Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[mpriestnall]

Sorry, my question was off topic. I'll ask it elsewhere.

[mpriestnall]

Sagar's comment would have been based on Langdon's article in Pearson's Weekly in 1912 I should think, the PC being Watkins.

Let me recall one of the murders, the Mitre
Square murder. It was night and the policeman
had passed through the square once, everything
being then apparently all right. He walked on,
coming to a court leading from a street out of Mitre
Square. Halfway up the court he stood sideways
to allow a man to pass him. The man came from
the direction of the square.

Presently - exactly seven minutes after he had
been in the square previously - the policeman
entered it again, and started to walk round it.
Suddenly he came upon a human form huddled up
in a corner. It was a woman lying dead, killed by
the hand of Jack the Ripper! Was the man he had
stood sideways to allow to pass Jack? Probably.

Watkins would have been making his round through the Orange Market, virtually facing the St. James Passage, when he came face to face with a man emerging from the passage. The mystery is why he didn't mention this at the inquest.

I've pondered the same question. Clearly it's not so as tip of JTR that he had been seen! The Langdon piece clearly indicates the Watkins would have a very good sighting and hence description of JTR and JTR must have realised this.

I can't see a reason to doubt Langdon saying that Watkins probably saw JTR.

Was the City police holding this probable sighting back from the Met police for some reason?

Any suggestions why Watkins didn't mention him at the inquest?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to Pontius2000:


actually, committing suicide would pretty much rule him out as a suspect as it’s pretty well known that serial killers don’t commit except in rare occasions when they are cornered by police.


Please tell Sir Melville; he didn't know!



so even after all the evidence of mesirah and Jewish groups attempting to get Lipski off, you still deny that SOME Jews would shield other Jews? It’s been proven, some would. And it wouldn’t necessarily have been strictly because there was some kind of kinship in being Jewish. “Because he was a Jew” could’ve been because they, being Jew, were living in close proximity to his family, being Jew, and they were afraid his family may retaliate. Or it may have been that they, being Jew, would cause riots against the Jewish community or further persecutions.


And after writing that, you say I'M a troll??



I’m done responding to your nonsense here. The person who “should be ashamed” here is the one who took a perfectly well thought out thread and attempted to monopolize the conversation with drivel; presenting personal opinion as fact, refusing to accept actual fact when it’s 0shown to you, etc etc. I even considered earlier today asking the mods if I could specifically request that you be kept out of any further threads start. You are an internet troll. So I’ll just request this thread be closed.



Anyone, including the moderators, can view our exchanges and see that it was you who kept attacking me and my comments and keeping the argument going.

According to you, when I go by the evidence, I'm 'presenting personal opinion as fact', but when you promote prejudiced views that damn an entire community, you call that 'actual fact.'

Ending your tirade by calling me an internet troll is a fitting way to end an extremely unpleasant series of posts on your part.

[Pontius2000]

I accept that you have proved that a Dr Apatowski existed in London.

Since he committed suicide just three years after the murders ended, you might like to add him to your list of exclusively-Jewish lunatic suspects.
I'm not sure that you have proved any more than that he existed.

As for authenticating the letter, I am not sure that that would be possible, because the letter is recorded as surviving only in translation.
I am bound to ask why a reader at the College of Surgeons would have written a letter like that in a foreign language.

actually, committing suicide would pretty much rule him out as a suspect as it’s pretty well known that serial killers don’t commit except in rare occasions when they are cornered by police.

many Polish Jews in Whitechapel did indeed do everything possible to prevent Lipski from being executed for a murder that he later confessed to a Rabbi.


Is this your evidence that Jews in Whitechapel would have shielded the Whitechapel Murderer?
Is this your evidence that the Jews wouldn't - to use Anderson's infamous phrase - 'give up one of their number to Gentile justice'?
It was not Jews who were in the forefront of the campaign to free Lipski, but GENTILES!

so even after all the evidence of mesirah and Jewish groups attempting to get Lipski off, you still deny that SOME Jews would shield other Jews? It’s been proven, some would. And it wouldn’t necessarily have been strictly because there was some kind of kinship in being Jewish. “Because he was a Jew” could’ve been because they, being Jew, were living in close proximity to his family, being Jew, and they were afraid his family may retaliate. Or it may have been that they, being Jew, would cause riots against the Jewish community or further persecutions.

