Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Robert]

It's a pity that the Jewish Convalescent Home for Consumptives in Brighton seems to have opened too late. Those words "left on his mind" have always suggested to me a man who sees his end approaching, through age or illness. If he was a patient in Brighton it would explain the awkward travel problem. Oh well.

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Harry,

Thank you for your reply.

I will try and state this as clean and as clearly as I can.

NOBODY called Aaron Kosminski was ever in the frame as the Whitechapel murderer because Aaron Kosminski is NEVER named by any policeman, ever..

Kosminski, YES..Aaron Kosminski, no. Legally, that matters a hell of a lot.

And it does not matter one iota how "near" "Aaron" was to the Kosminski written of, nor if modern day scholars breathe fire and fumes and say it MUST have been Aaron Kosminski as no other Kosminski has yet to be found..etc..

NO AARON Kosminski was ever arrested, questioned nor charged with the murders. There is no evidence that Aaron Kosminski was anywhere near any police station or any other establishment connected to a police action in connection with the crimes allotted to him by latter day scholars..
Legal jurisprudance then, and now, claims that for any person to be suspected of a crime, there MUST be evidence. He was not even called in for questioning. And saying "we don't know that" is plainly stupid. Neither were my Gt Grandmothers..and they lived slap bang in the middle of it, as did my Gran. So did a million others. We don't know if X or Y was either.

There is NO evidence against Aaron Kosminski.

Unless a document turns up out of the blue all of a sudden (yes, it may well happen...if my odd feeling is correct....) with the name Aaron Kosminski plastered all over it... legally AND morally, it is simply wrong to blame the man for something he hasn't in the eyes of the law, or even morally, been involved with without evidence of such involvement.

That is where we stand.

And until that time, all the huffing and puffing won't change it.

We can only go on what we have. And regarding Aaron Kosminski being the Whitechapel murderer.. we have absolutely NOTHING.

To accuse this dead man of these crimes without any evidence is simply wrong. Just like Walter Sickert. Just like Prince Eddy. Just like Van Gogh. Just like...ad infinitum.

EVIDENCE against Aaron Kosminski?..Show it...... or leave the name of the poor soul alone, I say.


best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

NOBODY called Aaron Kosminski was ever in the frame as the Whitechapel murderer because Aaron Kosminski is NEVER named by any policeman, ever..

You must surely realise how nonsensical that argument is. They didn't specify his forename, therefore his forename could not have been Aaron?

[Phil Carter]

You must surely realise how nonsensical that argument is. They didn't specify his forename, therefore his forename could not have been Aaron?

Hello Chris,

NO... the argument is that AARON Kosminski was NOT suspected or charged with any murder or any crime connected to the murders. Period.

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.

That is what this is about.

Aaron Kosminski.
Not any old Kosminski.
Not Kosminski that MAY be Aaron...

SPECIFICALLY Aaron Kosminski. There is nothing to connect Aaron Kosminski to the crimes. Period. There is no EVIDENCE against AARON Kosminski. Period.
Legally and morally, it is plain wrong to label such a person a murderer. Then AND now.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

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.

[DGB]

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.

DavidGB

[Phil Carter]

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.

best wishes

phil

[DGB]

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,

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.

best wishes

phil

[Phil Carter]

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.

best wishes

Phil

[DGB]

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.

[Chris]

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?

[robhouse]

sorry... decided to delete this.

RH

[Phil Carter]

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.

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.

Please excuse me, I must away. Duty calls.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

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.

Now I must away.. forgive me.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

sorry... decided to delete this.

RH

It was noted