Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A possibility for the Seaside Home?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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?
    Last edited by PaulB; 08-25-2019, 06:28 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      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.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

        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.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          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 wasnít in office in 1888

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          I simply donít see how you can make a definite assertion that someone couldnít possibly have done something because is was risky or against the rules?

          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment



          • 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,
            Because in the attempt to solve a crime the police have never bent or broken the rules of course? And of course itís wrong of us to cast such an aspersion against an organisation staffed throughout its history with virtual saints.

            An irrefutable Fact?

            Come on Trevor, get real.
            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

              I simply donít see how you can make a definite assertion that someone couldnít possibly have done something because is was risky or against the rules?
              Because this was a high profile case and if the police felt that a potential witness would be the key to unlocking the case why would they not do it by the book. They would gain nothing by doing it for the various ways and whyfores you and other posters have suggested.

              Everything surrounding this mythical ID is totally unsafe to rely on, along with the events leading up to it and the events that followed it.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Because in the attempt to solve a crime the police have never bent or broken the rules of course? And of course itís wrong of us to cast such an aspersion against an organisation staffed throughout its history with virtual saints.

                An irrefutable Fact?

                Come on Trevor, get real.
                I think is you that need to get real and prove first that Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski mentioned, and that this Id parade took place as described, and what the police would gain by not conforming with the rules as laid down in the Victorian police codes of the day, and while you are at it conclusively prove that Donald Swanson was the author of all the marginalia you and others seek to rely on.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Because this was a high profile case and if the police felt that a potential witness would be the key to unlocking the case why would they not do it by the book. They would gain nothing by doing it for the various ways and whyfores you and other posters have suggested.

                  Everything surrounding this mythical ID is totally unsafe to rely on, along with the events leading up to it and the events that followed it.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Lots of perhapsís of course but this is because we canít know for certain. Perhaps not doing it by the book was the only option available to them? Perhaps because Kosminski was extremely disturbed they felt confident that they could trick him into being IDíd without any repercussions? Perhaps they were so desperate that even an ď ‘well it certainly looks like himĒ would have been worth it?”

                  Why do you keep asking everyone to stay within reason but you keep implying conspiracies? The Marginalia is unsafe. The MM is unsafe. Anderson saying a suspect was idíd is unsafe.
                  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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                    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.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Trevor, the marginalia manifestly describes an event that was unorthodox. It didn't conform to accepted practice. Nobody was following the rules and guidelines. So explain to us why it could have happened in the way described. As for the rest of what you write, they are distinct and seperate points and can and should be dealt with individually.

                    The evidence that Aaron Kosminski was the suspect Kosminski has been explained to you several times, but here goes yet again: Aaron Kosminski fits the criteria to be the suspect and no other K-something-ski has so far been found in the asylum records. So there you are, two good reasons for thinking they are one and the same. Not proof, of course, which is why the identification has remained open for thirty years.

                    And don't try the old 'biased' fall back routine, it just reveals your desperation. Why is it that every time you make a statement and are asked to explain and justify it, you dance around and throw out a stream of other questions and otherwise duck and dive? Either you can answer the question or you can't, and whilst I appreciate that it would be hard for you to acknowledge that you can't, by not doing so you are potentially misleading people. Now, the marginalia clearly describes an unorthodox event in which the police deviated from accepted proceedure. You are saying it isutterly impossible for the police to have circumvented proceedure. So tell us why?



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      I think is you that need to get real and prove first that Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski mentioned, and that this Id parade took place as described, and what the police would gain by not conforming with the rules as laid down in the Victorian police codes of the day, and while you are at it conclusively prove that Donald Swanson was the author of all the marginalia you and others seek to rely on.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Trevor wrote that the event described in the marginalia 'could not have happened in the way described that is an irrefutable fact.'

                      Herlock questioned that statement, suggesting that the police aren't saints and do bend and break the rules.

                      Herlock basically asks the same question I have been asking you, which is why did the police HAVE to follow proceedure? We don't know what the circumstances were, so can't say what lengths they may have felt it was necessary to go.

                      Now, Herlock doesn't have to do any of those questions does he. It's just you dodging answering the point he's made that the police break the rules.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Lots of perhapsís of course but this is because we canít know for certain. Perhaps not doing it by the book was the only option available to them? Perhaps because Kosminski was extremely disturbed they felt confident that they could trick him into being IDíd without any repercussions? Perhaps they were so desperate that even an ď ‘well it certainly looks like himĒ would have been worth it?”

                        Why do you keep asking everyone to stay within reason but you keep implying conspiracies? The Marginalia is unsafe. The MM is unsafe. Anderson saying a suspect was idíd is unsafe.
                        One element that perhaps requires greater clarification is the fact that Aaron Kosminski - if he was indeed ths suspect - was manifestly insane. It is therefore likely that he would have appeared before the magistrate, the police would have outlined the charge against him, and he would have been deemed unfit to plead and been committed to an asylum. The police would have thus had the satisfaction of telling the world they'd caught Jack the Ripper, but there would have been no court case, no defence solicitor calling the police evidence into question. The refusal of the witness to give evidence is unlikely to have mattered much if the suspect would have been committed, so why did Anderson seem to blame him? The answer is that he caused a delay during which the suspect's family had him committed, thus avoiding having their name revealed at the magistrate's hearing.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                          One element that perhaps requires greater clarification is the fact that Aaron Kosminski - if he was indeed ths suspect - was manifestly insane. It is therefore likely that he would have appeared before the magistrate, the police would have outlined the charge against him, and he would have been deemed unfit to plead and been committed to an asylum. The police would have thus had the satisfaction of telling the world they'd caught Jack the Ripper, but there would have been no court case, no defence solicitor calling the police evidence into question. The refusal of the witness to give evidence is unlikely to have mattered much if the suspect would have been committed, so why did Anderson seem to blame him? The answer is that he caused a delay during which the suspect's family had him committed, thus avoiding having their name revealed at the magistrate's hearing.
                          There you go again creating imaginary scenarios

                          If Aaron Kosminski had have ever been arrested and then deemed to be insane he would have been sent to an asylum and certified insane, that process would have stopped any inital police action. He would not have been deemed capable of giving his consent to anything that took place thereafter. But why are we again ta;kin about AAron Kosminsk when it might not have been him.

                          You cant just form and Id parade and go and grab someone and put them on it, why can you not understand that ? especiall with such a high profile case

                          and if the police were so sure the killer had been identified why did they not go public and tell the public that, they wouold not have needed to mention any name ?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • I wish all police officers were as strictly by the book as you, Trevor. Perhaps the copper's son who assaulted me when I was 14 would have got in trouble instead of getting away with it and the case getting covered up.
                            " Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin." - forum user C4

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              There you go again creating imaginary scenarios

                              If Aaron Kosminski had have ever been arrested and then deemed to be insane he would have been sent to an asylum and certified insane, that process would have stopped any inital police action. He would not have been deemed capable of giving his consent to anything that took place thereafter. But why are we again ta;kin about AAron Kosminsk when it might not have been him.

                              You cant just form and Id parade and go and grab someone and put them on it, why can you not understand that ? especiall with such a high profile case

                              and if the police were so sure the killer had been identified why did they not go public and tell the public that, they wouold not have needed to mention any name ?

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              I'm not inventing imaginary scenarios, I am presenting a scenario that has been advanced by others far better qualified discuss them than I am, and clearly stating at the outset that it's a scenario that needs clarification.

                              There is no certainty that Aaron Kosminski would have been sent to an asylum. Cutbush, who was clearly insane, appeared in court, for example. We are again talking about Aaron Kosminski because neither you nor anybody else has presented an alternative. Until somebody does, he will be discussed and it would be beyond stupid not to do so.

                              I don't know whether the police in 1888 grabbed passers by off the street and stuck them on an identity parade. Nor do I know how many of those who gave their permission to appear on an ID parade actually did so. Not all ampolicemen were saints! But who said there was any identity parade? All we know is that there was an informal confrontation between the suspect and the witness.

                              As to why the police didn't tell the public that the killer had been identified, is isn't customary for the police to officially announce that living suspects are the guilty man, no matter how much they might believe it. Possibly because someone is considered innocent until proven guilty. It's usually a copper in their autobiography who reveals such things, as was the case with Jack the Stripper.

                              Now, I've answered you, why don't you have a bash at answering the question posed to you in about a dozen posts so far?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Aelric View Post
                                I wish all police officers were as strictly by the book as you, Trevor. Perhaps the copper's son who assaulted me when I was 14 would have got in trouble instead of getting away with it and the case getting covered up.
                                We know that not all policemen were or are by the book. We know that corruption has been rife in the police force almost from its creation, sometimes notoriously so. Trevor isn't as naive as he appears. His stance is simply avoidance.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X