If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
There is no document with his name on, no indication, no naming of Aaron Kosminski..in connection with the murders.
ipso facto, he is innocent of the crimes. Ipso fact 2, he cannot have been suspected without any evidence of such..in name.
Can't you see, Phil, that what I am trying to understand is why you are so adamant that he was never suspected. But I don't think you can explain it, can you?
Hello Chris,
Ok.. Why am I so adamant he was never suspected?
I will explain my point.. I hope.. so that you get it. After which I must leave..time is pressing Im afraid.
There is no document with his name on, no indication, no naming of Aaron Kosminski..in connection with the murders.
ipso facto, he is innocent of the crimes. Ipso fact 2, he cannot have been suspected without any evidence of such..in name.
Please dont bring in the nearnes of him again.. please... it still doesn't connect Aaron Kosminski with the crimes..it could be a familiar cousin with another name for all we know.
But there is no evidence against any of the suspects, therefore all suspect-based discussion involves placing question marks over an 'innocent' person's head.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make.
Hello David,
Indeed I can.
Question marks are fine David. Fine. But posts, threads and books naming people as being a Prime Suspect when Aaron Kosminski, not Kosminski, note, isnt even recorded in any police document, is way overboard.
And on top of that, when first hand, top of the pile, contemporary expert comment on the Whitechapel Murderer is totally ignored, even if the man involved in the comments is head and shoulders above anyone else in the country in his field, just because he happens to totally blow away the type of person Aaron Kosminski is as being a murderer..well..that's not just bias. It's wrong.
There are people INVOLVED here David, just like you and I. Our ancestors weren't called Kosminski (hope Im not being presumptive..)... but if they were, and were I related to aaron Kosminski, I'd be disgusted by the way he is being presented as a suspect in the Worlds most famous set of unsolved murderes..even though there isnt one piece of paper naming him!
It's wrong David.
Of course I see your point.. of course. suspect based Ripperology is fine.. but there is a limit to how far I personally accept the conclusions.
Secondly, NO... there is no evidence against Aaron Kosminski because he was never suspected of anything to do with the crimes of murdering 5 women in the East End.
Can't you see, Phil, that what I am trying to understand is why you are so adamant that he was never suspected. But I don't think you can explain it, can you?
2) No.. Suspect based discussion is fine David.. but labelling innocent people with the accusation of murder, when the person cannot even be shown to have been a suspect.. is way overboard. Aaron, that is. Cornwell did the same with Sickert.. and we all went through the roof. Whether Sickert had weaker circumstantial evidence against him isnt the point... he was never even mentioned once, like aaron, in connection with being the murderer, at that time.
Thanks Phil
But there is no evidence against any of the suspects, therefore all suspect-based discussion involves placing question marks over an 'innocent' person's head.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make.
Just to be clear Phil, you're saying that unless there's firm evidence - which would stand up in a court of law - any suspect-based discussion should cease?
Because - as I say - there's more circumstantial evidence against Kosminski - Aaron Kosminski - than any other named suspect.
Forgive the Bond-esque nature of my last sentence....
Hello David,
As you asked.. Ive thought a little about the reply and it's this.
The evidence I would like to be shown me is
1) Aaron Kosminski was suspected of being involved in the Whitechapel Murder series. A document with his name on showing the police suspected him. Aaron Kosminski that is.
2) No.. Suspect based discussion is fine David.. but labelling innocent people with the accusation of murder, when the person cannot even be shown to have been a suspect.. is way overboard. Aaron, that is. Cornwell did the same with Sickert.. and we all went through the roof. Whether Sickert had weaker circumstantial evidence against him isnt the point... he was never even mentioned once, like Aaron, in connection with being the murderer, at that time.
Just to be clear Phil, you're saying that unless there's firm evidence - which would stand up in a court of law - any suspect-based discussion should cease?
Because - as I say - there's more circumstantial evidence against Kosminski - Aaron Kosminski - than any other named suspect.
Forgive the Bond-esque nature of my last sentence....
Nobody has the moral right to accuse Aaron Kosminski of murder..nor of labelling him with being the Whitechapel Murderer.
If it was PAV or Sickert youd all be up in arms. Because there is no evidence against them either. That Sickert owned a hovel or two or 8 in the East End means nothing.. and thats circumstantial too...as well as his possible letter writing.
AARON kOSMINSKI was never even suspected of being connected with the crimes. And until a document says otherwise, people writing in books and labelling him as a murderer is totally wrong. Whether there is circumstantial evidence that he may or may not be the Kosminski referred to by Policemen.
That is my point.
best wishes
Phil
Hello Chris,
First of all Chris, I am as calm as the next man...don't look for black cats..remember?
Secondly, NO... there is no evidence against Aaron Kosminski because he was never suspected of anything to do with the crimes of murdering 5 women in the East End.
Thats totally different from the way you put it herewith....
Despite the "nearness", yes. And I really do not care a fig if you call it disruptive or not... MORALLY no one has the right to label an unamed man a murderer..especially the Whitechapel mureder without evidence against him. And against Aaron Kosminski, there isnt any! Not an iota linking him to the murders... nothing.
