Plausibility of Kosminski

[Tom_Wescott]

(to Maria) Some might benefit from you explaining yourself in detail

Some people are a glutton for punishment!

As for Wick, his posts on other topics are generally thoughtful and well-considered. Like many researchers, he has a blind spot when it comes to Berner Street. And I say what happens in Berner Street stays in Berner Street, so why the **** are Packer and his grapes being brought up in a Kozminski thread?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

As for Wick, his posts on other topics are generally thoughtful and well-considered.

I agree, and he and I patched things up in another forum.

he has a blind spot when it comes to Berner Street. And I say what happens in Berner Street stays in Berner Street, so why the **** are Packer and his grapes being brought up in a Kozminski thread?

Cuz he called me “silly“ out of the blue in his post #1239, plausibly as a result of the earlier debate between you and him (and me) on Berner Street over at the JTRForums. I honestly wanted to let it pass as I didn't mind too much, but then I thought to myself “All the people are over at the Dimolianis book thread. What the heck, let's create a bit of diversion here, to see who bites“.

Honestly, the matter is more than trite, and let's allow this thread to get back to Kozminsky.

[Tom_Wescott]

One has to consider the source of where a comment's coming.
Poster Wickerman has been recently insisting in a 'debate' over at the JTRForums (where a basic lit lists of books and magazine articles has been suggested to him so that he catches up with the general available knowledge) that Packer's story about the grapes is truthful! He's resistent to even Swanson's report pertaining to this. :-) He also seems to favor the idea that there were 3 different couples walking around Berner Street on September 30th 1888, in a peculiar interpretation of the newspaper reports.

Well, your diversion (above) constitutes flaming. I've been enjoying this thread, and only hope you haven't chased all the contributors away, as often happens when you hijack a thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Maria,

Although this thread has wandered around all over the place, the introduction of "yer man" Charles Le Grand not only has very little to do with Kosminski, but if the various police opinions at the time are to be believed, Le Grand could not possibly have been Jack the Ripper. As they were still looking for him after Le Grand gets locked away. That is an argument people very easily forget as they wish to and make up reasons for JTR still being hunted when the police already supposedly knew who he was...and it applies to many of the suspects.

Also, we have two very informed Ripperologists, namely Rob House and Tom Wescott arguing for the possibility of Kosminski or Le Grand being the killer in Berner Street. For reasons already given, I do not add my (light) weight to Rob's conclusion, and as for Tom's, I am yet to see what it is the said gentleman is holding on to that he knows about, that everyone else does not. Until that time arrives and this infamous material is presented to the world, Le Grand is not, in my (any many other's) view, a knife-murdering, woman-disembowelling, throat-slashing killer.

And if you Maria, believe he is.. then either you are in possession of material all we others are not... or you are basing your conclusions upon the as of now published material from Mr Wescott that does not, in any way, in many people's opinion, show Charles Le Grand as a killer as described above. I will also repeat on here as I repeated on JTR Forums.. threatening to blow up a woman (explosives) and comparing the description of what it would do to her insides with the manner in which the Ripper carefully disembowelled his victims and in some cases, placed internal organs around.. shows two completely different methods of organ removal. One is scattering all parts of a body indescriminately, the other is personal, hands on removal and placement of said parts. This was one argument you used to suspect Le Grand, and failed to even answer the reply. Thats par for the course.. silence.. perhaps it will go away...Then it gets deflected with such weighty comments as to what Le Grand boasted about himself...as if that matters at all. (Anderson did the same in citing his own "moral certainty" stuff...)

Back to Kosminski. Simon Wood published a newspaper article that is of some value. It has for the most part been largely ignored. Why? The only reason I can see is that it blows an enormous hole in the Kosminski/Druitt/Ostrog trilogy.. and of course, some do not want these three to be ruled out of the equation.. because if THAT happens.. the MM is then just a curioso.. and then the Swanson marginalia becomes a curioso, as does Anderson's famous biography. The lynchpins for Ripper research over the last xx amount of years, which have been perused to death and written, talked and filmed about until repeated resurrection occurs... will mean very little in real terms. Silence.. perhaps it will go away if we ignore it...eh? Par for the course. The comments from the Member of Parliament mentioned in Simon Wood's posting are highly important in my opinion. Because they need a very good explanation.. vis a vis Kosminski's supposed guilt.

It's ok to have differing opinions. I have no qualms with that.. but when the weight of NON-evidence is firmly against these so-called suspects.. then it is time to draw a line and concentrate elsewhere. This is just my personal and humble opinion. If one disagrees, fine. But certainty of guilt thrown at Kosminski via the Swanson annotations, does a great dis-service to Kosminski's name and family.. without evidence. He lived until 1919.. and not once, in any record, anywhere, have we any comment by any person that he was even talked to or commented upon about the Ripper murders.. whilst in an asylum. Absolutely nothing. Except more curioso of an unproven meeting in a Seaside home somewhere with persons unknown and witness unknown. Highly dubious and not in any way evidential.


I will stress that I would love to see someone nail at least one of these murders against any person. Where the balance goes from no evidence to some evidence.


kindly


Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon Wood published a newspaper article that is of some value. It has for the most part been largely ignored. Why?

Hi Phil. Would you please provide the post number or at least the page of this? I may have missed it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Well, your diversion (above) constitutes flaming. I've been enjoying this thread, and only hope you haven't chased all the contributors away, as often happens when you hijack a thread.

Tom, obviously you're not the one to decide over what constitutes “flaming“ on these boards. Look at post #1239 and see who “attacked“ whom first. As I already said, for me the matter is dead and burried, and I'm still considering Wickerman and Stephen Thomas in the most friendly terms. And I'm the one who's trying to get back the thread into subject here.

To Phil Carter:
It's becoming more and more unavoidable to NOT discuss Le Grand in this thread, due to the mention of Ms. Kür's shirt saga and due to the newspaper snippet posted by Simon Wood. But please, let's stay on these 2 specific topics.
Mostly I'm interested in finding out the date of the unattributed newspaper article attached by SPE in his post #1197, which looks like a total new discovery.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Certainly. It is posting No.1195

kindly

Phil

[mariab]

Would you please provide the post number or at least the page of this? I may have missed it.

The newspaper snippet quoted by Simon Wood in his post #1195 (from The Western Mail of February 26, 1892) is obviously the one discovered a year ago or so by Mike Covell and identified by Howard Brown as referring to you know whom, and as quoted in an article in Examiner 2.

Plus theres's the unattributed newspaper article attached by SPE in his post #1197, apparently a new discovery.

[tji]

[QUOTE=mariab;191445]Tom, obviously you're not the one to decide over what constitutes “flaming“ on these boards. Look at post #1239 and see who “attacked“ whom first.

What is Tom not even entitled to an opinion either now?
I agree with him completely, for what it is worth. (see, that is my opinion)

and I'm still considering Wickerman and Stephen Thomas in the most friendly terms.

Hahaha well that's me told


Tracy

[Debra A]

Although this thread has wandered around all over the place, the introduction of "yer man" Charles Le Grand not only has very little to do with Kosminski, but if the various police opinions at the time are to be believed, Le Grand could not possibly have been Jack the Ripper. As they were still looking for him after Le Grand gets locked away. That is an argument people very easily forget as they wish to and make up reasons for JTR still being hunted when the police already supposedly knew who he was...and it applies to many of the suspects....


...Back to Kosminski. Simon Wood published a newspaper article that is of some value. It has for the most part been largely ignored. Why?

Hi Phil,
I don't think Simon's posting of the newspaper snippet was largely ignored, I responded to it for one, as did Tom.
Le Grand may have quite a lot to do with this newspaper snippet as I tried to point out discreetly so as not to go off topic, by directing Simon to a thread where similar snippets and discussion of them, were posted.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Debs,

Yes, you are correct that you did indeed respond.. but in terms of a Kosminski connection ... it was.. because it has bearing on the case against Kosminski being the Ripper.. and Druitt, and Ostrog.
The plausibility of Kosminski being the topic of the thread.. it makes a difference, imho.

kindly

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. Thanks for that. I thought perhaps Simon had posted another clipping I missed, but yes, this one is actually published in my Le Grand essay for Examiner, because that's who it is about. Like you, I would prefer not to be discussing Le Grand in this thread, so it having been about him aside, what do you consider the ramifications on Kosminski (and by association, the other members of the West Macnaghten 3)?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Some people are a glutton for punishment!

As for Wick, his posts on other topics are generally thoughtful and well-considered. Like many researchers, he has a blind spot when it comes to Berner Street.

Good one Tom!
And just for the record, Maria, Tracy, Stephen, ...Tom & I have disagreed over this and that for over a decade?, never anything too personal, never anything serious, a bit of rib-sticking here & there with a dash of sarcasm thrown in for good measure, but it's all under control.

Tom's a great guy with a sharp sense of humour, I take issue with some of his rapid conclusions but then Tom takes issues with me on other things.

All the best, Jon S.

[tji]

Hi Jon

I don't have any problems with Tom, never have. Tom I can tallk to, even when he disagrees with me over Michael Kidney and Liz Stride he listens to what I have to say and then puts his opinion forward. Never looks down his nose or patronises me, unlike some, even though I will concede his knowlegde on the subject is a lot better than mine.


Tj

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for that, Jon and Tracy. Although I don't think my conclusions are rapid...hence the fact you've been talking to me for a decade. I'm actually rather meticulous, though my casual, and lately sloppy, method of posting may not give that appearance. And if I've never patronized you, Tracy, I hope that hasn't made you feel left out.

Now, where is Begg, Hainsworth, SPE, Simon, and those other blowhards?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott