Plausibility of Kosminski

[lynn cates]

good sense

Hello Jonathan. Blimey, mate--you make good sense. Your private screening of Kosminski by A & S, without later leaks to the lower echelons, is about the only good explanation I've seen (apart from subterfuge, that is).

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Garry

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.

But when he gets answers he chooses to ignore then

Excuse me Garry but I think some of his posts toward me have in my opinion been disagreeable and offensive. The man knows nothing about police metholdology and when attempts have been made to explain them in full in relation to how the suspects came to be named he turns a deaf ear.

Why does he do that simply because the answers go against his theories. Answers which clearly show Anderson and Swanson other than shining lights which he would have us all beleive. So much of his work has revolved around these two he obviously finds it hard to let go of them.

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.

[mariab]

post containing newbie questions

I'm afraid I don't understand what your 2-1-1-1-1 and all that means.

I'm not sure, but I think Phil (and Lynn) attribute Nichols and Chapman to Leather Apron and consider Stride, Eddowes, and MJK as politically motivated hits or Fenian-related. But I might have it wrong or they may have changed their minds on this, so please don't lynch me if this is inaccurate. :-) Obviously I regard this as a pretty phantastic interpretation, but some details brought forward by Lynn Cates regarding the “double event“ are fascinating and worthy of researching. Obviously all this belongs to another thread.

I also do not believe that, if he {Kozminsky} 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.

Hello Jonathan. Blimey, mate--you make good sense. Your private screening of Kosminski by A & S, without later leaks to the lower echelons, is about the only good explanation I've seen (apart from subterfuge, that is).

Absolutely agree, especially with the highlighted parts, which provide an additional answer to Phil Carter's previous questions. Although I'd very much like to see Rob House's take on this in his book (which I'll eventually end up reading, when I get a minute).
Could someone enlighten me about the Crawford letter quoted above by Jonathan Hainsworth? Does this pertain to Crawford the City Solicitor, known also from the Eddowes inquest? Does it have anything to do with Lawende as a witness?
And if I might add, Mr. Hainsworth, your Examiner articles on Druitt are also on my reading list (right after Rob House's book).

More than twenty years ago {...} at a time when I was only just beginning my Hutchinson researches

Might I inquire if Garry Wroe wrote the second book on Hutchinson (besides Bob Hinton) or was it Ben Holme?

[Garry Wroe]

My advice, Trev, is that you start afresh, present your evidence in a logical, systematic manner, and see where it takes you. I personally think that some of your conclusions make a good deal of sense, but would never condone the use of personal slurs, irrespective of their source.

The way I see it, Ripper studies are fairly insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, so it's best not to take any of it too seriously.

Just a thought.

[PaulB]

Trevor,
You have been consistently disagreeable and deeply offensive for months and months, from your stupid accusations about Keith Skinner, nasty insinuations about documents and claims of cartels, through to having the utterly crass nerve to accuse Martin Fido of things without even knowing what he thinks and what his theories are. Furthermore, you've irritated and annoyed lots of people here, and their posts stand in testimony of this. Even Alex Butterworth has drawn attention to your errors and observed "I must say that I'm quite glad I never fell within the orbit of one of his investigations when he was a murder squad detective." Wherever you go, you leave errors and irritated people in your wake. So if I am a little testy with your ignorance and silliness, and dumb metaphors, sorry, but you merit it, and a thousand times worse.

As for my knowing nothing about police methodology, you were once a policeman, so was Stewart and so was Don, and you've all had a lot of first-hand experience with which nothing I've done can compare, thank God because I wouldn't have wanted the memories, but after a quarter of a century kicking around the police, researching the police, reading books about the police, going through police files,writing books about the police, being a consultant to Scotland Yard on its Official History, and much else besides, I do know a little something about police methodology, right from the Commissioner down the the lowly H Division constable, to whose reunions I was several times invited. So what we'll do here, Trevor, is mark that remark up as another example of your lack of knowledge.

And no, I haven't turned a deaf ear to how you think the suspects came to be named, I simply think it's rubbish. because the evidence, such as it is, is that Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson, had a bit more than a name in a ledger.

[Garry Wroe]

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

The world has certainly changed, Ben. And not for the better, in my view.

