Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A possibility for the Seaside Home?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • With respect to the Identification witness who confronted Kosminski, he may have been a ruse -- someone the police planted to look at the suspect and say he recognized Kosminski to scare him and keep him from killing again.

    Thus, there may never have been any actual eye-witness, just an actor.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

      I think the argument was that David Cohen was a Jewish version of John Doe.
      Don't see how anglicising can come close from Kosminsky to Cohen
      Perhaps "anglicising" is the wrong word here. Changing a complex European name like "Kosminski" to a more English-sounding Jewish name, like "Abrahams" is what I'm thinking of. There were literally thousands of immigrant families named "Cohen" in London at that time who had changed their European Jewish last names.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

        My take on the article is that it's being suggested that Cohen was JTR Steve , but that his real name was Kosminsky .
        The hospital staff got the name wrong as he was violent on admission .
        Doesn't seem the type to be whisked off to the seaside on that snippet
        I am not so sure of that Nick, as I said on FB, I would rather wait for the actual book rather than a newspaper article.

        Adam's commented on FB, and seems to be saying people have misinterpreted.
        I will wait and see.
        My view has not changed on who Kosminski was at this point.

        Steve


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
          With respect to the Identification witness who confronted Kosminski, he may have been a ruse -- someone the police planted to look at the suspect and say he recognized Kosminski to scare him and keep him from killing again.

          Thus, there may never have been any actual eye-witness, just an actor.
          And then he refused to swear to him because he was a fellow jew ?! That doesn't make sense.

          But, he may have been one of the secret agents who the police planted in the streets at the time around the Eddowes murder.



          The Baron

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

            And then he refused to swear to him because he was a fellow jew ?! That doesn't make sense.
            That's part of the story that was told. It needn't have happened that way.

            Comment


            • There WAS an identification.

              The suspect WAS identified.

              The only one who had a good view of the murderer identifed him

              The witness WAS a felow jew.

              Kosminski WAS the suspect.



              I don't think anyone can come closer to solve this case than that.


              The Baron

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                I am not so sure of that Nick, as I said on FB, I would rather wait for the actual book rather than a newspaper article.

                Adam's commented on FB, and seems to be saying people have misinterpreted.
                I will wait and see.
                My view has not changed on who Kosminski was at this point.

                Steve

                Misinterpreted? Misquoted? Taken out of context?
                Excuse me. We've e heard it before from just about every quoted person in the media, ever.
                How often were those quotes actually misquotes, misinterpretations or really out of context?

                After all. I would expect a throughly clear actual quote in all medias to explain such a massive misinterpretation, wouldn't you?
                Haven't seen it yet. Have you?


                Phil
                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                Justice for the 96 = achieved
                Accountability? ....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                  I am not so sure of that Nick, as I said on FB, I would rather wait for the actual book rather than a newspaper article.

                  Adam's commented on FB, and seems to be saying people have misinterpreted.
                  I will wait and see.
                  My view has not changed on who Kosminski was at this point.

                  Steve

                  Hard to see how we could misinterpret what's written Steve .
                  If Adam's words have been misinterpreted by the reporter then that's different
                  You can lead a horse to water.....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                    There WAS an identification. Yes.

                    The suspect WAS identified. Yes.

                    The only one who had a good view of the murderer identifed him Not necessarily.

                    The witness WAS a felow jew. Or pretended to be.

                    Kosminski WAS the suspect. Yes.
                    I think it was likely that the primary reason for the proceeding was to get the suspect off the streets.

                    Comment


                    • Steve,

                      Just one or two alarming things here.

                      For 31 years Family Swanson and friends have rammed down our throats "Kosminski was the suspect". Family Swanson have even gone into the media on various occasions calling the quoted suspect "Aaron Kosminski". (without one iota of proof). Now, apparently, David Cohen "fits" the description in the marginalia. But Swanson, this all encompassing policeman, not only cannot remember Jack the Rippers first name (as in Aaron), he now seemingly can't remember a far far easier name, David Cohen, to write into the marginalia.
                      I remind you. "Kosminski was the suspect" RAMMED down the throats of all for 31 years. So the marginalia is to be believed because it fits Cohen's antecedents, yet we must now ignore "Kosminski was the the suspect".. Because of a mistake in writing the wrong name down?
                      A mistake writing down Jack the Rippers name.. At least 23 years after this bloke Cohen died. THE most famous Murderer in the world.
                      No. Pigs can't fly. Sorry.

                      Phil
                      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                      Justice for the 96 = achieved
                      Accountability? ....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                        Thank you for the reply Trevor I just want to make a point about the suspect being identified in his cell. I am assuming this was possibly done a lot in Victorian times if an ID parade couldn't be arranged. The point I want to make is suppose the Victorian police couldn't hold the suspect in the cell because they just had some circumstantial evidence but not enough without some ID evidence, [remember forensics was very limited back then and ID evidence was given a lot more credence than now]. Wouldn't the police try their very best to obtain the crucial [back then], ID evidence? And use some form of confrontation ID. I know you question the legality of this Trevor but couldn't the police say the suspect was known but not available IE he refused or was incapable of such parade? As the CPS site says can happen.
                        Regards Darryl
                        Darryl,

                        The issue lays with Trevor imposing modern procedure with Victorian procedure. The context Trevor presents doesn’t ring true and is therefore flawed.

                        Victorian era ID parades happened anywhere, I cite Wellington Barracks and Pearly Poll for example.

                        Its all explained in my book. Buy it, it’ll save the back and forth circular exchanges.

                        Monty
                        Monty

                        https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                        Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                        http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                        Comment


                        • “”Prejudiced interpretation of an article brings all the boys to the yard

                          And they're like, my views are better than yours
                          Damn right they’’re better than yours

                          I can teach you, but I have to charge.””

                          Same stagnated opinion, different year. They never learn do they George?

                          Monty
                          Monty

                          https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                          Comment


                          • Help. I'm lost. I can't see where Adam suggests that David Cohen was Swanson's suspect? There's the bit where Adam says Swanson said that the suspect died soon after being committed, and acknowledges that Aaron Kosminski lived until 1919. Adam then pays homage to Martin, saying that there was a suspect who did die soon after being committed, and he says he wasn't recorded under the name of Kosminski but as David Cohen. Then there's what appears to me to be messy bit which sound to me like an attempt to simply explain Martin's confusion hypothesis, '“There were many Kosminskis living in Whitechapel at the time and it’s just possible that Cohen’s name was recorded incorrectly when he was admitted, because by all accounts he had to be restrained when he came in.”" But Adam then discounts this, saying that Swanson "knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification." The crucial bit being the words I have italicised. Isn't that Adam specifically denying that Swanson would have made a mistake with a name or identification?

                            I've tried to give the David Cohen theory 'air time' more times than I care to remember and unsurprisingly journalists never get it right, so much so that it's a standing joke with Keith and myself. If I'd been Adam I don't think I'd have even tried. It always turns into a mess.

                            Anyway, is this the bit that's causing the fuss, or is there a statement elsewhere in the article that I've missed?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Monty View Post

                              Darryl,

                              The issue lays with Trevor imposing modern procedure with Victorian procedure. The context Trevor presents doesn’t ring true and is therefore flawed.

                              Victorian era ID parades happened anywhere, I cite Wellington Barracks and Pearly Poll for example.

                              Its all explained in my book. Buy it, it’ll save the back and forth circular exchanges.

                              Monty
                              That was a different type of identification altogether, the purpose of that was to try to identify two soldiers who had been in the company of Tabram and Pearly Poll. whoever they were they were not regarded as a suspects but were required for interview and elimination purposes.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                                Help. I'm lost. I can't see where Adam suggests that David Cohen was Swanson's suspect? There's the bit where Adam says Swanson said that the suspect died soon after being committed, and acknowledges that Aaron Kosminski lived until 1919. Adam then pays homage to Martin, saying that there was a suspect who did die soon after being committed, and he says he wasn't recorded under the name of Kosminski but as David Cohen. Then there's what appears to me to be messy bit which sound to me like an attempt to simply explain Martin's confusion hypothesis, '“There were many Kosminskis living in Whitechapel at the time and it’s just possible that Cohen’s name was recorded incorrectly when he was admitted, because by all accounts he had to be restrained when he came in.”" But Adam then discounts this, saying that Swanson "knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification." The crucial bit being the words I have italicised. Isn't that Adam specifically denying that Swanson would have made a mistake with a name or identification?

                                I've tried to give the David Cohen theory 'air time' more times than I care to remember and unsurprisingly journalists never get it right, so much so that it's a standing joke with Keith and myself. If I'd been Adam I don't think I'd have even tried. It always turns into a mess.

                                Anyway, is this the bit that's causing the fuss, or is there a statement elsewhere in the article that I've missed?
                                Another example of how the marginalia is flawed and unsafe ! I guess we are going to see a host of scenarios to negate this, and still try to prop up Kosminski as a suspect?

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X