Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Fleetwood Mac]

However, none of the other officials agreed. In fact, some were just as convinced it was Druitt or Chapman. And, Kosminski wasn't put away until 1891. And he didn't die until 1919. And would someone really refuse to testify against a serial killer simply because he was a fellow jew? That alone sounds fishy and antisemitic.

My doubts about Kosminski as the killer are mostly behavioral, though. As said before, this killer was able to think on his feet and carry on a conversation. I don't think Kosminski, as described, could do that. He would be seen as a very bizzare character at the least and a probable lunatic. The man we are looking for was able to walk around and blend in. A man ranting to himself as he ate out of the gutter would have raised a red flag.

Yeah, the idea that they disagreed keeps coming up.

But that's only half of the story.

No other suspect was identified (unless you want to include Grainger/Grant); no other policeman stated that the suspect would have hanged.

That statement is a strong one, I'm sure you'd agree.

And then you're left with the following: either someone was confused/mistaken/lying, or this really is the best suspect going.

There are two flaws in your 'ranting' logic: a) we don't know Kosminski's state of mind in 1888 b) a ranting man could have been capable of commiting these murders.

I think people are led down the path, an incorrect path, where they assume that this individual was a silent assasin planning his moves with calculating precision. He could quite easily have been an opportunist who was clearly unhinged to the mildly discerning eye. My money's on the latter.

[Errata]

There are two flaws in your 'ranting' logic: a) we don't know Kosminski's state of mind in 1888 b) a ranting man could have been capable of commiting these murders.

I think people are led down the path, an incorrect path, where they assume that this individual was a silent assasin planning his moves with calculating precision. He could quite easily have been an opportunist who was clearly unhinged to the mildly discerning eye. My money's on the latter.

The mitigating factor in my mind is not what the killer did. It's how often he did it. No single event in human behavior is really impossible. It's why the first rule in the art of looking awesome is that if you somehow pull off an extraordinary feat of strength or agility, don't try it again. It won't happen. I could see a raving madman getting away with one of those murders. I could even see him committing a second, but the chance of getting away with it again sort of decreases exponentially. I cannot imagine that no one notices a lunatic in the area four or five times.

The thing about a ranting loon is that well, they rant. They mutter. They talk to themselves and to people who are not there. They are delusional. Hallucinatory. Sometimes paranoid. That's a physical, chemical issue. It doesn't just turn off on command, and you can't sort of gut your way through it. I think a lot of people think it's like being drunk, where if you really work at it, you can sort of pull yourself together. It's not. It's almost elegant in it's simplicity. A binary state. Delusional, or not. Hallucinatory, or not. No in betweens, no working on it, no shortcuts. A lot of people can't even feel one state or the other coming. Schizophrenics learn clues, learn their behaviors to be able to predict when the next loss of reality is going to occur, but they don't often feel it. Just like you learn to look both ways before crossing a street, and when a car is to close or too fast to get across, but you don't feel the car until it hits you. Which isn't to say that people with these problems don't go into remission. They do. But you know what gets them every time? What triggers their disease again? Stress. And while someone in these states can certainly kill, the whole ranting thing puts a big neon "Crazy" sign over their head, and it's hard to think no one noticed it. A crazy man is flamingo in a flock of sparrows. Especially then, people noticed. And it's hard to think that someone who eventually loses all touch with reality doesn't talk about it. Although being crazy is a good cover. I'm kind of surprised there wasn't a rash of Jack confessions in the 1890s.

[Phil Carter]

A lot of discussion is going on as to what Aaron Kosminski would have been like in 1888. We of course don´t know, since not a iota has been dug up about this exact period of his life.

Hello Christer,

That's half the problem...this man has never shown violence of a criminal kind...because he was never charged with an offence that even remotely touches murder.

We have a man who walks his dog incorrectly. He starves himself out of some sort of self clensing idea, he displays himself in public withour seřlf control...but wielding a knife and attacking women?..Not a sniff of it. One threat, which we know not the details of, against his sister, isn't exactly what most would call a pattern of violence.

We can only go on what we have.

The police had nothing on Aaron Kosminski connecting him to the Whitechapel murders. And until someone can produce some sort of official document of such like.. it will stay that way.

Aaron Kosminski is an innocent man in connection with the Whitechapel murders.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

he displays himself in public withour seřlf control...

If you mean he masturbated in public, there's no evidence that he did that.