[PaulB]

The world has certainly changed, Ben. And not for the better, in my view.

It's an odd coincidence that I was emptying an old file cabinet the other day and going through some old correspondence and I came across a letter from you! But most folk in this field are pretty decent.

[Garry Wroe]

It's an odd coincidence that I was emptying an old file cabinet the other day and going through some old correspondence and I came across a letter from you!

So that would make it a Begging letter ...

[PaulB]

I'm surprised you had the nerve to post that.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil, thanks for the insightful answer. I don't think understanding the perspectives of the various contributors to the thread is in any way off topic. But just to confirm, you seem to feel that Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same man, and you equally feel secure that Stride was a one-off, but you're not yet certain whether or not Eddowes and Kelly were each one-offs, or would killed by the same man. If by the same man, do you feel that man was the same as Nichols/Chapman? And what are your thoughts on Smith and Tabram?

Considering your view that Stride was a one-off, do you not feel that Le Grand is a good suspect in that murder? I've said a million times that a person would not have to accept Le Grand pall mall as the Ripper to accept that the circumstancial evidence in the case of Stride is rather strong. And is Maria correct in that you think a Leather Apron type (presumably, you don't suspect John Pizer) killed some or all of the early victims?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
You have been consistently disagreeable and deeply offensive for months and months, from your stupid accusations about Keith Skinner, nasty insinuations about documents and claims of cartels, through to having the utterly crass nerve to accuse Martin Fido of things without even knowing what he thinks and what his theories are. Furthermore, you've irritated and annoyed lots of people here, and their posts stand in testimony of this. Even Alex Butterworth has drawn attention to your errors and observed "I must say that I'm quite glad I never fell within the orbit of one of his investigations when he was a murder squad detective." Wherever you go, you leave errors and irritated people in your wake. So if I am a little testy with your ignorance and silliness, and dumb metaphors, sorry, but you merit it, and a thousand times worse.

As for my knowing nothing about police methodology, you were once a policeman, so was Stewart and so was Don, and you've all had a lot of first-hand experience with which nothing I've done can compare, thank God because I wouldn't have wanted the memories, but after a quarter of a century kicking around the police, researching the police, reading books about the police, going through police files,writing books about the police, being a consultant to Scotland Yard on its Official History, and much else besides, I do know a little something about police methodology, right from the Commissioner down the the lowly H Division constable, to whose reunions I was several times invited. So what we'll do here, Trevor, is mark that remark up as another example of your lack of knowledge.

And no, I haven't turned a deaf ear to how you think the suspects came to be named, I simply think it's rubbish. because the evidence, such as it is, is that Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson, had a bit more than a name in a ledger.

Yes the three stooges !!!!!!! What evidence ?

And so mixing with Stewart and Don and going to police reunions suddenly makes you a detective does it. You couldnt catch a cold

I have no more time to waste here with you and your narrow minded approach to all of this. Whn the final day of reckoning come we will see whos right and who is wrong and that day looms ever nearer.

[mariab]

And is Maria correct in that you think a Leather Apron type (presumably, you don't suspect John Pizer) killed some or all of the early victims?

Obviously I should have clarified that I hope that noone still considers John Pizer himself as the killer of Nichols/Chapman.

I'd be endlessly grateful if someone would clarify about the “Crawford letter“ referred by Jonathan Hainsworth in his post #1317. Does this pertain to Crawford the City Solicitor, known also from the Eddowes inquest, and does it have anything to do with Lawende as a witness?
I'm sure that Mr. Hainsworth or Lynn or someone else would be able to explain.

[tji]

Go to message boards, letters and communications the Crawford letter thread on second page.

It is a letter stating that a woman believes she knows the identity of Jtr, who is someone who she thinks is related to her. Some people believe the lady was a relative of Druitt.

[Tom_Wescott]

Paul vs Trevor

I must say I'm impressed how Paul is holding his own against Trevor. Who ever thought he could be so meeeeeaaaaannn! But when they're ready to turn back to the subject of the Ripper, Koz, etc., we'll all be the better for it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Go to message boards, letters and communications the Crawford letter thread on second page.

It is a letter stating that a woman believes she knows the identity of Jtr, who is someone who she thinks is related to her. Some people believe the lady was a relative of Druitt.

Surely, no one still thinks this?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott