The lighter side of Ripperology and suspects

[Paul Sutton]

The answer to the question of whether Aaron Kosminski had any known brushes with the law is kind of amusing: yes, once he got in trouble for failing to muzzle his dog.

Yes, I recall that detail now you mention it - thanks!

[Scott Nelson]

And this is the same Kosminski who was referred to by Anderson and Swanson as a murderer and by Anderson as the criminal!

No it wasn't.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No it wasn't.

Since you appear to be willing to engage (your word) with me, perhaps you could find the time to answer the posts I have addressed to you about Jacob Levy - there are at least half a dozen so far.

I am aware of your speculation that there were two murderers by the name of Kosminski.

Since the only offence committed by Aaron Kosminski that we know of was walking a dog in public without a muzzle, and no-one, it seems, has come up with any offences committed by any relative of his of the same name, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that your speculation is without any foundation in fact.

If you think Swanson meant another Kosminski than Aaron, please do let us have the details of a Kosminski other than Aaron who was confined at Colney Hatch.

[Scott Nelson]

Jacob Levy? Who said anything about him?

There was a Jacob Levy who was Betsy Kosminski's brother, but I never suggested he was a killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Jacob Levy? Who said anything about him?

There was a Jacob Levy who was Betsy Kosminski's brother, but I never suggested he was a killer.

I meant Joseph Hyam Levy, who is supposed to have recognised Jacob Levy.


The posts of mine about Joseph Hyam Levy, in answer to your # 6 The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?


were, with brief extracts from them:


(1) # 493 The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?


We are asked to believe that he pretended not to recognise the suspect, nor to have got a good look at him, then admitted he did get a good look, then identified him, and only then, on learning (Anderson's word) that the suspect was Jewish, or (Swanson) that the suspect was also a Jew, refused to testify against him, even though he had known all along that the suspect was Jewish.



(2) # 4 6th October letter


We are asked to believe that he pretended not to recognise the suspect, nor to have got a good look at him, then admitted he did get a good look, then identified him, and only then, on learning (Anderson's word) that the suspect was Jewish, or (Swanson) that the suspect was also a Jew, refused to testify against him, even though he had known all along that the suspect [allegedly a relative of his] was Jewish.

In spite of being reminded of this refutation of your suggestion, you have never even replied.



(3) # 11 6th October letter


It is for Scott Nelson to respond to my point about Joseph Hyam Levy, which I made in answer to his point about Joseph Hyam Levy.



(4) # 31 6th October letter


I refer also to # 497 of the same thread, in which I posed the following question:

Anderson was definite that the witness did not recognise the suspect as being Jewish and that it was only on learning that the person he had identified was Jewish that he refused to testify against him.

Can you please explain why Levy would have needed to be reminded that his relative, whom he is alleged to have recognised in Duke Street, was Jewish?



(5) # 899 The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?


And that is why, as I have pointed out about half a dozen times so far, without so much as an acknowledgement from him, Scott Nelson's suggestion that the witness recognised the suspect as a fellow Jew when he saw him in Duke Street is a non-starter.



(6) # 10 If Mackenzie was indeed a Ripper victim, which named Ripper suspects are eliminated?


I have challenged you about half a dozen times about your howler about Joseph Hyam Levy and you have never made any response.



(7) # 92 Was Anderson Prejudice?



And by the way, this is just a polite reminder that I have never had a response from you to my refutation of your suggestion in # 6 of

The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

that Anderson's witness was Joseph Hyam Levy

which I posted in # 493 and # 497 of

The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

and again in my # 4, # 11, and # 31 of

6th October letter

I quote from my # 31:

Can you please explain why Levy would have needed to be reminded that his relative, whom he is alleged to have recognised in Duke Street, was Jewish?

I pointed out in the same # 31 that you had made a similar mistake in a dissertation entitled An Alternate Kosminski Suspect and Police Witness: Some Perspectives and Points to Ponder:

You make the same mistake of thinking it possible that Anderson's witness could have known the suspect before he saw him in Church Passage.



I suggest that the reason you have never made any response is that you do not have a satisfactory one and you do not wish to admit that you got it wrong.

[caz]

This is the lighter side, is it?

Or did I take a wrong turning?

[caz]

What a name for a sex-pest!

Could have been worse.

Could have been Peter File!

Love,

Caz
X