When did investigators start watching Kozminski?

[Elamarna]

Seeing how you have promised a lot for a very long time relating to your (perhaps?) forthcoming work on Nichols and Bucks Row, without disclosing a good deal of it although asked, I have absolutely no problems making my own decisions about what I give away and when I do it.

If it surprises you, so much the better. Surprises are generally good for us.

As it seems you are joining Trevor when it comes to the level of the discussion, we may as well end it here and now.

As for the book, no perhaps about it. The summary report will be posted here in next 7 days, and the book, ready for release in November.

I am not joining anyone in discussion and debate.I simply wonder what conclusive or even semi conclusive evidence there can be to link 2 murders 15 years apart, when there were and are no forensics.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Ahh I see, no real evidence you are prepared to reveal at present, boy i am surprised at that.


Steve

Seeing how you have promised a lot for a very long time relating to your (perhaps?) forthcoming work on Nichols and Bucks Row, without disclosing a good deal of it although asked, I have absolutely no problems making my own decisions about what I give away and when I do it.

If it surprises you, so much the better. Surprises are generally good for us.

As it seems you are joining Trevor when it comes to the level of the discussion, we may as well end it here and now.

[Fisherman]

But that parallel universe seems to be one you have vacated

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you must be sad, Trevor, please be it somewhere else. There is an ongoing discussion here that can do without your ... ehhhh..."wit".

[Elamarna]

If the police have two murders on their hands, in the same area and at the same time, and if they both involve odd and very unusual similarities, then they will assume and suppose that they are dealing with the same killer.

That does not apply out here, I know - but in that parallel universe called the real world, it does.

Ahh I see, no real evidence you are prepared to reveal at present, boy i am surprised at that.


Steve

[Elamarna]

dead on Harry. and both series end at the same time? don't think so.

My Dear Abby,

just one issue there, the shall we say hard Lechmereites, don't beleive the torso's ended in 89, they happily go on upto 1899 or thereabouts.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

If the police have two murders on their hands, in the same area and at the same time, and if they both involve odd and very unusual similarities, then they will assume and suppose that they are dealing with the same killer.

That does not apply out here, I know - but in that parallel universe called the real world, it does.

But that parallel universe seems to be one you have vacated

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The reason for beliveing its the same hand, is obviously because one wishes to name one individual as the killer.
If there is evidence which catagorically links 73 with Kelly what could it be?
There were no forensics, no confession we are aware of,
If such real evidence exists i for one am eager to hear or see it.

I wonder if this mysterious link will ever be revealed? And if it is, will be just more assumptions and suppositions? I guess only time will tell.


Steve


Steve

If the police have two murders on their hands, in the same area and at the same time, and if they both involve odd and very unusual similarities, then they will assume and suppose that they are dealing with the same killer.

That does not apply out here, I know - but in that parallel universe called the real world, it does.

[Elamarna]

The 1873 victim was killed by the same hand that killed Mary Kelly, as far as I´m concerned. Won´t tell you exactly why, though.

Kosminski was a child at the time, and not even in Britain.

He can therefore not be the killer.

So the question is "Why bring Kosminski up on these boards?"

A less troublesome answer to your question is "I commented on the discussion initiated by others out here, and Trevor claimed that there was no physical evidence of murder in the torso cases".

The reason for beliveing its the same hand, is obviously because one wishes to name one individual as the killer.
If there is evidence which catagorically links 73 with Kelly what could it be?
There were no forensics, no confession we are aware of,
If such real evidence exists i for one am eager to hear or see it.

I wonder if this mysterious link will ever be revealed? And if it is, will be just more assumptions and suppositions? I guess only time will tell.


Steve


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Correct... like English does with words like "bureau" (The "ff" is classed as one letter in the Welsh alphabet, BTW. A single "f" is the equivalent of the English letter "v")
Brogaod (for the croaky amphibians), or Ffrancwyr (for the people wot eats them).

This is completely off-topic, but I have some East Anglian ancestors named Fenn and Frog.

[Sam Flynn]

'Fflapiau'? That's just just taking an English word and topping and tailing it.

Correct... like English does with words like "bureau" (The "ff" is classed as one letter in the Welsh alphabet, BTW. A single "f" is the equivalent of the English letter "v")

You'll be telling us the Welsh for frog is ffrogaeiou next��

Brogaod (for the croaky amphibians), or Ffrancwyr (for the people wot eats them).

[MrBarnett]

Not being one to refuse an opportunity to help out...Roedd yr un dyn yn gyfrifol am lofruddiaethau'r Rhwygwr a'r llofruddiaethau torso.
Fflapiau.Na, dau ddyn gwahanol oeddynt.

'Fflapiau'? That's just just taking an English word and topping and tailing it. You'll be telling us the Welsh for frog is ffrogaeiou next😉

[Batman]

Because they typically dismiss differences in such things as geography, demographics, the nature of the wounds, the cadence of the murders, etc etc. That's sidelining on a grand scale.

Do you have an example? I'll give more examples of what I mean.

They accept the same geography and demographics. Those are facts of the case. Nature of the wounds and cadence still ends up with a murderer ripping up women. So that isn't being dismissed. As I said, rejecting a coincidence, means accepting the evidence, both bits, and not just one of them or rejecting both.

It's easy to demonstrate.

1)JtR drew anti-semitic graffiti on Goulston St.
or
2)Just a coincidence

One accepts the geography and demographics still as much as 2. 2 has just dropped evidence because of it.

Another example of dropping evidence would be Stride. The coincidence claims drop her as evidence because of the wounds but rejecting the coincidence retains her as evidence while accepting the same wounds.

Facts remain the same. Coincidence is the move that side-lines evidence. It must by its nature. Multiple coincidences just chop out pieces of the evidence altogether. A real McDonald's have "it your way" meal. A customized Whitechapel murder set of facts... with some missing.

One could say coincidence claims end up 'ripping' parts out of case.

[Sam Flynn]

How can they be sidelining evidence if they are saying the evidence is not a coincidence?

Because they typically dismiss differences in such things as geography, demographics, the nature of the wounds, the cadence of the murders, etc etc. That's sidelining on a grand scale.

[Abby Normal]

Like Abby said, there's too many coincidences when it comes to the Ripper/Torso pattern. In common Ripper lore, Mary Kelly was the final victim. Half a year later another prostitute washes up dead, her uterus extracted with the abdominal flaps (a la Chapman & Kelly). The following month another prostitute dies in Whitechapel, her throat cut and her abdomen mutilated. A couple months later, an unidentified torso is dumped in Whitechapel with a long abdominal gash. What are the odds that after a period of inactivity, Ripper-esque and Torso murders overlap within a few months? The same thing, of course, that happened during the Autumn of Terror & the Whitehall Mystery. We can argue the minutiae of what constitutes a Ripper murder, or whether these Torso victims were indeed murdered, but we're at risk of missing the big picture here when it's staring us in the face.

dead on Harry. and both series end at the same time? don't think so.

[Batman]

From what I've seen, it's more often those who have a favourite suspect who end up sidelining evidence and declaring that X or Y can't be attributed to coincidence, when it clearly can.

How can they be sidelining evidence if they are saying the evidence is not a coincidence?

A coincidence defacto sidelines evidence as irrelevant, random, chance, not connected.

Rejecting coincidences, means rejecting that it's random, which means accepting them as connected, which means accepting the evidence, both bits, and not just one of them or rejecting both.

I would need to see an example of what you mean.