When did investigators start watching Kozminski?

[Fisherman]

Did anyone mention 1873? in the original post? and did I mention abortions. You just cant help yourself can you

1873, by my mathematics 15 years before the WM murders, but of course silly of me, i forgot you are trying to pin every murder, and every torso in the whole length of the river thames on one man.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I didnīt think of that - no serial killer has been able to kill fifteen years apart, thatīs true.

Itīs a good thing I have you, Trevor. When I canīt help myself, you always can.

Anyway, maybe you can answer my questions just the same? Just in case? No?

[Trevor Marriott]

The 1873 victim was killed by the same hand that killed Mary Kelly, as far as Iīm concerned. Wonīt 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".

In the cases cited in that specific post- pay attention

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The 1873 victim had received two vicious blows to her temple, quite enough to be lethal as per the examining medico. That begs two questions:

1. Is this not physical evidence of murder?

2. What role would two such blows have played in an abortion process?

Did anyone mention 1873? in the original post? and did I mention abortions. You just cant help yourself can you

1873, by my mathematics 15 years before the WM murders, but of course silly of me, i forgot you are trying to pin every murder, and every torso in the whole length of the river thames on one man.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

3. The 1873 case clearly had nothing to do with Kosminski, the subject of this thread, so why bring it up?

The 1873 victim was killed by the same hand that killed Mary Kelly, as far as Iīm concerned. Wonīt 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".

[Sam Flynn]

The 1873 victim had received two vicious blows to her temple, quite enough to be lethal as per the examining medico. That begs two questions:

1. Is this not physical evidence of murder?

2. What role would two such blows have played in an abortion process?

3. The 1873 case clearly had nothing to do with Kosminski, the subject of this thread, so why bring it up?

[Fisherman]

I never thought of the no evidence for murder angle before.

The fewest have. And for obvious reasons.

[Fisherman]

There is no physical evidence to show that they were murdered !
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The 1873 victim had received two vicious blows to her temple, quite enough to be lethal as per the examining medico. That begs two questions:

1. Is this not physical evidence of murder?

2. What role would two such blows have played in an abortion process?

[Batman]

There is no physical evidence to show that they were murdered !

I suppose the inquests returned suicide by person's unknown for the torso, suspected case of suicide for McKenzie. Do you think Jackson may also self-inflicted her own decapitation?

I never thought of the no evidence for murder angle before. Maybe JtR was really just a spate of rash violent suicides. Those unfortunates sure had to bring attention to their plight somehow.

[Abby Normal]

Next you'll be saying the Ripper never even stole organs.

lol. now that was funny.

[Fisherman]

There is no physical evidence to show that they were murdered ! There are other just as plausible explanations, but you have already been told that many times, but you don't seem to want to consider other alternatives.

I think You have been taking to much notice of Fish for to long.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It has nothing to do with me, Trevor. What Harry does is to look at the evidence and deduct from there. Anyone could - and should- do it. But instead all sorts of excuses and alternative explanations are thought up. As always.

Harry owes nobody any explanation, since he goes with the evidence and soundly points out that these things do not come in spades - they are the work of one single serial perpetrator every time they crop up.

The ones needing explanations are the ones who wears the blindfolds around here, and refuse to accept that Harry has the evidence speaking for him.

You may need to accuse a lot more people of having listened too much to me - or Harry - in the future, for the very obvious reason that unbiased people WILL come to the same conclusion that Harry has arrived at. And you will be wrong every time. All that we can do is to put the evidence on display. After that, it speaks for itself.

[Harry D]

There is no physical evidence to show that they were murdered ! There are other just as plausible explanations, but you have already been told that many times, but you don't seem to want to consider other alternatives.

I think You have been taking to much notice of Fish for to long.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Next you'll be saying the Ripper never even stole organs.

[Abby Normal]

McKenzie had her throat cut and abdomen mutilated. The Pinchin St torso had a 15-inch slash across the abdomen. Jackson's abdominal flesh had been removed and her uterus excised. These are identifiable traits that are present in the canonical signature and mo. They occurred in the same city/same patch of the East End within several months of each other after a period of inactivity. Look at the pattern of killings and the exceptional circumstances behind these murders. To think they were unrelated to one another is to miss the wood for the trees.

Bingo Harry
and both series just happen to end at the same time in fall 89. another coincidence? yeah right.

but this for another thread I guess.

[Trevor Marriott]

McKenzie had her throat cut and abdomen mutilated. The Pinchin St torso had a 15-inch slash across the abdomen. Jackson's abdominal flesh had been removed and her uterus excised. These are identifiable traits that are present in the canonical signature and mo. They occurred in the same city/same patch of the East End within several months of each other after a period of inactivity. Look at the pattern of killings and the exceptional circumstances behind these murders. To think they were unrelated to one another is to miss the wood for the trees.

There is no physical evidence to show that they were murdered ! There are other just as plausible explanations, but you have already been told that many times, but you don't seem to want to consider other alternatives.

I think You have been taking to much notice of Fish for to long.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

And how you arrive at that conclusion ? I haven't seen any hard evidence that supports your statement

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

McKenzie had her throat cut and abdomen mutilated. The Pinchin St torso had a 15-inch slash across the abdomen. Jackson's abdominal flesh had been removed and her uterus excised. These are identifiable traits that are present in the canonical signature and mo. They occurred in the same city/same patch of the East End within several months of each other after a period of inactivity. Look at the pattern of killings and the exceptional circumstances behind these murders. To think they were unrelated to one another is to miss the wood for the trees.

[John Wheat]

The one thing I like to try and do is to hold to the same set of criteria for accepting evidence and rejecting it. It doesn't matter what flavour of criteria it is, strong evidence, weak evidence, speculation, allow for inferences, allow for deducations, not allow for inferences or deductions etc., as long as one sticks to it throughout. Otherwise one ends up cherry-picking the evidence because of bias and at worse displaying hypocrisy by demanding from others what they themselves can't do. I short I have more respect for someone that is just speculating everything but accepts speculating is all they are doing than someone jumping between requiring hard evidence but accept speculation at other times.

Does this make sense?

It is not always easy to do on topics like JtR, but one can try.

That's all well and good but Harry has not stated he's speculating he's stating things as though they were facts.