in the hospitals/asylums he attended.

                  To me, the only men that fit the Jew suspect could be Hyam Hyams or Jacob Levy, and even these have issues with them. As far as I am concerned, and that's just my personal view, the whole Anderson's Jew suspect is completely redundant and it shocks me that it continued to be the most popular theory still after all these years, despite evidence pointing to the contrary. The whole theory rests almost entirely on the Seaside home I.D, and this whole thing falls apart IMO because the likely witness was Lawende and he stated at the time of his sighting that he wouldn't recognise the man with Eddowes, so expected to I.D him two years later in 1890 seems improbable....
                  Last edited by Uncle Jack; 01-08-2019, 03:53 AM.
                  Best regards,
                  Adam


                  "They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
                    Very much so Abby. Kosminski would have to be ruled out too as countless evidence shows he just can't be Anderson's Jewish suspect. Harmless imbecile, as declared by the doctors in the hospitals/asylums he attended.

                    To me, the only men that fit the Jew suspect could be Hyam Hyams or Jacob Levy, and even these have issues with them. As far as I am concerned, and that's just my personal view, the whole Anderson's Jew suspect is completely redundant and it shocks me that it continued to be the most popular theory still after all these years, despite evidence pointing to the contrary. The whole theory rests almost entirely on the Seaside home I.D, and this whole thing falls apart IMO because the likely witness was Lawende and he stated at the time of his sighting that he wouldn't recognise the man with Eddowes, so expected to I.D him two years later in 1890 seems improbable....
                    I humbly bow to your wisdom, Sir!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      I humbly bow to your wisdom, Sir!
                      Why thank you kind sor!

                      Best regards,
                      Adam


                      "They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
                        Very much so Abby. Kosminski would have to be ruled out too as countless evidence shows he just can't be Anderson's Jewish suspect. Harmless imbecile, as declared by the doctors in the hospitals/asylums he attended.

                        To me, the only men that fit the Jew suspect could be Hyam Hyams or Jacob Levy, and even these have issues with them. As far as I am concerned, and that's just my personal view, the whole Anderson's Jew suspect is completely redundant and it shocks me that it continued to be the most popular theory still after all these years, despite evidence pointing to the contrary. The whole theory rests almost entirely on the Seaside home I.D, and this whole thing falls apart IMO because the likely witness was Lawende and he stated at the time of his sighting that he wouldn't recognise the man with Eddowes, so expected to I.D him two years later in 1890 seems improbable....
                        hi uncle
                        totally agree. I have to keep koz on my list of viable suspects though because he is mentioned by three police officers and there is the possible ID-but I agree that its tentative at best. however, the whole crazy jew theory kicked off by Anderson, that continues to this day with the boatload of jewish suspects fitted up with absolutely no ties to the case dosnt sit well with me. I totally discount them all unless any new evidence is found.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
                          Harmless imbecile, as declared by the doctors in the hospitals/asylums he attended.
                          Harmless imbecile in the Autumn of 1888? We simply don't know that. In fact his court case for the unmuzzled dog later seems to point away from that.
                          What people seem to forget with Kosminski is that there must have been at least some circumstantial evidence in the first place to put him forward for ID in the first place. Or did they do that with every wandering/unhinged Jew walking the streets of Whitechapel? Lawende would have spent half his time down at the cop shop.
                          And lets say the police wanted to fit a Jew who had lost his marbles for the murders. What was wrong with Cohen? Found insane not long after the last murder, violent and with probably no known relatives. A far better fit for Jack. Why not him?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                            Harmless imbecile in the Autumn of 1888? We simply don't know that. In fact his court case for the unmuzzled dog later seems to point away from that.
                            What people seem to forget with Kosminski is that there must have been at least some circumstantial evidence in the first place to put him forward for ID in the first place. Or did they do that with every wandering/unhinged Jew walking the streets of Whitechapel? Lawende would have spent half his time down at the cop shop.
                            And lets say the police wanted to fit a Jew who had lost his marbles for the murders. What was wrong with Cohen? Found insane not long after the last murder, violent and with probably no known relatives. A far better fit for Jack. Why not him?
                            HI DK
                            I would imagine that Koz threatening his sister with a knife had something to do with it.
                            Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-08-2019, 07:24 AM.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
                              Kosminski would have to be ruled out too as countless evidence shows he just can't be Anderson's Jewish suspect. Harmless imbecile, as declared by the doctors in the hospitals/asylums he attended.
                              Sorry mate, but that's one heck of a non-sequitur.

                              Considerable evidence suggests that Aaron Kosminski WAS Anderson's suspect.

                              Whether he was harmless or not is a separate issue. You've placed the cart in front of the horse.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                Whether he was harmless or not is a separate issue
                                A question of Koz and affect?
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X