Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A possibility for the Seaside Home?

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

  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    Robert Sagar from City Police said that they watched a man carefully who was without doubt the murderer and placed in a lunatic asylum. This may or may not have been Kosminski. Henry Smith praises Sagar in writing [forget which one],and yet Smith makes no mention of this suspect either.
    If Lawende was the witness it makes sense why the City police watched him. There was a connection to the Eddowes murder, their murder on their patch.
    Regards Darryl
    You talk about suspect named kosminski but there is not one piece of evidence anywhere to show that Aaron was that kosminski.

    talk about trying to get a square peg in a round hole, why does Aaronís Christian name not appear in all the kosminski references,A prime suspect with no Christian name that only two police officer in the whole police forces that weíre involved
    if you or others believe all of this to be tru you might as well start believing in fairies.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      In my book I set out in great detail why I believe it to be unsafe. You have to look at the bigger picture and the connecting evidence use to support I only then will it become apparent that it is unsafe but probably not all penned byDonald Swanson.
      arguing about parts of it separately in posts is not helping researchers who are u iasde or have their own agenda

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      I have made a simple point: the marginalia tells a story that you acknowledge does not conform to the rules and guidelines you insist the police would have had to work within. Your response to this is to declare that the marginalia is unreliable, yet the marginalia tells an unusual story (which is probably why Swanson noted it down) but a coherent one containing plenty of clues that the police were not following any rules and guidelines. So, concluding that the marginalia is unreliable because the story it tells does not conform to your unspecified rules and guidelines is wrong. The marginalia's story is perfectly coherent once it is understood that the police were not conforming to any rules and regulations.

      I don't think anybody needs to look at any bigger picture or to read your book to understand this. You can simply agree with it, or gives your reasons why you're right. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.

      It is not being biased to carefully look at what a source tells you and trying to understand what it says. The marginalia self-evidently describes something that was out of the ordinary. You therefore dismiss the marginalia because the story it tells does not conform to your expectation that the police would act according to unspecified rules and guidelines. But not only is there no reason to doubt the story the marginalia tells - it was a personal note by Swanson and something he had no reason to think anyone else would see - it tells a perfectly coherent story of the police evading any rules and guidelines. The only bias here seems to be yours, concluding that the marginalia is unreliable because it does not conform to your expectations.

      Your argument doesn't hold water. I've read your book and I don't think anybody needs to read it to see the weakness in your argument. In fact, it seems that to bolster your case you'll try to argue that the marginalia is a fake, despite all the evidence to the contrary, which smacks of bias write large as well as desperation.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Your question is rhetorical because we know there were not
        As the suspect files are incomplete, the above is opinion not fact.

        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


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          You talk about suspect named kosminski but there is not one piece of evidence anywhere to show that Aaron was that kosminski.

          talk about trying to get a square peg in a round hole, why does Aaronís Christian name not appear in all the kosminski references,A prime suspect with no Christian name that only two police officer in the whole police forces that weíre involved
          if you or others believe all of this to be tru you might as well start believing in fairies.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          With respect to Darryl, I'll just point out that three people are named in the Macnaghten memoranda and two existed, so why is believing that Kosminski also existed akin to believing in fairies?

          If one believes that Kosminski existed, there appears to be no alternative but to accept that there was a reason why Macnaghten and Swanson didn't use his forename (he was Jewish. I suspect it might be incorrect to refer to his forename as a 'Christian' name!). We just don't know what that reason was. Does the absence of a forename have any relevance to anything?

          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'.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Your question is rhetorical because we know there were not

            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?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

              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 !

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                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 !

                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?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                      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 !

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        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.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                          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.
                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            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? Arenít we replete with examples of the police not only bending the rules but breaking them? Even modern day police. Didnít 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? Kosminskiís 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. Itís 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.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              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? Arenít we replete with examples of the police not only bending the rules but breaking them? Even modern day police. Didnít 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? Kosminskiís 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. Itís 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

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • I can't help but notice that everyone is arguing on the basis that the Swanson marginalia and endpaper notes are kosher.
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X