Kosminski vs Charles Cross

[Tom_Wescott]

If it was down to just these two options who would be the best bet for the Ripper. More importantly WHY?

(Can be Aaron or Anderson's suspect if you prefer.)

Aaron Kosminski is a documented human, whereas 'Anderson's suspect' is more or less a blank slate or phantom construct. So, sticking with just Aaron Kosminski versus Lechmere, the obvious best suspect is Lechmere because there's a coherent argument behind him as a suspect which you are free to either accept or dispute. I've yet to see a cogent argument for Aaron K. as the Ripper. It tends to usually just fall back on 'Well, Anderson and Swanson said so,' which holds no water with me. I'm regularly assured that there are lots of new Kosminski finds and yet nothing ever seems to get published. I hold the right to change my opinion if and when something more solid putting Aaron into frame comes about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Geddy2112]

I've yet to see a cogent argument for Aaron K. as the Ripper. It tends to usually just fall back on 'Well, Anderson and Swanson said so,' which holds no water with me.

That is kind of my point.... no one seems have put any meat on the bones so to speak.

[caz]

Perhaps it's an unrealistic expectation on my part, but if there had been any reliable evidence against any of the usual suspects back when the case was still lukewarm, or at least not stone cold, I'd like to think the details could - and would - have been reliably documented somewhere, with accurate information about the suspect's name, home and work situation, and what brought him to police attention and kept him dangling there indefinitely with no resolution.

If all the apparent mistakes and failures made in respect of a particular suspect's personal details have to be excused somehow to keep him in the frame today, whether it's put down to simple human error during a tough investigation, or even a deliberate fact-altering exercise to keep awkward truths hidden, it's all highly unsatisfactory and smacks to me of nobody really knowing anything for certain - and the ripper never being identified as a potential suspect.

I don't blame the police for not finding the ripper, as it would have been nigh on impossible in those days without him making a fatal error. I also tend to think that the killer was not among any of the suspects or persons of interest who were cleared by the police at the time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lewis C]

Aaron Kosminski is a documented human, whereas 'Anderson's suspect' is more or less a blank slate or phantom construct. So, sticking with just Aaron Kosminski versus Lechmere, the obvious best suspect is Lechmere because there's a coherent argument behind him as a suspect which you are free to either accept or dispute. I've yet to see a cogent argument for Aaron K. as the Ripper. It tends to usually just fall back on 'Well, Anderson and Swanson said so,' which holds no water with me. I'm regularly assured that there are lots of new Kosminski finds and yet nothing ever seems to get published. I hold the right to change my opinion if and when something more solid putting Aaron into frame comes about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As one who thinks that Aaron is a better suspect than Lechmere, I will grant that it does depend on my view that the police of the time knew things that we don't know. Without that belief, I don't see how Aaron would be a better suspect than any other lunatic that lived in the East End, and a lesser suspect than any East End lunatic known to be violent.

Using your rationale for Lechmere being a better suspect than Aaron, wouldn't it follow that John Richardson and George Hutchinson are also better suspects than Aaron?

[John Wheat]

Aaron Kosminski is a documented human, whereas 'Anderson's suspect' is more or less a blank slate or phantom construct. So, sticking with just Aaron Kosminski versus Lechmere, the obvious best suspect is Lechmere because there's a coherent argument behind him as a suspect which you are free to either accept or dispute. I've yet to see a cogent argument for Aaron K. as the Ripper. It tends to usually just fall back on 'Well, Anderson and Swanson said so,' which holds no water with me. I'm regularly assured that there are lots of new Kosminski finds and yet nothing ever seems to get published. I hold the right to change my opinion if and when something more solid putting Aaron into frame comes about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I don't rate Kosminski as a suspect but just finding a body does not make a good suspect. We don't know if the Police looked into Lechmere and cleared him.

[John Wheat]

Perhaps it's an unrealistic expectation on my part, but if there had been any reliable evidence against any of the usual suspects back when the case was still lukewarm, or at least not stone cold, I'd like to think the details could - and would - have been reliably documented somewhere, with accurate information about the suspect's name, home and work situation, and what brought him to police attention and kept him dangling there indefinitely with no resolution.

