Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The `Reverand Dott letter to Australia

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    Even if the letter is true and verified it is still one person's hearsay about another person's character. We also need to be careful about confusing these "acts of violence" as being even remotely close to what the Ripper did. They are worlds apart. Kosminski was clearly not a well individual but I have always struggled with the "crazy jew" theory for so many reasons. He seems a convenient coat peg for others to hang their prime suspect coats on both then and now.
    Well put, erobitha! I agree very much.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      Hi Darryl,

      It appears to me that the St. Edward the Confessor, Dringhouses, York, website has it wrong.

      Dott enrolled in Oxford in May 1889, and was there for the next four years (documents on ancestry.com and other places confirm this). He actually appears to have received his BA in 1893.

      I think some people are confused about the meaning of the word "matriculate" (it means enroll, not graduate), hence the error. The Oxford lists for 1892 state that he matriculated in 1889. They do not list him as having received a BA.

      Cheers.
      Thanks for the info RJ

      Regards Darryl

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        I agree that the term "girls" seem odd when speaking of the Ripper victims, then again, I think the older the writer is, the more likely is he or her to use that term about middle-aged women. Then again, it seems W P Dott was born in 1867...?
        As for the outrage you look for, isnīt that reflected in how the writer says that Kosminski should have hung for what he did to those girls? And if the writer do not speak about the Ripper victims, what other girls (plural) could Kosminski have done things to that ought to have earned him an encounter with the henchman? To me, the inference is that the writer does speak of the Ripper "girls".

        Hoax or not.
        So, you are proposing that the faker was elderly enough to refer to the victims as ‘girls’? I have a senior rail-card, but I don't call middle-aged women 'girls'. How old would a modern-day faker have to be to think of Jack the Ripper's victims as 'girls'?

        Alternatively, of course, the use of the word ‘girls’ is odd, as you acknowledge, so maybe proposing an old faker is just a wishful explanation, and the simpler proposition is that the letter writer isn't referring to the Ripper's victims at all.

        And there is no evidence that Dott was the letter writer.

        The writer does not say Kosminski should have hung. He expresses wonder that ‘he hasn’t hung’. That’s an expression of bafflement, not outrage.

        I’m sure suddenly appearing, shouting, and brandishing a pair of scissors, would be very frightening to young women, even today, and, if it is ‘our’ Kosminski, I imagine that masturbating in front of them might have seriously shocked some sensibilities and caused the letter writer to wonder that he was still at liberty, ‘have been hung’ being an obvious exaggeration, as the whole thing suggests.
        Last edited by PaulB; 01-09-2020, 11:10 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by erobitha View Post
          Even if the letter is true and verified it is still one person's hearsay about another person's character. We also need to be careful about confusing these "acts of violence" as being even remotely close to what the Ripper did. They are worlds apart. Kosminski was clearly not a well individual but I have always struggled with the "crazy jew" theory for so many reasons. He seems a convenient coat peg for others to hang their prime suspect coats on both then and now.
          But you are stating the beginning, not the end. If Kosminski didn't appear to be that convenient peg, it would be universally accepted that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. What we want to know is whether he was just a convenient peg or whether he was more, maybe much more than that.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by PaulB View Post

            So, you are proposing that the faker was elderly enough to refer to the victims as ‘girls’? I have a senior rail-card, but I don't call middle-aged women 'girls'. How old would a modern-day faker have to be to think of Jack the Ripper's victims as 'girls'?

            Sometimes I despare about the possibilities to have anything you write out here understood. I said that elderly people are more likely to call middle aged women girls, and that should be uncontroversial in the extreme. I did not claim that the faker was elderly enough to call the women girls, instead I pointed out that Dott was seemingly born in 1867, and thus a young man.
            How hard can it be?


            Alternatively, of course, the use of the word ‘girls’ is odd, as you acknowledge, so maybe proposing an old faker is just a wishful explanation, and the simpler proposition is that the letter writer isn't referring to the Ripper's victims at all.

            I am not suggesting an elderly faker, though. Or a young one, for that matter. Or middle-aged. I have no idea if the letter was faked in the first place, although I do agree with those who say that it seems improbable that Kosminksi was in the policeīs searchlight in 1889. Lastly, I do not agree at all that that it would somehow be a simple (or simpler) proposition that the letter was not about the Ripper victims. I think it is by far the likelier thing that it refers to these victims. Hoax or not.

            And there is no evidence that Dott was the letter writer.

            The writer does not say Kosminski should have hung. He expresses wonder that ‘he hasn’t hung’. That’s an expression of bafflement, not outrage.

            That, Iīm afraid, is not for us to interpret into some sort of fact. It is clear that the writer claims that Kosminski would have done something that should have had him hung, and it cannot be ruled out that expressing a disbelief that this has not happened can originate in outrage. However, I am not in any shape or form interested in having a semantic discussion about it.

