Would you tell?

[HelenaWojtczak]

What a fascinating thread! Thanks for starting it.

When I read Jenny's comment, it depends if it was a relation, it set me fantasising...

My long lost cousin Elzbieta in Poland tracks me down via Facebook and writes to me... there is a diary, written in English, found in an old trunk in grandma's attic... they need to get it translated... fast foward three months, the English transcription reveals that it is the confession of my great-uncle Stefan, he was Jack-the-Ripper... he went to London in 1888 and came home a while later and threw himself in the river... and there is enough detail in the confession that he could not have known unless he was the Ripper.

What would I do? Like others have said, publish and make shedloads of money. I'd need it to pay for the trauma counselling after discovering my great uncle Stefan was a slasher of women!

Helena

[Stevencc]

Have you read this book?



An investigation into the man Scotland Yard thought (but couldn't prove) was Jack the Ripper

Dozens of theories have attempted to resolve the mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper, the world's most famous serial killer. Ripperologist Robert House contends that we may have known the answer all along. The head of Scotland Yard's Criminal Investigation Department at the time of the murders thought Aaron Kozminski was guilty, but he lacked the legal proof to convict him. By exploring Kozminski's life, House builds a strong circumstantial case against him, showing not only that he had means, motive, and opportunity, but also that he fit the general profile of a serial killer as defined by the FBI today.

Regards, Jon S.

No, I haven't read that particular book. If you are implying that I got my "information" from that source you are wrong. Like I say the information given to me was from numerous individuals within the Metropolitan Police. For all I know they may have just read that book and regurgitated the information as fact. I'm not claiming anything as fact I'm just trying to add to the debate.

[Stevencc]

Sorry, no. It was that e-fit that was put together.

[Robert]

I've never heard of a photograph of Kosminski. Are you sure of the authentication, Steven?

[Stevencc]

The main reason for my reluctance to "reveal" the suspect was because the "individual" privy to the information is someone very close to me. Yes, a photograph of Aaron Kosminski is paraded around like some sort of proof - I can personally guarantee this part. As I have said throughout the people who divulged the information may be taking advantage of their position but it seems pretty legitimate as far as I am aware. I've gone too far now so I welcome any questions.

[Jonathan H]

They did tell?

Aaron Kosminski was not revealed to be the man behind his fictional composite, 'Kosminski', until 1987. Until then this person was totally unknown to the public despite the name having been published in 1965.

This is understandable that 'Kosmainki' was not at first identified with Anderson's Polish Jew suspect because he was so different from the figure whom Sir Robert Anderson spoke about and wrote about. This chief was writing about a figure who was a suspect in 1888, like maybe Pizer?

Donald Swanson made an ambiguous annotation (ambiguous in the sense that it is unclear if he is confirming or merely repeating his ex-chief's opinion) about 'Kosminski' confirming that it was Aaron Kosminski he meant.

Nevertheless the differences led Martin Fido, who first found Aaron kosminski in asylum records, to maintain that Aaron was not Anderson's Polish Jewish suspect.

The semi-fictional figure of 'Kosminski' from Macnaghten's Report(s) and Swasnon's annotation was suspected at the time of the murders, was sectioned after a positive eyewitness identification before the McKenzie murder, and died soon after being 'safely caged'. Whereas Aaron was out about for years after the Kelly murder, and did not die until after the First World War.

Since Anderson (by 1908) could muddle up a Liberal Home Sec. with a Tory one, and thus muddle up who was putting him under pressure over the whitechapel murders and what their official position was and what party they were -- and was known to be terribly conceited and never admit errors -- the veracity of his opinion on this matter is unsafe (he even admits in the first version of his memoir that the witness identification took place after the suspect was incarcerated, which would be 1891, then dropped it as it's also unlikely -- suggestively at very the time that Sadler was being 'confronted' by a Jerwish witness).

Anderson's confidential assistant, the Assistant Chief Constable Sir Melville Macnaghten, knew that 'Kosminski' was not deceased and not off the streets until a long time after the Kelly murder.