If all the apparent mistakes and failures made in respect of a particular suspect's personal details have to be excused somehow to keep him in the frame today, whether it's put down to simple human error during a tough investigation, or even a deliberate fact-altering exercise to keep awkward truths hidden, it's all highly unsatisfactory and smacks to me of nobody really knowing anything for certain - and the ripper never being identified as a potential suspect.

I don't blame the police for not finding the ripper, as it would have been nigh on impossible in those days without him making a fatal error. I also tend to think that the killer was not among any of the suspects or persons of interest who were cleared by the police at the time.

Love,

Caz
X

I think the Police should have properly looked into Bury though. Bury may well have been the Ripper and it was a complete and utter failure to not properly look at Bury considering how his wife was murdered and also considering the chalk messages that were found at the property. In all likelihood written by Bury. A modern Police force would have properly investigated Bury. But I believe the prejudices of the Police of the time stopped the Police properly investigating Bury.

[Tom_Wescott]

As one who thinks that Aaron is a better suspect than Lechmere, I will grant that it does depend on my view that the police of the time knew things that we don't know. Without that belief, I don't see how Aaron would be a better suspect than any other lunatic that lived in the East End, and a lesser suspect than any East End lunatic known to be violent.

Using your rationale for Lechmere being a better suspect than Aaron, wouldn't it follow that John Richardson and George Hutchinson are also better suspects than Aaron?

The thread is only about comparing Lechmere to Kosminski, and I chose to simplify my answer by focusing specifically on Aaron Kosminski. The average modern twelve year old knows and understands more about serial killers than the police officials of the LVP. Aaron may have been a better suspect than other lunatics in the area, but according to Macnaghten, he was equal in regards to Michael Ostrog, a man who was not known to be violent and whom we absolutely know was nowhere in London at the time of the murders and therefore not in a position to draw even false suspicion upon himself. If there was a shred of evidence against either Druitt or Kosminski, then there would have been no reason to include Ostrog in the list. His being there tells us we're looking at empty theories based upon the misguided notion that insanity of one form or another was a prima facie characteristic of Jack the Ripper. Modern understanding of serial killers tells us the opposite. All three suspects can now be exonerated. Ironically, from the names mentioned in the memoranda, Cutbush emerges as the more guilty-looking.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. George Hutchinson is certainly a better suspect than Aaron Kosminski. By a mile. Richardson comes off as an idiot and, to my knowledge, no coherent argument has ever been put forth against him either.

[Lewis C]

The thread is only about comparing Lechmere to Kosminski, and I chose to simplify my answer by focusing specifically on Aaron Kosminski. The average modern twelve year old knows and understands more about serial killers than the police officials of the LVP. Aaron may have been a better suspect than other lunatics in the area, but according to Macnaghten, he was equal in regards to Michael Ostrog, a man who was not known to be violent and whom we absolutely know was nowhere in London at the time of the murders and therefore not in a position to draw even false suspicion upon himself. If there was a shred of evidence against either Druitt or Kosminski, then there would have been no reason to include Ostrog in the list. His being there tells us we're looking at empty theories based upon the misguided notion that insanity of one form or another was a prima facie characteristic of Jack the Ripper. Modern understanding of serial killers tells us the opposite. All three suspects can now be exonerated. Ironically, from the names mentioned in the memoranda, Cutbush emerges as the more guilty-looking.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. George Hutchinson is certainly a better suspect than Aaron Kosminski. By a mile. Richardson comes off as an idiot and, to my knowledge, no coherent argument has ever been put forth against him either.

Thanks Tom. To clarify, I wasn't saying that the police of the time knew more about serial killers in general than we do, but that they probably knew some specific facts about this particular case than we don't know.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks Tom. To clarify, I wasn't saying that the police of the time knew more about serial killers in general than we do, but that they probably knew some specific facts about this particular case than we don't know.

Individual inspectors and constables, yes. But sadly, they left us little in the way of records. Collectively, we now probably know more about the Whitechapel murders than any single police authority of the time. They lived it, and then moved on. That's why their memoirs are so inaccurate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott