Ed -
Are you suggesting that Swanson lied, Ed? To what end? Perhaps he was making notes for a novel?
Don't see how that follows, really. Why inaccurate? What reason do we have to doubt Swanson? Well, I know you'd like to, because it gets in the way of your pet suspect - but you know, even accepting that senior police officials had Kosminski down as their top suspect doesn't prove that he was a murderer. It only demonstrates that they thought he was. The question is, why?
Obviously I can, Ed. But I'm afraid that your explanation is pure conjecture. You have no idea how, or why, Kosminski was identified as a suspect. We'd all like to know the answer to that of course - dismissing that identification out of hand is a little bit disingenuous. The 'evidence based trial' was apparently not possible because the mystery Jewish witness wouldn't formally identify Kosminski. That strongly suggests that he had, in fact, been witnessed in connection with one of the murders.
Define 'Madman'.
Sally - Was kosminsky hung or even arrested? Did the seaside home Id take place? If do where, when and by which means.
If you can answer these then you are indeed an expert researcher.
If not then you are merely another inaccurate poster.
If not then you are merely another inaccurate poster.
Can you see the difference between a couple of senior policemen sitting in their leather armchairs late at night with a tumbler of whiskey and a fat cigar pontificating to each other about the most likely suspect that had (somehow - who knows how now) come to their attention, a suspect that confirms their prejudices, and a full blown evidence based trial at the old bailey?
As for kosminsky's madness - while he was not necessarily a drooler - it is given as his 'motivation' for being the killer. It is presented as the card that declares his potential for guilt. You can't have it both ways and say 'oh no he wasn't that mad' when it is realised that the crimes couldn't realistically have been committed by a madman
Comment