Lipski did not confess to a rabbi, but to a reverend.

Simeon Singer was a Jewish Rabbi. He refused to stand for Rabbi and retained the title Reverend. Stop pretending like he was a Christian preacher, he was a Jewish Rabbi.

IN REPLY TO PONTIUS2000:
The case was so bizarre that many found it hard to believe that a murder had taken place.
The Home Secretary agonised over whether to reprieve him, because he was so doubtful about Lipski's guilt.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for comparing the case with the Whitechapel Murders and it hardly supports the contention you made earlier that there is evidence that Polish Jews murdered gentile women in London - because Lipski's victim was JEWISH, a fact you didn't mention.

So your whole idea that the Jewish community was trying to prevent a Jew from being brought to justice for murdering a gentile is unsupported by the facts.

I’m done responding to your nonsense here. The person who “should be ashamed” here is the one who took a perfectly well thought out thread and attempted to monopolize the conversation with drivel; presenting personal opinion as fact, refusing to accept actual fact when it’s shown to you, etc etc. I even considered earlier today asking the mods if I could specifically request that you be kept out of any further threads start. You are an internet troll. So I’ll just request this thread be closed.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

IN REPLY TO PONTIUS2000:


I accept that you have proved that a Dr Apatowski existed in London.

Since he committed suicide just three years after the murders ended, you might like to add him to your list of exclusively-Jewish lunatic suspects.
I'm not sure that you have proved any more than that he existed.

As for authenticating the letter, I am not sure that that would be possible, because the letter is recorded as surviving only in translation.
I am bound to ask why a reader at the College of Surgeons would have written a letter like that in a foreign language.


many Polish Jews in Whitechapel did indeed do everything possible to prevent Lipski from being executed for a murder that he later confessed to a Rabbi.


Is this your evidence that Jews in Whitechapel would have shielded the Whitechapel Murderer?
Is this your evidence that the Jews wouldn't - to use Anderson's infamous phrase - 'give up one of their number to Gentile justice'?
It was not Jews who were in the forefront of the campaign to free Lipski, but GENTILES!


... a press campaign to reprieve Lipski was orchestrated by William Thomas Stead, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. Even Queen Victoria was said to be troubled by the prospect of Lipski being executed solely on the evidence that had been presented to the court.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Lipski


Lipski did not confess to a rabbi, but to a reverend.

The case was so bizarre that many found it hard to believe that a murder had taken place.
The Home Secretary agonised over whether to reprieve him, because he was so doubtful about Lipski's guilt.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for comparing the case with the Whitechapel Murders and it hardly supports the contention you made earlier that there is evidence that Polish Jews murdered gentile women in London - because Lipski's victim was JEWISH, a fact you didn't mention.

So your whole idea that the Jewish community was trying to prevent a Jew from being brought to justice for murdering a gentile is unsupported by the facts.




The point therefore, is that Anderson and Swanson were NOT the only officials who stated that the identity of the killer was known, nor were they the only ones who said that suspects were followed.



You have said that Abberline thought Chapman (who was not Jewish) was the murderer and that MacNaghten thought Druitt (who was not Jewish) was the murderer.
Henry Smith was convinced that the murderer was a gentile.
Inspector Reid implied that the murderer was a gentile.

That's four men who look a lot more senior than anyone you have mentioned - and they all indicated that the murderer was NOT Jewish.
In fact, Smith castigated Anderson for claiming that he knew the murderer's identity.

Yet Anderson claimed that 'we' came to the conclusion that the murderer

and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.


Who were 'we'?


And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.


Who were the 'we' that proved 'our' diagnosis to be right?

Not Abberline.
Not Reid.
Not Smith.

They didn't agree that the murderer was Jewish and didn't even know that Anderson or Swanson had arrived at that conclusion.

Why not?

Because the Jewish murderer / seaside identification myth was not created until years after the murders ended, and even then when MacNaghten decided on the identity of the murderer, it was a gentile.

The whole story of the Jewish murderer, the identification, and the Jewish mob denying the Gentiles justice is, as I wrote before, hogwash.

