AI Kosminski?

[John Wheat]

With all due respect John, your views appear to be based on Sugden's arguments, things have moved on alot since then.

The descriptions of him eating from gutters are from February 1891.
We know that attack was not his first and that the first attack was some 6 years previous, that is clear from the committal papers.
We also know that he appeared in court in December 1889.
One report Lloyds Weekly, suggests that his brother spoke for him. However, the part verbatim report in City Press, clearly indicates he in fact spoke for himself and did not it seems appear abnormal in his behaviour.
We really have no idea how he was in 1888.

But each to his own John.

Fair points Steve. But I'm not remotely convinced Kosminski was the Ripper. Not that we even know for sure that we have the right Kosminski.

[Elamarna]

Fair points Steve. But I'm not remotely convinced Kosminski was the Ripper. Not that we even know for sure that we have the right Kosminski.

Your last point is also very fair

Steve

[The Baron]

Not that we even know for sure that we have the right Kosminski.

That doesn't change a thing.

The police suspected a man called Kosminski, that man was mentally ill, there were many circumstances that made him a STRONG suspect, he was identified by an eyewitness and a police officer, he had been watched day and night by the police, and after been committed to an Asylum no further crimes of that kind took place in London.

I trust Swanson.


The Baron

[Lewis C]

That doesn't change a thing.

The police suspected a man called Kosminski, that man was mentally ill, there were many circumstances that made him a STRONG suspect, he was identified by an eyewitness and a police officer, he had been watched day and night by the police, and after been committed to an Asylum no further crimes of that kind took place in London.

I trust Swanson.


The Baron

Hi Baron,

What it changes is that it means that Aaron Kosminski could be innocent even if Swanson was right.

[The Baron]

Aaron could always be innocent, whether they meant him or someone else.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

That doesn't change a thing.

The police suspected a man called Kosminski, that man was mentally ill, there were many circumstances that made him a STRONG suspect, he was identified by an eyewitness and a police officer, he had been watched day and night by the police, and after been committed to an Asylum no further crimes of that kind took place in London.

I trust Swanson.


The Baron

I don't trust Swanson. We have to remember the Police of the time never actually solved the Ripper murders.

[The Baron]

First, how can you be sure they didn't solve the ripper murders, Anderson and Swanson will not agree with you on that one, that there was no conviction doesn't mean there was no solution.

Second, not solving the murders is not a good reason not to trust them, what would you do in their place that they didn't do to "solve" it?



The Baron

[John Wheat]

First, how can you be sure they didn't solve the ripper murders, Anderson and Swanson will not agree with you on that one, that there was no conviction doesn't mean there was no solution.

Second, not solving the murders is not a good reason not to trust them, what would you do in their place that they didn't do to "solve" it?



The Baron

If they had solved the Ripper murders they would have charged and convicted someone. The idea that they had evidence of who the Ripper was and didn't charge them is preposterous. Why would they not charge someone if they had evidence? Also the top Police Officers at the time didn't agree on who the Ripper was.

[The Baron]

That they Didn't agree with them doesn't make them wrong, there was/is no human being that knew/knows about this case more than Swanson.


Why couldn't the ripper have been a mentally sick person from Whitechapel is beyond me.


The Baron

[Elamarna]

If they had solved the Ripper murders they would have charged and convicted someone. The idea that they had evidence of who the Ripper was and didn't charge them is preposterous. Why would they not charge someone if they had evidence? Also the top Police Officers at the time didn't agree on who the Ripper was.

Not at all John.
Firstly we are told that the key witness refused to testify, meaning in the time before forensics a conviction could not be ensured.

We also have the perceived possibility of riots, even if a case failed.
You may think it unlikely, but it's not preposterous.

The top police officers involved in the case were Swanson and Anderson.
Abberline had probably moved on, by the time tgey reached a conclusion, unless you are suggesting this was done in 1888.

Of the others?

Littlechild, so far as We know was not involved in the investigation.

Smith, was I suggest not in the loop

Macnaughten, only looked at it after the events and included Kosminski.
In the Abberconway version of the memorandum saying that no one had a good look at the killer UNLESS it was city PC close to Mitre Square. He adds that his kosminski bore a great resemblance to that man.

Why he chose Druitt, after saying that is of course the question.




Steve

[John Wheat]

Not at all John.
Firstly we are told that the key witness refused to testify, meaning in the time before forensics a conviction could not be ensured.

We also have the perceived possibility of riots, even if a case failed.
You may think it unlikely, but it's not preposterous.

The top police officers involved in the case were Swanson and Anderson.
Abberline had probably moved on, by the time tgey reached a conclusion, unless you are suggesting this was done in 1888.

Of the others?

Littlechild, so far as We know was not involved in the investigation.

Smith, was I suggest not in the loop

Macnaughten, only looked at it after the events and included Kosminski.
In the Abberconway version of the memorandum saying that no one had a good look at the killer UNLESS it was city PC close to Mitre Square. He adds that his kosminski bore a great resemblance to that man.

Why he chose Druitt, after saying that is of course the question.




Steve

I'm still not remotely convinced Kosminski was the Ripper. Although I will admit Kosminski is what I would term an actual suspect unlike the joke suspects that get bandied about these boards. The Druitt question is obviously another point against Kosminski.

[John Wheat]

That they Didn't agree with them doesn't make them wrong, there was/is no human being that knew/knows about this case more than Swanson.


Why couldn't the ripper have been a mentally sick person from Whitechapel is beyond me.


The Baron

I have never said the Ripper couldn't have been a mentally sick person from Whitechapel. Just that I don't believe Kosminski was the Ripper.

[Scott Nelson]

Smith, was I suggest not in the loop

I would suggest Smith was in the loop. He was unconvinced that the witness he interviewed had a good look at the suspect (prior to the identification proceeding) and would remember him. Sometime after publication of Smith's reminiscences in 1910, I suggest he was then convinced by Anderson of the suspect's guilt.

[Simon Wood]

Best laugh I've had this month. Thank you, Jeff Leahy.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/16/lifestyle/heres-what-jack-the-ripper-looked-like-according-to-ai/

[Yabs]

If.. from a likeness point of view. AI stands for Aaron Innacurate, then they’ve got it spot-on in my opinion