[Errata]

If I was going to be a serial killer, I would be The Crazy Whisperer. And I would sit and talk with insane men and convince them to kill people for me. It's like hiring hit men, except without paying them.

[harry]

Phil Carter,
Yes Phil,like you I would like to see EVIDENCE against Kosminski.I would also like information on his being the prime suspect.We have,at the most,three claims that he was a suspect,but nothing to justify those claims.Nothing from other senior officers at the time.There were scores of persons arrested,but not one tried for the ripper murders.Kosminski was,unless someone can prove otherwise,never arrested even.Why not?We are led to believe it wasn't for lack of suspicion.He was taken to the seaside home with difficulty.Why should that be?Unless under arrest he could not be compelled to go,so it infers he went voluntarily.Even so his rights dictated that he should have been told why he was going.That he went a ppears to me an indication that he felt no fear of being implicated in anything.What rights.His rights under the law of the time.

[Wickerman]

If I was going to be a serial killer, I would be The Crazy Whisperer. And I would sit and talk with insane men and convince them to kill people for me. It's like hiring hit men, except without paying them.

Ok people take note..... if anyone receives a PM from Errata...

[Errata]

Ok people take note..... if anyone receives a PM from Errata...

If you build it...

[Damaso Marte]

The police had nothing on Aaron Kosminski connecting him to the Whitechapel murders. And until someone can produce some sort of official document of such like.. it will stay that way.

To be fair, this is the case for pretty much every suspect. If the police had something connecting anyone at all to these murders, this website and internet forum may have never been born.

[Phil H]

Well said, Damaso.

...I would like to see EVIDENCE against Kosminski.I would also like information on his being the prime suspect.

Well, harry, one is known by one's friends!! One day you may get evidence (it clearly existed in strong enough form to convince Sir RA and Swanson. Until then we have to do the best we can with what we have.

KOSMINSKI (no first name) is a prime suspect because two senior officials made him so. It is a documented fact. You may question it, but that is the historical truth - a man is named: we need to find out more.

We have,at the most,three claims that he was a suspect,but nothing to justify those claims.

Not much difference from many aspects of the Ripper case. The suspects file is missing, but would have existed. We knew nothing of tumblety until he was mentioned in a letter from Littlechild - we cannot dismiss him; we cannot dimis "Kosminski".

Nothing from other senior officers at the time.

But those senior officers were the ones most closely connected to the case at senior level. Define senior and why SHOULD others have known?

There were scores of persons arrested,but not one tried for the ripper murders.

So? They were not named by Swanson and Anderson.

Kosminski was,unless someone can prove otherwise,never arrested even.Why not?We are led to believe it wasn't for lack of suspicion.He was taken to the seaside home with difficulty.Why should that be?Unless under arrest he could not be compelled to go,so it infers he went voluntarily.Even so his rights dictated that he should have been told why he was going.That he went a ppears to me an indication that he felt no fear of being implicated in anything.What rights.His rights under the law of the time.

But we have authenticated information, from the one-time co-ordinating officer, that he and his chief regarded Kosminski as the Ripper. We knew NONE of that before the emergence of the marginalia and we should have every reason to take information from this source as a reasonable account of what happened. Swanson summarised the position because he knew the rest and was simply commenting on Anderson's memoirs. he ddi not need to say more. But he provides sufficient detail to convince me that - whatever our present difficulties in interpreting his words - Swanson knew what he was talking about.

Phil H

[harry]

One day I may get evidence.Fair enough Phil,but untill that day I will accept that by your words,you too think there does not ,at present,exist such evidence?

[Chris]

harry

I'm sorry, but when the man who was head of the CID says that someone was actually the murderer, and when the man who was in charge of the investigation describes an attempt by the police to have him identified by a witness, it really is perverse to suggest there's no evidence he was a suspect. If Anderson and Swanson suspected him, he was a suspect!

Of course, as we've discussed, that's a completely different question from that of his guilt.

[Phil H]

harry, Chris has expressed my response, better than I could have done.

Phil H

[robhouse]

harry, Chris has expressed my response, better than I could have done.

Phil H

And mine as well, as he often does.

RH

[Fisherman]

I also agree wholeheartedly with Chris´ lines in post 837. They neatly capture all we can say: The man spoken of by Anderson/Swanson WAS a suspect, no matter how good or bad the grounds for that were. That´s beyond dispute.

The best,
Fisherman