[Pontius2000]

You appear to be eager to lap up anything you can find to support the Kosminski / Mesirah nonsense, regardless of its authenticity.

Was Dr Apatowski ever identified as a Jew?

Was he ever identified as an existing person?

If you look him up in Google Search, there appears to be no record of a Dr Apatowski, other than this letter attributed to him.

Is that right? because I just googled "Dr Apatowski London" and literally the first thing that came up was a notice of his death and inquest in March 1892.

The quote I posted was from a letter to the Home Office that was included in the book "The Trials of Israel Lipski" by Martin Friedland, a Jewish law professor. Friedland is still alive and I imagine one could easily find his email if they have further questions about the authenticity of the letter.

I can see though how someone who presents their fantasies as fact- such as a blonde sailor, or Kosminski not speaking English, etc etc etc- would question that authenticity of facts posted by those they don't agree with.

The letter is so overtly anti-Jewish that it could have been lifted from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Why would he use the words 'their Lipski' if he himself were Jewish?
Why would he use the words 'their Jews' and describe them as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' - a description which could have appeared later in Mein Kampf - if he were really Jewish?
Would he allege 'they are able to perjure themselves by the thousands', when that is so obviously untrue, if he were Jewish?

If you accept uncritically that the real author of the letter was Jewish, do you accept the authenticity of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which purports to be a blueprint for world Jewish domination?

He clearly was not a fan of immigrant Jews and their practice of protecting Jewish criminals even if they were guilty. I guess it fits your narrative better to try to distract the discussion towards this person's harsh opinions and statements rather than ignoring the FACTUAL part of his statement- that many Polish Jews in Whitechapel did indeed do everything possible to prevent Lipski from being executed for a murder that he later confessed to a Rabbi.

Well, that is interesting.

You cite MacNaghten.

Macnaghten shared my belief that Kosminski was not the murderer!


I cited Macnaghten because he NAMED Kosminski as a strong suspect with many circumstances that made him such, not that he believed Kosminski was the killer.


Unless you can show that Macnaghten believed Kosminski was the murderer, you ought to admit that what I wrote is correct.

I stated very clearly that I cited Macnaghten not because of his belief or disbelief in Kosminski, but that he very plainly wrote that there were many circumstances that made Kosminski a strong suspect. I don't know how I could make that any clearer.

And your evidence is that Sagar claimed that a policeman saw a smartly-dressed man of Jewish appearance leaving Mitre Square just before the body was found there?

Only two policemen entered the Square: Harvey and Watkins.

Neither mentioned any such incident.

Are you saying one of them was part of a Jewish conspiracy to save Kosminski from the gallows?

I made no comment whatsoever on Sagar talking about any witness. I stated, again very plainly, that both Sagar and Cox stated that suspects were followed sometime after the murder of Kelly. Sagar stated that there was no doubt as to the guilt of one of these suspects. Cox also stated that one of these suspects seemed was "not unlikely to be involved in the murders." In September 1889, an anonymous police officer was quoted in a newspaper as saying multiple suspects were being followed. The point therefore, is that Anderson and Swanson were NOT the only officials who stated that the identity of the killer was known, nor were they the only ones who said that suspects were followed.

I see you're hedging your bets now, leaving open the possibility that the murderer may not actually be Kosminski, but a pseudo-Kosminski, an upmarket Kosminski, better dressed and maybe not even certifiable.

Can you explain why Swanson thought the murderer was Kosminski and not your pseudo-up-market Kosminski?

I've not hedged any bets on anything. I've stated my belief for years that the killer was either Kosminski or someone similar with similar circumstances....meaning a poor person living in the immediate area, probably a Jew, with severe mental problems and the ability to come and go at night as he pleased. I also belief the killer's identity was also known to police. As far as I know of all known suspects, that leaves Kosminski....but also possibly Levy, since some of the police descriptions of the suspect's circumstances seem to indicate that Levy was a suspect as well. So I've made it clear that I believe the killer was likely someone known to police such as Kosminski or Levy. Whether or not you can comprehend what I've made clear is on you, not me.