            I’m sure suddenly appearing, shouting, and brandishing a pair of scissors, would be very frightening to young women, even today, and, if it is ‘our’ Kosminski, I imagine that masturbating in front of them might have seriously shocked some sensibilities and caused the letter writer to wonder that he was still at liberty, ‘have been hung’ being an obvious exaggeration, as the whole thing suggests.
            The victorians did not hang people for masturbating in public. Can I rule out that an outraged person (or even a merely baffled one) would say that people ought to hang for such things? No, I cannot. I can only entertain my own belief that this is not what the letter refers to.

            So we have another example of something two people with an interest in the case do not agree about. I am not surprised.

            Letīs not waste any more space on it.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 01-09-2020, 11:40 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              The victorians did not hang people for masturbating in public. Can I rule out that an outraged person (or even a merely baffled one) would say that people ought to hang for such things? No, I cannot. I can only entertain my own belief that this is not what the letter refers to.

              So we have another example of something two people with an interest in the case do not agree about. I am not surprised.

              Letīs not waste any more space on it.
              Yes, let's not.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                Do we see the reference to Kosminski as a 'sudden burst' of interest between banalities because Kosminski means something too us? Would it seem that way if the name was Smith or Jones?
                It would still stand out as odd to me. All this good Christian sympathy and concern flanking a brief splurge of hot gossip in the middle... to me, it just doesn't feel right.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                  But you are stating the beginning, not the end. If Kosminski didn't appear to be that convenient peg, it would be universally accepted that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. What we want to know is whether he was just a convenient peg or whether he was more, maybe much more than that.
                  With our advanced knowledge and understanding of mental health now we are able to discriminate more between an anxious, erratic and disturbed individual from that of a ritualistic killer who followed patterned behaviour. Any acts of rage by Kosminski were definitely not of a pattern. They were infrequent, fairly mild and erratic. We know of the canonical victims there were clear distinct patterns such as occurring at the weekend and being late at night. The murders whilst grisly were in the mind of the killer following some kind of ritual. Ted Bundy was a ritualistic killer (particularly post mortem) who demonstrated patterned behaviour and he was never a named suspect until after he was caught by chance because of the description of his car. I believe Jack was more like Bundy than he was Kosminski.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                    With our advanced knowledge and understanding of mental health now we are able to discriminate more between an anxious, erratic and disturbed individual from that of a ritualistic killer who followed patterned behaviour. Any acts of rage by Kosminski were definitely not of a pattern. They were infrequent, fairly mild and erratic. We know of the canonical victims there were clear distinct patterns such as occurring at the weekend and being late at night. The murders whilst grisly were in the mind of the killer following some kind of ritual. Ted Bundy was a ritualistic killer (particularly post mortem) who demonstrated patterned behaviour and he was never a named suspect until after he was caught by chance because of the description of his car. I believe Jack was more like Bundy than he was Kosminski.
                    The trouble I have with Kosminski is that for years a lot of ripperologists were saying "Ah, but Kosminski couldn't have been Jack, he was a harmless imbecile" per asylum reports 91 onwards etc. Now, and it is a now because we do not know if the letter is legit or not, we are seeing, "Well alright he may not have been harmless, but these are a different sort of attacks". Also the dog incident shows that he wasn't wandering around drooling at the lips from at least that time, Dec 89 [off top of my head] , being able to attend court etc. What I am getting at is nothing is showing definitively what he was like and his state of mind in 1888. However what we can get at is that two senior police officers both strongly suspected him of being Jack. I am not saying we should take their word as gospel but they would almost certainly have delved into Kosminski's movements, state of mind etc in the fall of 1888 and until further evidence comes to light we are really no more than making conjectures [ on his mindset, actions, in the fall of 88], with the scant evidence available.
                    Regards Darryl

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                      The trouble I have with Kosminski is that for years a lot of ripperologists were saying "Ah, but Kosminski couldn't have been Jack, he was a harmless imbecile" per asylum reports 91 onwards etc. Now, and it is a now because we do not know if the letter is legit or not, we are seeing, "Well alright he may not have been harmless, but these are a different sort of attacks". Also the dog incident shows that he wasn't wandering around drooling at the lips from at least that time, Dec 89 [off top of my head] , being able to attend court etc. What I am getting at is nothing is showing definitively what he was like and his state of mind in 1888. However what we can get at is that two senior police officers both strongly suspected him of being Jack. I am not saying we should take their word as gospel but they would almost certainly have delved into Kosminski's movements, state of mind etc in the fall of 1888 and until further evidence comes to light we are really no more than making conjectures [ on his mindset, actions, in the fall of 88], with the scant evidence available.
                      Regards Darryl
                      Personally, I am having trouble with the idea that we should believe in Kosminski on account of how he was a mentally challenged man - but we are not to believe in these mental challenges having played a role when he killed away in the autumn of 1888. At this stage, he would have been able to plan, to kill silently, to leave the victims on the ground as unfinished business while making good his escape - in other words, he would NOT have acted in accordance with the kind of mental shortcomings that were the things that drew attention to him initially, but instead as a cool and calculating man.