"Kosminski" could be anyone.. we don't know WHO exactly he is without knowing his first name.. and we cannot assume just because he is the nearest in line!
Kosminski may have another name for all we know.
And yes, I am still calm.
Any more black cats to assume my disposition with Chris? (haha).. Come on now, my erstwhile enthusiast... I have no idea how you are as you read this.. so I don't presume to know unless told!
Thanks.
Phil, on the basis of this premise we should just shut down this site, pack up and all go home.
I believe everyone understands the point you make about the specifics of it being Kosminski, not Aaron Kosminski. You are of course correct.
However, the circumstantial evidence against Aaron is stronger than against any other single suspect: Druitt, Tumblety, Sickert, Van Gogh, all of whom have been specifically named.
Not long ago, the argument from particular corners was that Swanson's naming of Kosminski was somehow questionable. With the recent Ripperologist article, the argument has moved to the first name. I'm sure if evidence to point to Aaron were found, the argument would similarly switch to it not being this Aaron, but another.
Some people will doggedly stick to a suspect, however much evidence against they're presented with. Surely doggedly refusing to accept a suspect's candidature is in the same league?
We're unfortunately only dealing with hearsay and circumstantial evidence in this case. And based on that - whether you like it or not - Aaron Kosminski has to be looked at as a serious - although circumstantial - suspect.
DavidGB
Hello David,
Nobody has the moral right to accuse Aaron Kosminski of murder..nor of labelling him with being the Whitechapel Murderer.
If it was PAV or Sickert youd all be up in arms. Because there is no evidence against them either. That Sickert owned a hovel or two or 8 in the East End means nothing.. and thats circumstantial too...as well as his possible letter writing.
AARON kOSMINSKI was never even suspected of being connected with the crimes. And until a document says otherwise, people writing in books and labelling him as a murderer is totally wrong. Whether there is circumstantial evidence that he may or may not be the Kosminski referred to by Policemen.
That is my point.
best wishes
Phil
Hello Chris,
Just try to calm down a bit and think what you're saying. Aaron Kozminski was never suspected because there is no evidence against him?
And that's despite the fact that someone named 'Kosminski' is known to have been suspected, and the description of that person matches what we know of Aaron in several respects, and doesn't match any other known person named Kosminski.
And you still state as a fact that Aaron Kozminski was never suspected. It's completely unreasonable, and it could scarcely be more disruptive.
First of all Chris, I am as calm as the next man...don't look for black cats..remember?
Secondly, NO... there is no evidence against Aaron Kosminski because he was never suspected of anything to do with the crimes of murdering 5 women in the East End.
Thats totally different from the way you put it herewith....
Aaron Kozminski was never suspected because there is no evidence against him?
Despite the "nearness", yes. And I really do not care a fig if you call it disruptive or not... MORALLY no one has the right to label an unamed man a murderer..especially the Whitechapel mureder without evidence against him. And against Aaron Kosminski, there isnt any! Not an iota linking him to the murders... nothing.
"Kosminski" could be anyone.. we don't know WHO exactly he is without knowing his first name.. and we cannot assume just because he is the nearest in line!
Kosminski may have another name for all we know.
And yes, I am still calm.
Any more black cats to assume my disposition with Chris? (haha).. Come on now, my erstwhile enthusiast... I have no idea how you are as you read this.. so I don't presume to know unless told!
Thanks.
EVIDENCE against Aaron Kosminski?..Show it...... or leave the name of the poor soul alone, I say.
Phil, on the basis of this premise we should just shut down this site, pack up and all go home.
I believe everyone understands the point you make about the specifics of it being Kosminski, not Aaron Kosminski. You are of course correct.
However, the circumstantial evidence against Aaron is stronger than against any other single suspect: Druitt, Tumblety, Sickert, Van Gogh, all of whom have been specifically named.
Not long ago, the argument from particular corners was that Swanson's naming of Kosminski was somehow questionable. With the recent Ripperologist article, the argument has moved to the first name. I'm sure if evidence to point to Aaron were found, the argument would similarly switch to it not being this Aaron, but another.
Some people will doggedly stick to a suspect, however much evidence against they're presented with. Surely doggedly refusing to accept a suspect's candidature is in the same league?
We're unfortunately only dealing with hearsay and circumstantial evidence in this case. And based on that - whether you like it or not - Aaron Kosminski has to be looked at as a serious - although circumstantial - suspect.
Whether the first name was Fred or George or Henry.. doesn't matter.. a person CANNOT be suspected of something in the legal term without evidence against them PERTAINING to the particular crime. And there is NO evidence pertaining to AARON KOSMINSKI. Period.
Just try to calm down a bit and think what you're saying. Aaron Kozminski was never suspected because there is no evidence against him?
And that's despite the fact that someone named 'Kosminski' is known to have been suspected, and the description of that person matches what we know of Aaron in several respects, and doesn't match any other known person named Kosminski.
And you still state as a fact that Aaron Kozminski was never suspected. It's completely unreasonable, and it could scarcely be more disruptive.
Leave a comment: