Of course, under the McNaughton Rules insanity would be a complete defence to a charge of murder,i.e because the defendant would lack the necessary mens rea. Of course, that doesn't mean he would necessarily have been insane at the time of the offences. However, if Kosminski was certified insane presumably he would have subsequently been declared unfit to plead and stand trial, i.e. if charges were brought against him.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Did the Seaside Home ID happen?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by PaulB View PostWell, first of all a 'definitely ascertained fact' doesn't mean there was sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction. The police may have wanted to firm up their case, ormaybe they wanted to persuade the witness to give testimony willingly, not force him to testify and have a hostile witness.
I would't say they 'kept it a secret'; they weren't allowed to say they'd caught the Ripper until the suspect was tried and convicted. I'd also like to see how the evidence of Anderson's supposed 'boastful nature' stacks up against the boastfulness in other police memoirs of the time. One might argue that Anderson wasn't boastful at all, but was a man who participated in some historic moments, saw no reason for secrecy when the need for it had passed, and wrote of those events cadidly. But however one might view Anderson, he spilled the beans as soon as he was retired and sort of free to speak.
Thanks!
Well, first of all a 'definitely ascertained fact' doesn't mean there was sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction
"sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction" is a subjective idea anyway and can never be confirmed unless put before a judge and jury.
The police may have wanted to firm up their case
ormaybe they wanted to persuade the witness to give testimony willingly, not force him to testify and have a hostile witness.
I would't say they 'kept it a secret'; they weren't allowed to say they'd caught the Ripper until the suspect was tried and convicted.
Ive heard police many times say they have there man for a crime without the suspect being tried and convicted. Happens all the time. Convicted for something else, committed suicide, never apprehended, dies before etc.
I'd also like to see how the evidence of Anderson's supposed 'boastful nature' stacks up against the boastfulness in other police memoirs of the time. One might argue that Anderson wasn't boastful at all, but was a man who participated in some historic moments, saw no reason for secrecy when the need for it had passed, and wrote of those events cadidly. But however one might view Anderson, he spilled the beans as soon as he was retired and sort of free to speak.[/QUOTE
Didn't Churchill basically call him a braggert?
Ill go with Churchill, then.
I actually think Kosminisky is a viable candidate for the ripper:he is the only suspect with any actual possible evidence against him-the possible positive ID, 3 top police mention him as a suspect, the threat with the knife on his sister, (and Rob's book). However, I go with Sugden on his views on the Anderson claim, when/how it came about, and how seriously it should be taken."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
-
Originally posted by PaulB View PostCase closed? Perhaps not.
Let's say it is too improbable to be true that different women were assaulted in the same place within minutes of 0ne another and that Stride was therefore killed by the man Schwartz saw. Let's suppose Schwartz was the witness and Kosminski was the man he saw. He makes a positive ID, the police believe Stride was murdered by the same person who murdered the other women. But she wasn't.
That's coincidence upon coincidence even before discussing the GSG and the Lipski remark that same evening.
I say its much more parsimonious to say Schwartz's man is JtR, whom Schwartz disturbed and exhibits the characteristics of an antisemitic gentile.
I honestly quite like Chapman these days as he was a gentile who looked like a foreign Jew to some and even faked being one just to get along with life in Whitechapel. Despite new books on Chapman it seems trying to have him away from George yard or cable street isn't fully persuasive. Didn't a Pinchin Street torso also turn up near here?... On the anniversary of Annie Chapman's death too.
Again antisemiticism isn't the driving factor but there is nothing stopping an SK from being a racist is there? Charles Manson believed black people where taking over the world and used this as part of his mass murder campaign.
I used to be a supporter of the Kozminski hypothesis since Fido wrote about him and Cohen. Even up until reading House. Now I think one has to be very selective in what they accept and reject with respect to some of the facts above to make it work. I'm actually quite liking R. Michaels Gorden's take on things, despite the errors in his work, it remains quite compelling.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Batman View PostThat's coincidence upon coincidence even before discussing the GSG and the Lipski remark that same evening.
I say its much more parsimonious to say Schwartz's man is JtR, whom Schwartz disturbed and exhibits the characteristics of an antisemitic gentile.
Comment
-
There has to be a knife on JtR.
Originally posted by Harry D View PostThat doesn't make sense. Schwartz didn't disturb a murder, he disturbed an assault. If BS Man was the killer, that would have to mean that someone else interrupted him again after he knifed Stride.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostHi Paul
Thanks!
This has never been a requirement to charge someone with a crime.
"sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction" is a subjective idea anyway and can never be confirmed unless put before a judge and jury.
Of course a guilty verdict cannot be guaranteed. I never suggested otherwise. But people don't normally proceed to court with a case they know they can't win.
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostBut then that falls far short of the claim by Anderson, does it not?
(I've edited this to make it clearer.) No it doesn't. Anderson was satisfied the suspect's gult was 'a definitely ascertained fact', but that doesn't mean he possessed sufficient evidence to convince a jury. That he was of the opinion it was 'a deinitely ascertained fact' is evidenced by the fact that he said so. That they lacked sfficient evidence to bring charges is indicated by the fact that they didn't bring them. The one doesn't devalue the other.
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Postbut if they couldn't persuade, then subpoena-and lay it on the witness to admit what he said.
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostBut they could say it if the suspect "was safely locked away in an asylum" or "dead" ?
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostIve heard police many times say they have there man for a crime without the suspect being tried and convicted. Happens all the time. Convicted for something else, committed suicide, never apprehended, dies before etc.
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostDidn't Churchill basically call him a braggert?
Ill go with Churchill, then.
I'd like to see the evidence that Anderson was boastful to the point where he couldn't be relied upon to keep a secret. The evidence that he could keep a secret, even if he be inherently boastful, is out there, not the least being Le Caron's utter faith in his discretion. Le Caron put his life in Anderson's silence, Churchill had a political agenda. I think I mightbe inclined to put my money with Le Caron.
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostI actually think Kosminisky is a viable candidate for the ripper:he is the only suspect with any actual possible evidence against him-the possible positive ID, 3 top police mention him as a suspect, the threat with the knife on his sister, (and Rob's book). However, I go with Sugden on his views on the Anderson claim, when/how it came about, and how seriously it should be taken.
But I do not believe that Anderson was right or than his suspect was the Ripper. And I never have. What I want to know is why Anderson believed he was the Ripper. I don't think it was geriatric wishful thinking, or geriatric confusion, or the Machiavellian machinations of Macnaghten.Last edited by PaulB; 05-11-2015, 12:13 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Batman View PostEven if it wasn't disturbing a murder, its a disturbance. All one needs add is murder and motive. JtR has a knife on him. If she makes enough noise he might have the club down on him shouting JtR, something which she had been warned about jokingly before according to witness testimony. Any suspect found with a knife, a prostitute screaming and a dark alley is game for JtR in my books. Imagine the craze on here if someone found a new suspect like that in the files/news somewhere.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostSorry, but I don't follow. If this hypothetical suspect always went by the name Cohen in England, why should the police ever have referred to him as "Kosminski"?
Comment
-
To Scott Nelson
What a diabolical point, especially as Macnaghten is a source who reshaped data depending on his audience.
To PaulB
Let me see if I have this straight, because it has always puzzled me.
Anderson and Swanson are, on the whole, the most reliable primary sources on the Ripper. But Anderson was not advocating Aaron Kosminski and not David Cohen, but somebody yet to be identified by us. Is that right?
Comment
-
I have not read the entire thread but im of the opinion that a seaside home ID did take place with one of the main Jewish suspects. Some of the details or assumptions we have may be wrong, but one Jewish witness was asked to ID a Jewish suspect. This took place in the police seaside home or an establishment used by convalescing policemen.
Comment
-
Whoever,and for whatever reason it may have been decided not to charge Kosminski,does not alter the fact,that the officers who took that person to the seaside home,only needed reasonable cause to arrest him.Historically,it has been claimed, there was reasonable cause.Why did not an arrest take place?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jonathan H View PostTo Scott Nelson
What a diabolical point, especially as Macnaghten is a source who reshaped data depending on his audience.
To PaulB
Let me see if I have this straight, because it has always puzzled me.
Anderson and Swanson are, on the whole, the most reliable primary sources on the Ripper. But Anderson was not advocating Aaron Kosminski and not David Cohen, but somebody yet to be identified by us. Is that right?
Comment
-
Originally posted by PaulB View PostThe police do not generally proceed with a charge unless they have a reasonable expectation of securing a conviction.
If a charge is withdrawn, there would be an entry in the withrawn charges book. However, he may not have been charged at all.
Monty
Monty
https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif
Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Comment
Comment