Macnaghten, Abberline and Smith. These men must have known the truth about Kosminski. Had the Ripper case been solved they would presumably have been only too glad to say so. So by disassociating themselves from Anderson on this point they demonstrated that his claim to have definitely identified the murderer was simply addle-headed nonsense. They were not alone.


Before you shoot down the previous paragraph, bear in mind that I didn't write it.

It was written by Philip Sugden.

He went on to write the following about Anderson's revelations in his memoirs:

Winston Churchill, then Home Secretary ... hit the nail right on the head when he told the Commons in April 1910 that the memoirs seemed ‘to be written in a spirit of gross boastfulness…the writer has been so anxious to show how important he was, how invariably he was right, and how much more he could tell if only his mouth was not what he was pleased to call closed.


Sugden wrote this about Henry Smith's opinion of Anderson:


Smith fiercely attacked Sir Robert Anderson’s claim to know the identity of the Ripper, accusing him of irresponsible anti-Semitism and designating his investigation ‘fruitless.'

1. Macnaghten did indeed know about Kosminski. and don't bother saying that he didn't believe he was the killer, I'm well aware of that. But he stated there were many circumstances that made him a strong suspect. Meaning...he wasn't a suspect simply based on masturbating or being insane.

2. Abberline most likely did know about Kosminski. He stated no opinion publicly of Kosminski one way or another, so that is not to be taken as pointing to one opinion or other. He did however state that he never believed Jack the Ripper was a lunatic- when clearly anyone who's ever had a basic psychology class would know he was without any doubt a lunatic. and he also seemed to support the candidacy of George Chapman- when it should be obvious that an organized murderer for profit is totally different than a disorganized sex murderer showing clear signs of mental illness. So unless there's some kind of clarity put to these two opinions of Abberline's, which both seem to me to be quite outlandish, I'm going to have to take his opinions with a grain of salt.

3. Anderson was the assistant commissioner of the Met Police who had the lead officer reporting directly to him. His department was investigating all the murders but Eddowes, and also the graffitti/apron in Met jurisdiction. Smith was the interim commissioner of the much smaller City Police, who were only investigating Eddowes. I have no doubt that Smith knew some things- especially since I've already stated that his officers were the ones actually known to be trailing suspects- but he did not have access to all the facts that Anderson had and it would be foolish to suggest that Anderson's opinions or experience would be subordinate to Smith's.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

August 15, 1887 from Dr Apatowski (himself A JEW):

"The Polish Jews living in London have put into play all sorts of means to save their Lipski, .... But for these enraged fanatics, to see hanged one of their Jews by Christian hands is not only dishonourable... And they are able to perjure themselves by the thousands to prevent one of theirs being hanged by Christians, were he the biggest and most atrocious criminal in the world.... Yes, Russia and Germany have given England a lovely present, in chasing these furious and outraged fanatics, a leprous and consuming vermin, from a civilised and admired society."


You appear to be eager to lap up anything you can find to support the Kosminski / Mesirah nonsense, regardless of its authenticity.

Was Dr Apatowski ever identified as a Jew?

Was he ever identified as an existing person?

If you look him up in Google Search, there appears to be no record of a Dr Apatowski, other than this letter attributed to him.

The letter is so overtly anti-Jewish that it could have been lifted from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Why would he use the words 'their Lipski' if he himself were Jewish?
Why would he use the words 'their Jews' and describe them as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' - a description which could have appeared later in Mein Kampf - if he were really Jewish?
Would he allege 'they are able to perjure themselves by the thousands', when that is so obviously untrue, if he were Jewish?

If you accept uncritically that the real author of the letter was Jewish, do you accept the authenticity of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which purports to be a blueprint for world Jewish domination?



Well, that is interesting.

You cite MacNaghten.

Macnaghten shared my belief that Kosminski was not the murderer!

(My comment)

I cited Macnaghten because he NAMED Kosminski as a strong suspect with many circumstances that made him such, not that he believed Kosminski was the killer.

(Your reply)


Unless you can show that Macnaghten believed Kosminski was the murderer, you ought to admit that what I wrote is correct.




So your assertion that only Anderson and Swanson believed in the absolute guilt of either Kosminski or someone like Kosminski is totally false.


And your evidence is that Sagar claimed that a policeman saw a smartly-dressed man of Jewish appearance leaving Mitre Square just before the body was found there?

Only two policemen entered the Square: Harvey and Watkins.

Neither mentioned any such incident.

Are you saying one of them was part of a Jewish conspiracy to save Kosminski from the gallows?




I see you're hedging your bets now, leaving open the possibility that the murderer may not actually be Kosminski, but a pseudo-Kosminski, an upmarket Kosminski, better dressed and maybe not even certifiable.

Can you explain why Swanson thought the murderer was Kosminski and not your pseudo-up-market Kosminski?



Macnaghten, Abberline and Smith. These men must have known the truth about Kosminski. Had the Ripper case been solved they would presumably have been only too glad to say so. So by disassociating themselves from Anderson on this point they demonstrated that his claim to have definitely identified the murderer was simply addle-headed nonsense. They were not alone.



Before you shoot down the previous paragraph, bear in mind that I didn't write it.

It was written by Philip Sugden.


He went on to write the following about Anderson's revelations in his memoirs:

Winston Churchill, then Home Secretary ... hit the nail right on the head when he told the Commons in April 1910 that the memoirs seemed ‘to be written in a spirit of gross boastfulness…the writer has been so anxious to show how important he was, how invariably he was right, and how much more he could tell if only his mouth was not what he was pleased to call closed.


Sugden wrote this about Henry Smith's opinion of Anderson:


Smith fiercely attacked Sir Robert Anderson’s claim to know the identity of the Ripper, accusing him of irresponsible anti-Semitism and designating his investigation ‘fruitless.'


And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

(Anderson)

'Our' meaning Anderson and how many anonymous others?



Sir Robert Anderson states confidently that he was a low-class Jew, being shielded by his fraternity. Sir Henry Smith pooh-poohs this, declaring with equal confidence that he was a Gentile.

( H. L. Adam, Police Work from Within, 1914)


I am far from alone.

[Pontius2000]

I really don't see the point of responding further to your replies, because you dismiss everything I say as rubbish or nonsense.

You're clinging to a myth that has no basis in fact, any more than the Barabbas myth.

August 15, 1887 from Dr Apatowski (himself A JEW):

"The Polish Jews living in London have put into play all sorts of means to save their Lipski, despite the fact that they are themselves convinced that Lipski has committed this atrocious crime, accompanied by aggravating circumstance, revolting and rare in the annals of crime. But for these enraged fanatics, to see hanged one of their Jews by Christian hands is not only dishonourable, but also profaning to the highest degree the Mosaic religion, and especially the Rabbinical doctrines. And they are able to perjure themselves by the thousands to prevent one of theirs being hanged by Christians, were he the biggest and most atrocious criminal in the world. The Rabbinical doctrines laws permit perjury in such cases. Yes, Russia and Germany have given England a lovely present, in chasing these furious and outraged fanatics, a leprous and consuming vermin, from a civilised and admired society."

So then, was Dr Apatowski - a Jew- simply being anti-semitic or was he simply following a falsity acquired from the non-Torah half of the Bible???

Well, that is interesting.

You cite MacNaghten.

Macnaghten shared my belief that Kosminski was not the murderer!

I cited Macnaghten because he NAMED Kosminski as a strong suspect with many circumstances that made him such, not that he believed Kosminski was the killer.

We might even have heard from the CID officers who had, according to Swanson, been watching Kosminski day and night.

But we never heard a word from them, because it never happened.

We never heard from Met CID officers, we did for 100% fact hear from CITY officers such as Sagar and Cox, and an anonymous officer quoted in a newspaper all saying that suspect/suspects were being followed and all giving general descriptions that matched Kosminski's circumstances or, at the very least, another Jew living in the area who had circumstances similar to Kosminski's. So your assertion that only Anderson and Swanson believed in the absolute guilt of either Kosminski or someone like Kosminski is totally false.

[Harry D]

The same reason that made them erase the GSG may have been applied here.

TB

If the suspect was a Jew, that would provide the reason it was hush-hush and more convenient if he could be ushered off to the asylum rather than stand trial. Whether or not "Kosminski" was the killer on the other hand is another matter entirely.

[The Baron]

The same reason that made them erase the GSG may have been applied here.

TB

[The Baron]

Sagar's comment would have been based on Langdon's article in Pearson's Weekly in 1912 I should think, the PC being Watkins.

Let me recall one of the murders, the Mitre
Square murder. It was night and the policeman
had passed through the square once, everything
being then apparently all right. He walked on,
coming to a court leading from a street out of Mitre
Square. Halfway up the court he stood sideways
to allow a man to pass him. The man came from
the direction of the square.

Presently - exactly seven minutes after he had
been in the square previously - the policeman
entered it again, and started to walk round it.
Suddenly he came upon a human form huddled up
in a corner. It was a woman lying dead, killed by
the hand of Jack the Ripper! Was the man he had
stood sideways to allow to pass Jack? Probably.

Watkins would have been making his round through the Orange Market, virtually facing the St. James Passage, when he came face to face with a man emerging from the passage. The mystery is why he didn't mention this at the inquest.

One thing I am sure of is that the police understandably were not giving everything open handed to the public.

There were even private detectives around the place that night, I find it hard to believe that no one at all suspected something.


TB

[GBinOz]

You don't know who the City PC was, and trying to fit him in another Met witness from another scene.. this is a ball I don't like to play.

And turned a blind eye to what I posted

Robert Sagar wrote this:

"At 1:45 a. m. she was dead. A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body. He blew his whistle,..."


TB

Sagar's comment would have been based on Langdon's article in Pearson's Weekly in 1912 I should think, the PC being Watkins.

Let me recall one of the murders, the Mitre
Square murder. It was night and the policeman
had passed through the square once, everything
being then apparently all right. He walked on,
coming to a court leading from a street out of Mitre
Square. Halfway up the court he stood sideways
to allow a man to pass him. The man came from
the direction of the square.

Presently - exactly seven minutes after he had
been in the square previously - the policeman
entered it again, and started to walk round it.
Suddenly he came upon a human form huddled up
in a corner. It was a woman lying dead, killed by
the hand of Jack the Ripper! Was the man he had
stood sideways to allow to pass Jack? Probably.

Watkins would have been making his round through the Orange Market, virtually facing the St. James Passage, when he came face to face with a man emerging from the passage. The mystery is why he didn't mention this at the inquest.

[Abby Normal]

you have said numerous times in this thread that the suspect was a blonde sailor. Not that there is any shred of evidence pointing to this, but rather that IF he were a blonde sailor, it would exclude Kosminski from being the suspect. As far as a “pepper and salt loose jacket”, you obviously mean that this was a common thing worn by people of the age of sailors, as thus certainly does not describe a sailor’s uniform and would not have been exclusively worn or available to sailors only.



Lawende’s official description is about age 30, about 5 ft 8-9, rough and shabby, fair complexion and fair moustache, red neckerchief. The “appearance of a sailor” and “brown hair” are both from later descriptions attributed to Lawende and are not in his initial statement to police.



Swanson’s marginalia occurred AT LEAST 22 years after the fact. The last official addition to the file was, I believe, toward the end of 1889 meaning that for all intents and purposes, the active investigation ended around that point. It certainly is understandable as to why some things would be misremembered. It is also odd that he would say the suspect died soon afterwards. He could have been told that and not looked into it. There are infinite reasons why he could have got that wrong. But the fact is that the investigation was over at that point and they likely would not have followed up on whether or not the suspect had in fact died.





and I would guess that you are wrong. It is fact that police got onto the trail of suspects after the Kelly murder. Anderson/Swanson (nor Macnaghten) are not the only ones who claimed that the identity of the killer was definitely known, several others made the same claim. It is also fact the JtR killings ended with Mary Kelly, which happened to coincide with when the police were on the trail of certain suspects. It is also fact that the following year, the final addition to the case was made, indicating that police considered it closed.

so for there to be a “myth”, you’d have to accept that the police just happened to get lucky that the killer stopped killing- for some unknown reason- at about the same time that police began trailing a suspect/suspect(s) and not long before the police closed the case altogether. That, to me, is not believable. It is apparent that the police either absolutely knew the identity of the killer, or at the very least knew that the killer was one of a small group of suspects who all happened to be taken out of commission at about the same time (such as Kosminski, Levy, and Druitt).




that is nonsense. It was based on the phenomenon of mesirah, as has been pointed out. And this phenomenon is even common today, amongst other racial and ethnic groups. Many times, members of communities who consider themselves abused or oppressed will protect fellow members- even bad ones- from authorities of what they see as the oppressive group who they view as the greater of two evils.

hi pontius
I agree with you in your disagreement with PI about the blonde sailor stuff. however, the investigation didnt end in 1889, and its certainly not a fact that the last victim was mary kelly. mckenzie at the very least, could have been, and many, including modern experts and contemporaneous people, think she was the last victim. And the last addition included in the file is the winters coming ripper letter that was received in 96.