Arguably the Polish Jew suspect was 'exonerated', in Macnaghten's opinion, by what he wrote in 'Aberconway', which was disseminated to the public via literary pals. Plus his own memoirs dropped all mention of this suspect while straining to assert that the chief suspect was a Gentile gent, and not a sectioned Jew, about whom the police (eg. Anderson) knew bugger all until 'some years after' he had taken his own life.

Both Macnaghten and Anderson, in retirement, spoke and wrote of their dillemma about believing they definitely knew the fiend's identity but also being unable to name him for reasons of libel and/or propriety.

I argue that Sir Melville is the more reliable source between the two ex-chiefs, who despised each other, because of what he wrote about [the un-named] Druitt in his memoirs being more accurate than what Anderson wrote about his chief suspect in his.

The difference in terms of the issue of integrity, however, is that I do not think the muddled Anderson was ever knowingly deceitful, whereas Mac ruthlessly reshaped the data about these suspects according to his audience.

For some people today that knocks them, and their preferred suspects both out of contention, and therefore the issue of 'would they or should they tell' was nothing more than a self-serving tease.

[niko]

Hi everybody, I for one would definitely reveal the Whitechapel murderer. (having 100% proof)

Firstly, for the victim's,

Secondly, for history, and for the fact of being the person to reveal the real identity of Jack the Ripper,

and thirdly, if any money can be gained it will be welcomed "cos I'm skint" lol. All the best, agur.

Niko.

[Abby Normal]

Well, according to these individuals, who may or may not be talking bollocks (but who seemed absolutely certain) Aaron Kosminski is your man.

What's he look like?

[Wickerman]

Well, according to these individuals, who may or may not be talking bollocks (but who seemed absolutely certain) Aaron Kosminski is your man.

Have you read this book?



An investigation into the man Scotland Yard thought (but couldn't prove) was Jack the Ripper

Dozens of theories have attempted to resolve the mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper, the world's most famous serial killer. Ripperologist Robert House contends that we may have known the answer all along. The head of Scotland Yard's Criminal Investigation Department at the time of the murders thought Aaron Kozminski was guilty, but he lacked the legal proof to convict him. By exploring Kozminski's life, House builds a strong circumstantial case against him, showing not only that he had means, motive, and opportunity, but also that he fit the general profile of a serial killer as defined by the FBI today.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jason]

Well, according to these individuals, who may or may not be talking bollocks (but who seemed absolutely certain) Aaron Kosminski is your man.

not for me but what do i know....

[Monty]

Well, according to these individuals, who may or may not be talking bollocks (but who seemed absolutely certain) Aaron Kosminski is your man.

And there's a photo of him?

Wow

Monty

[Stevencc]

Well, according to these individuals, who may or may not be talking bollocks (but who seemed absolutely certain) Aaron Kosminski is your man.

[Jason]

Thanks for that post. So do you think it is safe?

Absolutely.....if the name of the individual already be linked with case then i wouldnt worry about it in any way whatsoever....its up to you

[Stevencc]

Thanks for that post. So do you think it is safe?

[Jason]

I understand your skepticism mate but I am genuinely worried about getting in trouble as the information was received after signing the official secrets act (a necessity for the information to be divulged). I'm unaware of the punishment for breaking the pledge in that contract and until I am I'm a little apprehensive about saying anything. And as far as me knowing something, this isn't true. I am aware that a small number of individuals THINK that they know something but this could easily be bravado and they may know absolutely nothing.

I understand that you must get a lot of attention seekers who claim to know something no-one else does and who end up withholding that information they never actually had in the first place.

my sister worked at scotland yard in the 80s for about 3 years in the anti terrorism branch....she had access to some unbelievable info e. some very famous persons and their extra curricular activities....i only knew this info many years later and it made my blood boil that the info re. these persons was known yet NOT acted upon....it wasnt necesarily related to terrorism, more related to their activities and tastes in a sexual context and involving many different ages of person and child....to this day i see many of these persons on Tv and makes me wince as they are very well known and well decorated.......my sister signed the OSA, and she has let it be known who they are to me and others, she says its like those people who work at area 51, once you leave, they will just smear you and pass you off as a nark.....dont worry about it, Jacks well dead and so are those who knew who he was !!