A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If they bent the rules and the matter went to court his barrister would make it known and the ID evidence would not be admissible, so why would they bend the rules and risk that?

Why have the police ever bent or broken the rules Trevor? Because they believed that they could get away with it?

who have I said was in charge and untrustworthy those are your words not mine

I was talking in general about the upper echelon police officers. MacNaghten for one. And yes I know he wasn’t in office in 1888

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I simply don’t see how you can make a definite assertion that someone couldn’t possibly have done something because is was risky or against the rules?

[Trevor Marriott]

The event the marginalia described self-evidently did not conform to accepted practice. You therefore conclude that it never happened. That conclusion is WRONG. You are discounting what a source tells you because it doesn't fit your expectations. The fact is that the marginalia describes an event that circumvented the rules and guidelines.

If the police were looking to detect the crime, and identify the killer, and bring him to justice then it could not have happened in the way described that is an irrefutable fact, there can be no other explanation. Add to that what would have been needed to facilitate such an ID parade, manpower etc, add to that no other officers make any mention of this earth shattering seaside home identification, add to that no one named Kosminksi was ever arrested, add to that the questionable marginalia as to who actually penned it in it entirety

Now again i ask you or anyone else to provide evidence that Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski mentioned, the simple fact is you cant, and i know that you have your own personal agenda for propping up the marginalia, and Kosminski, so your input on this topic is somewhat biased I would suggest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

How many time do i have to keep saying this anything the police did outside of what they were legally entitled to do would have jeopardized any future prosecution.

Yes the police were desperate to catch this killer and bring him to justice, but we all know that it didnt happen, and the reality is that they never ever got near to finding out who the killer or killers were.

I wish people would stop inventing suggestions to prop up the fact that this all took place as has been described and accept that it could not have happened as described and that there is no evidence to show that the kosminki mentioned was Aaron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The event the marginalia described self-evidently did not conform to accepted practice. You therefore conclude that it never happened. That conclusion is WRONG. You are discounting what a source tells you because it doesn't fit your expectations. The fact is that the marginalia describes an event that circumvented the rules and guidelines.

[PaulB]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are ducking and dodging as usual. Can't you ever answer a direct point? You said believing in Kosminski was akin to believing in fairies. I have asked you why. You won't answer that question. The reason, of course, is that you can't, because it isn't.

You know full well that two of the three men named by Macnaghten were real people. You have not produced one iota of evidence or even anything approaching a coherent argument to show that the third man, Kosminski, wasn't also real. Swanson identifies Anderson's suspect as 'Kosminski'. The only Kosminski that fits the criteria to be the real person Kosminski is Aaron Kosminski.

You haven't faced up to and tried to answer any points raised against your arguments. Do you delude yourself into thinking that nobody has noticed this by now?

[Simon Wood]

I can't help but notice that everyone is arguing on the basis that the Swanson marginalia and endpaper notes are kosher.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why are you so certain about something that might or might not have occurred 130 years ago. How on earth can you make a statement like:



Are the police such paragons of correctness Trevor? Aren’t we replete with examples of the police not only bending the rules but breaking them? Even modern day police. Didn’t the Victorian police have their corruption scandals? How can you state as a fact that the police would never, under no circumstances, have bent the rules in an attempt to catch the ripper?

And would it have been so risky? Kosminski’s would hardly have been competent enough to have questioned police procedure.



We might also say - I wish people would stop assuming that everything said by a senior police officer during this case must have been a lie. It’s rather strange that on one hand you are saying that the Victorian police were procedurally whiter than white whilst on the other you are constantly accusing the men in charge of being untrustworthy con artists.

If they bent the rules and the matter went to court his barrister would make it known and the ID evidence would not be admissible, so why would they bend the rules and risk that?

who have I said was in charge and untrustworthy those are your words not mine

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why are you so certain about something that might or might not have occurred 130 years ago. How on earth can you make a statement like:

.How many time do i have to keep saying this anything the police did outside of what they were legally entitled to do would have jeopardized any future prosecution.

Are the police such paragons of correctness Trevor? Aren’t we replete with examples of the police not only bending the rules but breaking them? Even modern day police. Didn’t the Victorian police have their corruption scandals? How can you state as a fact that the police would never, under no circumstances, have bent the rules in an attempt to catch the ripper?

And would it have been so risky? Kosminski’s would hardly have been competent enough to have questioned police procedure.

I wish people would stop inventing suggestions to prop up the fact that this all took place as has been described and accept that it could not have happened as described

We might also say - I wish people would stop assuming that everything said by a senior police officer during this case must have been a lie. It’s rather strange that on one hand you are saying that the Victorian police were procedurally whiter than white whilst on the other you are constantly accusing the men in charge of being untrustworthy con artists.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not desperation at all. All I said was that two of the three people named by Macnaghten were real, and I asked you to therefore explain why you think believing that Kosminski was real was tantamount to believing in fairies. Typically, you have not answered that question.

Show me anything that proves Aron Kosminski was the Kosminski mentioned in The memorandum?

There are two other sources, Anderson and Swanson. Among other things, Anderson says his suspect was male, a low class Jew, that he masturbated, and that he was committed to an asylum. Swanson adds that the suspect was named Kosminski and that he had a brother. Aaron Kosminski fits this criteria, right down to the masturbation, and he is the only Kosminski so far found in the asylum records.

Anderson doesn't mention any name, Macnaghten mentions a surname, and that surname appears in the marginalia which is unsafe. So how can you say that all the referneces to Kosminski mut match AAron Kosminski when no one seem to know the christian name of this prime suspect

Aaron Kosminski stands on his own two feet, he doesn't need propping up, but your arguments are collapsing like nine pins.

I am afraid my arguments stand up better than yours

Are you dodging answering the point that the marginalia describes an event outside your unspecified rules and guidelines and that your argument falls flat?

My arguments will stand strong long after yours are cast aside and forgotten.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It is certainly not unreasonable to believe that the police would have been willing to bend or completely bypass the rules given the pressure they were under. And it is not like Kosminski was rich, powerful and well connected. On the other hand, how would it look for the police if their illegal actions came to light in court? I suppose the argument could be made that they never had any intention of taking the suspect to trial but simply wanted to get him off of the streets.

c.d.

How many time do i have to keep saying this anything the police did outside of what they were legally entitled to do would have jeopardized any future prosecution.

Yes the police were desperate to catch this killer and bring him to justice, but we all know that it didnt happen, and the reality is that they never ever got near to finding out who the killer or killers were.

I wish people would stop inventing suggestions to prop up the fact that this all took place as has been described and accept that it could not have happened as described and that there is no evidence to show that the kosminki mentioned was Aaron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

This is an interesting notion - that police deliberately set up the ID to scare the suspect into knowing he would be watched and thus likely deter him from killing again, regardless of what the witness said.

Not in a million years !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

It is certainly not unreasonable to believe that the police would have been willing to bend or completely bypass the rules given the pressure they were under. And it is not like Kosminski was rich, powerful and well connected. On the other hand, how would it look for the police if their illegal actions came to light in court? I suppose the argument could be made that they never had any intention of taking the suspect to trial but simply wanted to get him off of the streets.

c.d.

[Scott Nelson]

Given the extreme pressure that the police were under, and with every man and his dog commenting on how useless they were, isn't at at least possible Trevor that they might have bent or even bypassed protocol faced with the dilemma - do we possibly ID the Ripper or stick rigidly to the rules and leave him free to kill again?

This is an interesting notion - that police deliberately set up the ID to scare the suspect into knowing he would be watched and thus likely deter him from killing again, regardless of what the witness said.

[PaulB]

Everything about Kosminsk as decribed by MM is totally wrong compared to the antecedents of Aaron Kosminski.

So as no alternative has been found, do we have to accept that despite everything about AAron being wrong we have to accpet it.

Come on, that statement reeks of desperation to prop up Aaron !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not desperation at all. All I said was that two of the three people named by Macnaghten were real, and I asked you to therefore explain why you think believing that Kosminski was real was tantamount to believing in fairies. Typically, you have not answered that question.

There are two other sources, Anderson and Swanson. Among other things, Anderson says his suspect was male, a low class Jew, that he masturbated, and that he was committed to an asylum. Swanson adds that the suspect was named Kosminski and that he had a brother. Aaron Kosminski fits this criteria, right down to the masturbation, and he is the only Kosminski so far found in the asylum records.

Aaron Kosminski stands on his own two feet, he doesn't need propping up, but your arguments are collapsing like nine pins.

Are you dodging answering the point that the marginalia describes an event outside your unspecified rules and guidelines and that your argument falls flat?

[Trevor Marriott]

It's no good saying there is no evidence that Aaron was the suspect Kosminski. We all know that. But find another 'Kosminski' that fits the criteria. To some extent the fact that no altogether plausible alternative has been found does constitute evidence that Aaron Kosminski was 'Kosminski'.

Everything about Kosminsk as decribed by MM is totally wrong compared to the antecedents of Aaron Kosminski.

So as no alternative has been found, do we have to accept that despite everything about AAron being wrong we have to accpet it.

Come on, that statement reeks of desperation to prop up Aaron !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Your question is rhetorical because we know there were not

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually, the police appear to have gone to extraordinary lengths to have the witness confront the suspect. Do you suppose they did that without any reason at all? Or is it more likely that they had good reasons for suspecting 'Kosminski'? Would those reasons constitute evidence? Could they, bolstered by the witness identification, have led to a conviction?