Police agency knowledge

[thewoo1]

Thinking Emily Holland might have seen man with peaked hat

[thewoo1]

thinking emily holland may have saw more than she disclosed

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Woo. I'm a firm believer that certain witnesses knew more than they told, but Holland isn't on my radar for that. What might Emily Holland have seen and why wouldn't she have disclosed it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S The idea that the police as an entity knew who the Ripper was is a load of tosh and gives them far, far more credit than they deserve. Modern authors like to say this because it emboldens their theories. Some of the weakest theories we have originated with members of the contemporary police force.

[Sunny Delight]

There was an eyewitness, and there was an
identification.

What left are circles, smoke, and mirrors


The Baron

There was an unknown eyewitness used for an identification of a suspect named Kosminski, conducted under unknown conditions, with an unknown number of people.

[Sunny Delight]

In some books it is stated that Scotland yard Metro had known who the ripper was. People like Swanson Abberline etc. In your opinions is this valid and if so the list of suspects would be short instead of the wide range of suspects. just curious as a sidebar everybook I read seems so convincing and yet I am more confused than ever. How far off am I to think that jtr is not a name we have heard of. thanks for your advanced input

We don't know and neither did the Police. Chances are the Ripper's name is in some long lost file having been spoken to probably as a person of interest, or someone who needed to be eliminated from enquiries. All names in the public domain, in my opinion are not the Ripper. But hey, who knows.

[John Wheat]

There was an unknown eyewitness used for an identification of a suspect named Kosminski, conducted under unknown conditions, with an unknown number of people.

This is a real **** and bull story.

[Scott Nelson]

Enough to fool Swanson and Sagar?

[Sunny Delight]

This is a real **** and bull story.

I don't think Swanson lied, but I do believe the identification cannot be taken to be any way significant, as some take it, based on what we know.

[Scott Nelson]

Why not?

[DJA]

It's some guff about a particular surgeon bumping off victims and something about blackmail. With absolutely nothing to back it up.

Henry Gawen Sutton - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

[Sunny Delight]

Why not?

Well because we don't know who the witness was. We think we know who the suspect was, but there are some inconsistencies. We don't know where the identification was held. We don't know who was there. We don't know under what conditions the identification was held, although it appears to have been a confrontation, which would be wholly inadequate by today's standards. Considering Pearly Poll attended an identification parade to try and identify her suspect such a confrontation would even have fallen below the accepted standards of the time.

We have two of the most senior Policemen however conforming an ID was made of a suspect named Kosminski. Superficially that appears to be highly highly significant. But when we consider what we don't know then it becomes much harder to analyse just how accurate the ID was. That makes it far less compelling as evidence.

[John Wheat]

Henry Gawen Sutton - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

It's all very fanciful and far fetched with no actual evidence.

[Sunny Delight]

It's all very fanciful and far fetched with no actual evidence.

I won't lie I am even more baffled now, than before reading it.