Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

Hi Stewart,

...AND we still have to consider Anderson was the one who deceptively authored the 'Times' letters in the Parnell issue, demonstrating that deception is a perfectly acceptable tool to use for political reasons. He seems to be an 'ends justifies the means' kind of guy.

So, we basically have to consider what he stated, but remain a little skeptcal.

Sincerely,

Mike

Oh, more than just a little... And I think he was, but by the lights of his times.

[Tom_Wescott]

Likely suspect is more fitting as there are no prime suspects would you not agree ?

Well, according to Casebook Examiner #2, there's a really good new prime suspect. And he could beat up Kozminski and Tumblety at the same time, so there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PaulB]

We must all examine the historical sources and assess their quality. Needless to say, historians being historians, and human beings being human beings, we are sure not to reach a consensus on those assessments.

Historians don't with historians... It's not so much a matter of singing from the same hymn sheet, but singing in the same church.

[mklhawley]

Oh, more than just a little... And I think he was, but by the lights of his times.

This point is often forgotten.

[Stewart P Evans]

There is no...

Well, according to Casebook Examiner #2, there's a really good new prime suspect. And he could beat up Kozminski and Tumblety at the same time, so there.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

There is no 'prime suspect' - never was. There are only primary suspects amongst those we know of. And, like it or not, 'Kosminski' is amongst those.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which I guess is better than being accused of anal conversion.
I think Trevinator might stick for good. I like it.

Just another name to add to the list

For those who keep saying i am just trying to make a name for myself I have to ask which one

[Stewart P Evans]

Well...

Likely suspect is more fitting as there are no prime suspects would you not agree ?

Well, 'likely' is such a personal interpretation. In reaching that definition there is usually a distinct lack of objectivity.

[Stewart P Evans]

Just love

Just another name to add to the list
For those who keep saying i am just trying to make a name for myself I have to ask which one

But I just love 'The Trevinator'. It has that 'Terminator' ring to it.

[PaulB]

Likely suspect is more fitting as there are no prime suspects would you not agree ?

It's what you mean by "prime suspect", Trevor. From the historical perspective we only know about a handful of suspects, and of those only about five were by name seriously advanced by informed contemporaries, and only three onto Macnaghten's pick list, so how do you define those three? They are our "prime suspects": men named by informed contemporary sources. After that you have assorted individuals on whom suspicion fell for one reason or another, and after that you have people on whom suspicion has been cast by later commentators. You wouldn't classify J.K. Stephen in the same category as Druitt, for example.

It this sense it is probably also true to say that "Kosminski" was Anderson's "prime suspect" and that Druitt was Macnaghten's. After all, these policemen thought that their respective suspect was Jack the Ripper, so they're not likely to have seen them as also-rans. But, I should add, that they were prime or primary suspects retrospectively, as was Chapman. I think it's probable that only Ostrog and Tumblety were suspected at the time of the murders, and Ostrog would have been ruled out when it was much later discovered that he was in prison in France.

So, how are you defining "prime suspect"?

[mariab]

Quote mariab:
I think Trevinator might stick for good. I like it.

Just another name to add to the list For those who keep saying i am just trying to make a name for myself I have to ask which one

If you manage to make the SB ledgers available, I'll be calling you the God of Ripperology.

Well, according to Casebook Examiner #2, there's a really good new prime suspect. And he could beat up Kozminski and Tumblety at the same time, so there.

There is no 'prime suspect' - never was. There are only primary suspects amongst those we know of. And, like it or not, 'Kosminski' is amongst those.

Despite being majorly interested in Le Grand, the term “prime suspect“ bothers me to the point of making me cringe. Too much of a PR-gig connotation in there. It also reminds me of “prime rib“. I'd rather call him a “primary suspect“ or a “legitimate suspect“.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, 'likely' is such a personal interpretation. In reaching that definition there is usually a distinct lack of objectivity..

Well my personal interpretations of likely and prime are based on the circumstances surrounding each one of them being named or considered in the first instance. Based on what we know how can you or anyone else suggets that Kosminski is a prime suspect.

All we have is a surname and iffy and unreliable writings of two officers in later years. Coupled with The MM that has no corroboration to the part relating to Kosminski and that is also unreliable.

And then in later years all these officers in memoirs etc come out with different names, then they say they didnt know who the killer was. Not a question of "We knew but could never convict et etc" which is what we are being asked to belive with regards to Swanson and Anderson.

On that basis I say again there is nothing to elevate any of the suspects to prime suspect status and you being an ex police officer should be able to see that.

[Stewart P Evans]

I didn't suggest...

Well my personal interpretations of likely and prime are based on the circumstances surrounding each one of them being named or considered in the first instance. Based on what we know how can you or anyone else suggets that Kosminski is a prime suspect.
All we have is a surname and iffy and unreliable writings of two officers in later years. Coupled with The MM that has no corroboration to the part relating to Kosminski and that is also unreliable.
And then in later years all these officers in memoirs etc come out with different names, then they say they didnt know who the killer was. Not a question of "We knew but could never convict et etc" which is what we are being asked to belive with regards to Swanson and Anderson.
On that basis I say again there is nothing to elevate any of the suspects to prime suspect status and you being an ex police officer should be able to see that.

But I didn't suggest that he was a 'prime' suspect, what I suggested was that he was (and is) a primary suspect for further research.

I agree that we have no real evidence supporting any suspect as being the actual killer, thus we cannot have a 'prime' suspect. No matter how unreliable you may consider the Macnaghten report to be, the uncomfortable fact for you is that it is an official document and it does name Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog. Ergo, they are police named suspects.

No matter how 'iffy and unreliable' you consider Anderson and Swanson to be, their status and importance cannot be gainsaid. So, as police nominated suspects, Druitt and Kosminski (I think Ostrog has now been disposed of) remain primary suspects for further research. As Paul keeps trying to tell you.

Yes, I understand the nature of legal evidence and police procedures and, like you, I have been involved in real murder cases - I found the body in one instance! But here we are dealing with an unsolved series of murders that have been relegated from police investigation to historical investigation. And there's a big difference. Again as Paul has been trying to tell you.

[John Bennett]

Well my personal interpretations of likely and prime are based on the circumstances surrounding each one of them being named or considered in the first instance. Based on what we know how can you or anyone else suggets that Kosminski is a prime suspect.

I don't think many people are claiming Kosminski as a prime suspect. I do think many (including yourself, Trevor) confuse 'not rejecting a suspect outright as there are questions still to be answered' with 'this person was Jack the Ripper'. As Stewart said, Kosminski - whoever he was - is there, mentioned by those in a position to know and he is a suspect whether we like it or not (obviously I have paraphrased this). It doesn't necessarily mean that those who don't throw his candidacy in the bin are putting him forward as the culprit, they are just trying to make sense of the limited and often conflicting information at our disposal in the 21st century.

On that basis I say again there is nothing to elevate any of the suspects to prime suspect status and you being an ex police officer should be able to see that.

Maybe not to elevate them to the position of 'prime suspect', but surely to make them deserving of our interest at least?

[Trevor Marriott]

It's what you mean by "prime suspect", Trevor. From the historical perspective we only know about a handful of suspects, and of those only about five were by name seriously advanced by informed contemporaries, and only three onto Macnaghten's pick list, so how do you define those three? They are our "prime suspects": men named by informed contemporary sources. After that you have assorted individuals on whom suspicion fell for one reason or another, and after that you have people on whom suspicion has been cast by later commentators. You wouldn't classify J.K. Stephen in the same category as Druitt, for example.

It this sense it is probably also true to say that "Kosminski" was Anderson's "prime suspect" and that Druitt was Macnaghten's. After all, these policemen thought that their respective suspect was Jack the Ripper, so they're not likely to have seen them as also-rans. But, I should add, that they were prime or primary suspects retrospectively, as was Chapman. I think it's probable that only Ostrog and Tumblety were suspected at the time of the murders, and Ostrog would have been ruled out when it was much later discovered that he was in prison in France.

So, how are you defining "prime suspect"?

Paul
As far as The Whitechapel murders are concerned for a suspect to be categorised as a prime suspect they would need to meet a number of different criteria which would escalate them to that status

1. Was known, to carry a knife, or info received that he did carry a knife

2. Had a history of violence towards women and in particular prostitutes

3. Previous convictions of a simliar nature.

4. Fitted the description give by any witnesses and those witnesses being in a position to make a positive identification at a later stage. In most serious offences now when Identification is an issue with the new ID procedures a video ID parade can be put together within 1 hour. As has been said years later ant parade conducted then in any format would have no evidential value and any outcome in any event deemed to be un reliable.

5. Couldnt give an explanation as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders or any if any account given.

6. The strength and reliablity of any information the police would have received about the suspect.

7. The home address location of the suspect in relation to the murders although
most criminal and murderers for that matter do not commit crimes on their
own doorstep for obvious reasons.

8. A general assessment of the suspect i.e the type of person he was, what type
of background he came from. How well he is likely to have known the killling
grounds. Could he have known the victims. Could any enquiries have been
done to find out if he had been to the area or knew the area,

In this day and age anyone who even fitted some of those in a murder case is likely to be arrested. I have dealt with recent murder cases where people have been arrested simply because they were seen or mentioned by others as being in the area at the time.

The point in mentioning this is that those people would be recorded in the police system as being arrested on suspicion of murder and those entries would stay on record despite the fact that they would soon be eliminated from any further suspicion.

In the case of Kosminki you are right we dont know what the information which led to the name Kosminski being mentioned was. But looking at it sensibly it couldnt have been much given the passage of time and the lack of documentation surrounding what the police are supposed to have done on receipt of that information.

In view of that I would refer you to para 6 above and I belive that whatever it was it could have been nothing more than hearsay, or another guess would be the incident with his sister.Which would have engaged paras 1,2 and 5 above. But looking at Aaron Kosminski he really doesnt fit the profile for many reasons whic can clearly be seen.

I hope this give you a greater understanding of police methodology with regards toi the assesing and evaluating the viabilty of suspects.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think many people are claiming Kosminski as a prime suspect. I do think many (including yourself, Trevor) confuse 'not rejecting a suspect outright as there are questions still to be answered' with 'this person was Jack the Ripper'. As Stewart said, Kosminski - whoever he was - is there, mentioned by those in a position to know and he is a suspect whether we like it or not (obviously I have paraphrased this). It doesn't necessarily mean that those who don't throw his candidacy in the bin are putting him forward as the culprit, they are just trying to make sense of the limited and often conflicting information at our disposal in the 21st century.



Maybe not to elevate them to the position of 'prime suspect', but surely to make them deserving of our interest at least?

i am not saying we should not treat them with interest but in the right context and to that end we should be considering them all equally not ramping up Kosminski as being the prime suspect. At the end of the day there is a list they cant all have been the killer if any.

Much work has been done by many to prove or disprove their involvment as a result of that good work by everyone I belive we are able to safely say which of the named suspects should be put on the back burner or has been suggest toasted. If you just had the one name and no others you might be able to keep the pot boiling but there are numerous names with little or nothing knowm about any of them as to how they came to be named. Surely doesnt that tell you something. To me is suggests he police didnt have anyhting and they were clutching at straws and chasing shadows and still chasing them in 1891.