                      Itīs a bit like eating the cake and keeping it at the same time, is it not?

                      So we are looking at a very stealthy and sharp killer, a fearless and silent assailant, able to do all of these things, who turns into a meek and generally totally harmless schizophrenic only AFTER the killing spree, walking peopleīs dogs for them and eating out of the gutter. And lunging at people with a pair of scissors in a very unstealthy and commotional manner, the way mentally challenged people are likely to do. To call Kosminski the Ripper does not work for me on any plan.

                      I would also say that although it would be wise of the contemporary police to investigate what Kosminski was about in late 1888, to check if he fit the bill, they would be more inclined to believe he did so if he was showing signs of schizophrenia and odd behaviour at that stage than if he seemed completely rational. The victorians did not have a sound picture of what a sexual serial killer is comprised of. Paradoxically, if they believed Kosminski seemed to be their guy, he was quite likely not to be so.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-10-2020, 07:25 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        Personally, I am having trouble with the idea that we should believe in Kosminski on account of how he was a mentally challenged man - but we are not to believe in these mental challenges having played a role when he killed away in the autumn of 1888. At this stage, he would have been able to plan, to kill silently, to leave the victims on the ground as unfinished business while making good his escape - in other words, he would NOT have acted in accordance with the kind of mental shortcomings that were the things that drew attention to him initially, but instead as a cool and calculating man.

                        Itīs a bit like eating the cake and keeping it at the same time, is it not?

                        So we are looking at a very stealthy and sharp killer, a fearless and silent assailant, able to do all of these things, who turns into a meek and generally totally harmless schizophrenic only AFTER the killing spree, walking peopleīs dogs for them and eating out of the gutter. And lunging at people with a pair of scissors in a very unstealthy and commotional manner, the way mentally challenged people are likely to do. To call Kosminski the Ripper does not work for me on any plan.

                        I would also say that although it would be wise of the contemporary police to investigate what Kosminski was about in late 1888, to check if he fit the bill, they would be more inclined to believe he did so if he was showing signs of schizophrenia and odd behaviour at that stage than if he seemed completely rational. The victorians did not have a sound picture of what a sexual serial killer is comprised of. Paradoxically, if they believed Kosminski seemed to be their guy, he was quite likely not to be so.
                        Fish we are going to have to disagree if you thought that Jack was a cool calculating killer, in virtually all his kills [talking C5 and Tabram here], there was enormous risk. Doesn't the FBI report on Jack pin him down as a disorganised personality? You say - who turns into a meek and generally totally harmless schizophrenic. Yet this same schizophrenic attacks women [if the letter is to be believed] , and his sister, he is also put on some form of ID with great difficulty, we don't know what the difficulty is but he could have shown some violent form of resistance? What we do know is - In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch, Swansons words. Doesn't sound very meek and harmless when taken off the streets.

                        We always seem to have the idea that the police were looking just at people who were wandering the streets aimlessly with a vacant look in their eyes. Yet Pizer was their Num 1 suspect for a while. He wasn't meek and harmless. In fact to me the police looked at all angles, yes including people who had just recently been released from an asylum but people like Jacob Isenschmid had shown violent behaviour. Even today with the advances in treatment for schizophrenic individuals [ none of this available in Victorian London], we still here cases of people being let out back into society deemed cured only for them to attack and kill again, and sometimes very shortly after release.

                        One last point when Kosminski was taken to the asylum the case notes are from what they have been told, eating out of the gutter etc. I have often wondered if they are wholly truthful. Kosminski's family if they suspected him of being Jack would want him put away for good but possibly not want the shame that he was one of their family and the repercussions that could bring. Maybe they embellished some of the details regarding his mental state.
                        Regards Darryl

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                          Fish we are going to have to disagree if you thought that Jack was a cool calculating killer, in virtually all his kills [talking C5 and Tabram here], there was enormous risk.

                          Yes - and it takes a really cool cgharacter to do it for that precise reason. Psychopaths, unable to panic as they generally are, would fit the bill nicely.

                          Doesn't the FBI report on Jack pin him down as a disorganised personality?

                          I wasnīt aware that they were right. Most researchers recognize a bit of both in him, actually. And disorganized killers are generally loud and unruly creatures.

                          You say - who turns into a meek and generally totally harmless schizophrenic. Yet this same schizophrenic attacks women [if the letter is to be believed] , and his sister, he is also put on some form of ID with great difficulty, we don't know what the difficulty is but he could have shown some violent form of resistance? What we do know is - In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch, Swansons words. Doesn't sound very meek and harmless when taken off the streets.

                          You know as well as I do that these notes are very uncertain to credibility as well as to identity. And completely harmless people have been transported to prison with shackled hands.

                          We always seem to have the idea that the police were looking just at people who were wandering the streets aimlessly with a vacant look in their eyes. Yet Pizer was their Num 1 suspect for a while. He wasn't meek and harmless. In fact to me the police looked at all angles, yes including people who had just recently been released from an asylum but people like Jacob Isenschmid had shown violent behaviour. Even today with the advances in treatment for schizophrenic individuals [ none of this available in Victorian London], we still here cases of people being let out back into society deemed cured only for them to attack and kill again, and sometimes very shortly after release.

                          He does not fit the bill at all, Iīm afraid. Moreover, I am quite convinced that the man who killed Kelly also killed the 1873 Torso victim. And fierce though Kosminski may have been (not), I donīt see him as a candidate for that one, since he was eight years old and not in Britain.

                          One last point when Kosminski was taken to the asylum the case notes are from what they have been told, eating out of the gutter etc. I have often wondered if they are wholly truthful. Kosminski's family if they suspected him of being Jack would want him put away for good but possibly not want the shame that he was one of their family and the repercussions that could bring. Maybe they embellished some of the details regarding his mental state.
                          Regards Darryl
                          One thing is for sure: I donīt have to do the Kos research myself, since others are so enthusiastic about him, shawls, letters and all. Thatīs a good thing!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            One thing is for sure: I donīt have to do the Kos research myself, since others are so enthusiastic about him, shawls, letters and all. Thatīs a good thing!
                            Don't get me started on the so-called DNA on the shawl. I will be boring people endlessly why it cannot conclusively prove Kosminski was the killer.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Fish, just a couple of points I would like to make - I wasnīt aware that they were right, regarding the FBI profile. But I could say the same about the expert you use to bolster the Cross/Lech theory.
                              I know it is a bit of a guessing game but what I can say reading profile and the like from psychologists is some suspect Jack to have been like David Cohen and some which could be similar to Kosminski [the end of his mental rope after Kelly as Douglas says ]. It isn't Kosminski but Cohen seems far removed from an organised cool intelligent killer. I have yet to read a profile [ I am not saying there isn't any out there], that suggests cool organised intelligent apart from the one you say Cross would have acted after Nichols.
                              You know as well as I do that these notes are very uncertain to credibility as well as to identity. And completely harmless people have been transported to prison with shackled hands. - Well you may differ Fish but I believe Swanson wrote these notes to the best of his memory. Of course he could have mis-remembered but you say harmless people taken to prison. He wasn't taken to prison nor was he charged with anything. If he was just a harmless imbecile [not going to prison], why the need to tie his hands behind his back?
                              Regards Darryl

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                                Fish, just a couple of points I would like to make - I wasnīt aware that they were right, regarding the FBI profile. But I could say the same about the expert you use to bolster the Cross/Lech theory.

                                Yes, you could. And?

                                I know it is a bit of a guessing game but what I can say reading profile and the like from psychologists is some suspect Jack to have been like David Cohen and some which could be similar to Kosminski [the end of his mental rope after Kelly as Douglas says ]. It isn't Kosminski but Cohen seems far removed from an organised cool intelligent killer. I have yet to read a profile [ I am not saying there isn't any out there], that suggests cool organised intelligent apart from the one you say Cross would have acted after Nichols.

                                Thatīs quite enough. Couple it with the Torso slayings and where the parts went, and you may understand my take on things a little better. The Ripper murders are Torso Murders Light to me.

                                You know as well as I do that these notes are very uncertain to credibility as well as to identity. And completely harmless people have been transported to prison with shackled hands. - Well you may differ Fish but I believe Swanson wrote these notes to the best of his memory. Of course he could have mis-remembered but you say harmless people taken to prison. He wasn't taken to prison nor was he charged with anything. If he was just a harmless imbecile [not going to prison], why the need to tie his hands behind his back?
                                Regards Darryl
                                Swanson DID misremember - or was not in the know - about some parts, we know that much. Once more, the person spoken about here is not conclusiverly ID:d. It is not even proven that what is spoken about really happened. It has just about no evidential value in my book.

                                If the police arresting Kosminski had heard been told that he had threatened his sister with a knife, that may have been enough for him to take precautions n ot to get harmed himself. There is not a worrd about how the person arrested acted violently, whichever way we read the matter.

                                And it wasnīt Kosminski, how many times do I have to tell you?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X