[The Baron]

Macnaghten shared my belief that Kosminski was not the murderer!

Not true, Macnaghten said there were many circumstances that make Kosminski a strong suspect

Macnaghten favored Druitt because of some private information, so did he share your belief then?

Did he share the blond sailor theory you are pushing?


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

you have said numerous times in this thread that the suspect was a blonde sailor. Not that there is any shred of evidence pointing to this, but rather that IF he were a blonde sailor, it would exclude Kosminski from being the suspect. As far as a “pepper and salt loose jacket”, you obviously mean that this was a common thing worn by people of the age of sailors, as thus certainly does not describe a sailor’s uniform and would not have been exclusively worn or available to sailors only.



Lawende’s official description is about age 30, about 5 ft 8-9, rough and shabby, fair complexion and fair moustache, red neckerchief. The “appearance of a sailor” and “brown hair” are both from later descriptions attributed to Lawende and are not in his initial statement to police.



Swanson’s marginalia occurred AT LEAST 22 years after the fact. The last official addition to the file was, I believe, toward the end of 1889 meaning that for all intents and purposes, the active investigation ended around that point. It certainly is understandable as to why some things would be misremembered. It is also odd that he would say the suspect died soon afterwards. He could have been told that and not looked into it. There are infinite reasons why he could have got that wrong. But the fact is that the investigation was over at that point and they likely would not have followed up on whether or not the suspect had in fact died.





and I would guess that you are wrong. It is fact that police got onto the trail of suspects after the Kelly murder. Anderson/Swanson (nor Macnaghten) are not the only ones who claimed that the identity of the killer was definitely known, several others made the same claim. It is also fact the JtR killings ended with Mary Kelly, which happened to coincide with when the police were on the trail of certain suspects. It is also fact that the following year, the final addition to the case was made, indicating that police considered it closed.

so for there to be a “myth”, you’d have to accept that the police just happened to get lucky that the killer stopped killing- for some unknown reason- at about the same time that police began trailing a suspect/suspect(s) and not long before the police closed the case altogether. That, to me, is not believable. It is apparent that the police either absolutely knew the identity of the killer, or at the very least knew that the killer was one of a small group of suspects who all happened to be taken out of commission at about the same time (such as Kosminski, Levy, and Druitt).




that is nonsense. It was based on the phenomenon of mesirah, as has been pointed out. And this phenomenon is even common today, amongst other racial and ethnic groups. Many times, members of communities who consider themselves abused or oppressed will protect fellow members- even bad ones- from authorities of what they see as the oppressive group who they view as the greater of two evils.

I really don't see the point of responding further to your replies, because you dismiss everything I say as rubbish or nonsense.

You're clinging to a myth that has no basis in fact, any more than the Barabbas myth.

It is fact that police got onto the trail of suspects after the Kelly murder. Anderson/Swanson (nor Macnaghten) are not the only ones who claimed that the identity of the killer was definitely known, several others made the same claim.... It was based on the phenomenon of mesirah

Well, that is interesting.

You cite MacNaghten.

Macnaghten shared my belief that Kosminski was not the murderer!

It doesn't seem that he thought much of the Mesirah nonsense either, or he would have mentioned it.

What you seem to have missed is that what he said destroys your contention that the police knew the identity of the murderer.

Only Anderson and Swanson believed all the nonsense about Kosminski and Mesirah.

If there were any truth in it, MacNaghten, Abberline, Henry Smith, and Edmund Reid would have said so.

We might even have heard from the CID officers who had, according to Swanson, been watching Kosminski day and night.

But we never heard a word from them, because it never happened.