Plausibility of Kosminski

[mariab]

I will admit to deflowering your Le Grande theory

Deflowering it? The Le Grand theory's a whore. Unregistered. As it's been around for a few years, but not yet presented in written form, in an article or book.

So where down the order does that put Le Grande in MM's eyes eh? Below Kosminski, below Ostrog and below Druitt.. not much of a suspect then.. eh?

If LG was JtR, why two years later did Macnaghten drop him in favour of his MM3? It all needs to be explained.

Phil, you know very well that Ostrog IS possibly Le Grand, as we have already discussed it. I'm working on this, entertain several suspicions, and trying to clear this out.

{@ Tom Wescott:}You're a year ahead of me with regard to the Western Mail article. The only new thing I have brought to the table is the identification of its London correspondent as James McKenzie Maclean, Tory MP for Oldham and co-owner of the newspaper. And knowing that the story wasn't cobbled together by some hack who nightly propped up the bar at the Frog & Nightgown pub is important.

Well, THANK GOD that someone decided to clear up the Maclean reference, cuz I was scratching my head silly.

Whose high-level confidence at Scotland Yard did Maclean enjoy? Why was the story dropped into his ear at this particular time? Why the poo-poohing of Farquharson's year-old suicide yarn? Why the promotion of a suspect who only stopped murdering because he knew he was under surveillance, a suspect who in April morphed into a Belgian sentenced six months earlier to a twenty-spot in Portland prison?

EXTREMELY pertinent questions, especially the highlighted part.
By the by, the “Belgian“ mixup occurred frequently with Le Grand, since his Guidhal convinction in 1877, if I'm not mistaken. Debra Arif is in possession of the relevant sources. (I'm even researching his dad in Belgium, just in case.)

[lynn cates]

sacre bleu

Hello Simon and Maria. A Belgian? Mon Dieu! Poirot was the Ripper!

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hello Lynn. LOL.
Can I email you when done with the Danish diplomats?

[Trevor Marriott]

Go away, Trevor. I really don't have time for you anymore.

And stop trying to attribute to em what you have consistently done on this thread. It won't wash.

What I have done is to present the facts in an unbiased fashion. The truth is those facts weigh heavily against your theories and in reality you cant accept the facts. Well I would suggest that you learn to live with is because they are not going away and neither am I.

You have ridden around for far to long on your high horse just be careful you dont fall at one of the fences its a long way down and where would you go with a bruised ego.

[Tom_Wescott]

1) I wouldn't follow you to watch Chelsea play, let alone "around the boards"..That accusation is unfounded.. but I will admit to deflowering your Le Grande theory every time you blow his horn with no evidence and tell us all "if you knew what I know".. you really are asking for it.

Of course it’s not unfounded. Everyone knows you target me. You’ve been called out on it and will continue to be called out on it until the time comes when I’ve had enough of you. You act like I go around preaching Le Grand, when it’s the exact opposite. I was enjoying the Koz thread because it’s something different, and what happens? You guessed it.

I have said it before. I will say it again. I WELCOME your research. I ENCOURAGE your research into Le Grand. But my opinion, and I am far from being the only one, is that it is weak..AS IT STANDS.

I would disagree. I think my work is just fine. But for the sake of the record, is there ANY suspect argument to date that you think ISN’T weak? You talk all the time about things you DON’T like, but now that I think about it, I’m not aware of a suspect theory you think is worthwhile, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m hard to please myself. But is there one?

As for your personality, I’m sure I know more than you think. And I’m not saying that in a negative way at all, I’m just not as ignorant as you suppose.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

I have kept well abreast of your research. It's a fascinating construct, which in places is very compelling.

No offense intended, but I just don't buy LG's candidature, any more than I do that of the MM3 or [insert suspect's name here].

Fair enough, and none taken.

You're a year ahead of me with regard to the Western Mail article. The only new thing I have brought to the table is the identification of its London correspondent as James McKenzie Maclean, Tory MP for Oldham and co-owner of the newspaper. And knowing that the story wasn't cobbled together by some hack who nightly propped up the bar at the Frog & Nightgown pub is important.

Whose high-level confidence at Scotland Yard did Maclean enjoy? Why was the story dropped into his ear at this particular time? Why the poo-poohing of Farquharson's year-old suicide yarn? Why the promotion of a suspect who only stopped murdering because he knew he was under surveillance, a suspect who in April morphed into a Belgian sentenced six months earlier to a twenty-spot in Portland prison?

I agree with you. That this latter report was a reference to LG is as plain as the nose on Cyrano de Bergerac's face, but if it is true that LG was the Whitechapel murderer then by April 1892 the MM3 were already toast.

Okay, this is all new to me. So this is what Phil was going on about regarding ‘So what about the MP, Tom!’ I thought he was confusing Farquarson, but you mean to say you’ve identified the author of this article? Have you posted more about this elsewhere where I can read? It’s not appropriate for this thread, but I’d like to learn more. Phil Carter does you no favors, by the way.

If LG was JtR, why two years later did Macnaghten drop him in favour of his MM3? It all needs to be explained.

Perhaps you give Big Mac more credit than I do, but I doubt it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I will inform you, as you assume to know so much about my personality within Ripperology, that I help quite a few people that you, and others, have no idea about, because I keep my word to say nothing.

Your contributions are legendary - the research you provided Karen Trenouth and Felicity, the accounting you did for Dan Norder, and I hear you were indispensable to Andrew Cook in chosing a cover for his book. I'm surprised you're not utilized more often.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

You couldn't wind up a clock. Your attempt is jaw-droppingly pathetic. Dressed as it is with falsities, as above. I have 6 year olds at school with a greater imagination than this... not to mention a sense of humour.

kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

... But for the sake of the record, is there ANY suspect argument to date that you think ISN’T weak? You talk all the time about things you DON’T like, but now that I think about it, I’m not aware of a suspect theory you think is worthwhile, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m hard to please myself. But is there one?

Hello Tom,

I have said, quite openly, that I have no favourite. So what? Neither do many. I have also said I tend to see a 2-1-1-1 or 2-1-2 scenario for the C5 victims. But that is just a guarded opinion. Nothing more, because I see nothing greater to go on. Nothing wrong with that.
This thread is about Kosminski.. and I have made my comments on that quite clear. I suggest back to the thread.



kindly

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

Not trying to get your dander up with my last post, just making a funny. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with you not having a favorite suspect, though that's not what I asked. I asked if there's a suspect where you think the case isn't total crap. and I'm afraid I don't understand what your 2-1-1-1-1 and all that means.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PaulB]

[B]What I have done is to present the facts in an unbiased fashion.

If it comforts you to think that, Trevor, then by all means think it. Everyone else will read your posts and judge for themselves.

[B]The truth is those facts weigh heavily against your theories and in reality you cant accept the facts. Well I would suggest that you learn to live with is because they are not going away and neither am I.

You haven't presented many “facts”, Trevor, just your speculations and rather hazy conclusions, and a variety of trite and hackneyed metaphors. And what theories of mine do you fondly imagine they weigh heavily against? I doubt that you have any greater grasp of what I think than you knew and understood Martin Fido's thinking.

[Jonathan H]

Regarding 'Kosminski', I subscribe to the theory that there was no witness identification involving this suspect.

I also do not believe that, if he was a suspect, that it involved any police beyond Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten, because the man was already 'safely caged', and the reasons he came to their attention bypassed normal police channels. Something like the Crawford Leter, for example.

But even if this was the best bet to be the fiend, from Anderson's point of view, it would not stop him investigating other suspects. It would have been negligent to have stopped.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Please excuse the rushed reply..work awaits.

The 2-1-1-1 or 2-1-2 refers to the C5.. Meaning that I tend to favour the same killer for the first two, and two or three different killers for the last three. Looking at it objectively, from this angle, it could well be I am completely wrong, but I see no logical reason for a one man killing spree.. as others do. I would find it very dufficult to be able to connect the same man to the 5 different places and not be recignised at least 3 times by the witnesses, thereby showing consistancy of height, build etc.

As regards the description "crap".. against any known suspect.. I used to, a very long time ago, have a favoured suspect but was very careful about his possbility. The idea of there being stored away files on Tumbelty was intruiging, and I did enjoy the book written about him by Evans and Gainey. The detection and hunting down of the man and his antecedents was a cut above previous suspect books. But I was not swayed enough to commit myself.
Re any other suspect books written, Knight's tale was a really good read.. there is no doubt about that.. but had large holes in it, and I became disenchanted with the Gorman/Sickert denial/re-try and remergence under other story lines. More story lines I should say. As regards Walter Sickert and Cornwell.. there is only one thing that I liked.. the possibility that Sickert may have written one or more of the letters to the police himself. The rest.. now that really is "crap".

Nothing dissuades me more than hype. Which is perhaps why my reactions are the way they are. "New Prime Suspect" "Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect" etc. So the track record of suspect based books isn't good. The first one I read was Farson's. To me the tales of Dandenong etc just didn't work, and trying to fit proof into a theory like that casts a die. Even Lady Aberconway's later comments to the press about "causing the throne to totter" did Farson's theory no favours either. More wind-ups, methinks.

Hope that answer is sufficient as I don't want to disrupt the thread further.

kindly

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

You have ridden around for far to long on your high horse just be careful you dont fall at one of the fences its a long way down and where would you go with a bruised ego.

More than twenty years ago, Trev, at a time when I was only just beginning my Hutchinson researches, Paul was one of those authors who freely contributed help and advice. It would have been easy to be dismissive of a young upstart, but Paul never was. There was never any hint of ego then, and nor have I seen any since.

If you’d care to re-read his contributions to this thread, you’ll find that he has made his position abundantly clear. He doubts that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, but wishes to establish why Anderson and possibly Swanson believed otherwise. Thus he is not peddling a theory of any kind. He is simply seeking answers to questions.

You, of course, are perfectly free to disagree with the conclusions of Paul or any other contributor. But there is a world of difference between being in disagreement and being disagreeable. If I have learned anything over the years it is that robust evidence speaks louder than any personal insult. So present your argument by all means, but not in a way that is offensive. Enough good people have been driven away from Casebook over the years. Let’s not add to the list.

[Ben]

It would have been easy to be dismissive of a young upstart, but Paul never was.

Which, regrettably, is more than can be said of some other authors, Garry.