Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=PaulB;316910]

I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone with a knowledge of the East End in the late 19th century that a domestic involving a knife raise much of an eyebrow. They were extremely common.

with all due respect Mr. Begg
I think a crazy Jew who threatened a women with a knife during the ripper era would raise a lot of eyebrows.

[Trevor Marriott]

As Paul states,

Care to cite those 1888 proedures Trevor?

Monty

Already done old chap you should have gone to specsavers

[Trevor Marriott]

I have just bought your DVD, by the way. I look forward to watching it. It's a great opportunity for everyone who hasn't seen your show.

Thank you for that I will be able to have meat now on sunday intsead of sausages !

[Monty]

Already done old chap you should have gone to specsavers

No you haven't.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

In laymans terms yes

[PaulB]

See my previous post Maybe you should stop trying to twist things around !

There weren't to many options as to who the sender was were there ?

I'm not trying to twist things around.

You said the identification as described by a Superintendent of police could not have taken place because it would have been in breach of procedures. I asked you to cite the specific procedures.

Your "previous post" concerns someone arrested and/or charged. As far as we are aware "Kosminski" was never arrested or charged with anything, so the points you make would appear irrelevant.

As to who the sender was, one option would be "Kosminski's" family.

[Trevor Marriott]

Paul,

I suspect the 1824 Vagrancy Act, Incorrigible Rogues, came in to effect with Kosiminski.

Monty

and what did they do with such persons, they arrested them and charged them soon after arrest as per guidelines. They didnt send them on holiday to the seaside

[PaulB]

In laymans terms yes

You weren't asked for "layman's terms". How is a layman supposed to know whether your are citing current procedure or 1888 procedure (or if there is a difference)? And whilst I know you are not making anything up, how would a layman know?

And as already pointed out, "Kosminski" was neither arrested nor charged.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not trying to twist things around.

You said the identification as described by a Superintendent of police could not have taken place because it would have been in breach of procedures. I asked you to cite the specific procedures.

Your "previous post" concerns someone arrested and/or charged. As far as we are aware "Kosminski" was never arrested or charged with anything, so the points you make would appear irrelevant.

As to who the sender was, one option would be "Kosminski's" family.

Now can you see that Kosminksi`s family allowing him to be subjected to an Id parade for a crime which if found guilty would result in him hanging

You are also forgetting the consent issue they couldnt consent on his behalf

[PaulB]

and what did they do with such persons, they arrested them and charged them soon after arrest as per guidelines. They didnt send them on holiday to the seaside

The identification took place at the seaside. No arrest followed, but we are told 24-hour surveillance was maintained. What intentions the police had were curtailed when the family had him certified insane and committed.

Again, Nobody was arrested. Nobody was charged. The points you made are irrelevant. So we are back to square one: what procedures prevented the police arranging for "Kosminski" to be identified?

[Chris]

As to who the sender was, one option would be "Kosminski's" family.

Yes. An obvious possibility is that the police, with the cooperation of the family, arranged for him to stay at a convalescent home to facilitate a confrontation with the witness.

If the Crawford letter referred to Aaron Kozminski, this would all fit together rather nicely. The family might have wished to assist the police, but might have wanted at all costs to avoid arousing public suspicion (especially considering what had happened to Pizer). Sending him away discreetly to a place where a confrontation could take place would be a way of doing that.

[Trevor Marriott]

You weren't asked for "layman's terms". How is a layman supposed to know whether your are citing current procedure or 1888 procedure (or if there is a difference)? And whilst I know you are not making anything up, how would a layman know?

And as already pointed out, "Kosminski" was neither arrested nor charged.

The procedures referred to were the arrest procedures and the guidelines they had to adhere to

My original question was for anyone to explain how they would have come to take him or send him to this ID parade miles away from London when they could have just as well conducted one as any of the local police stationsand under what procedure did this occur

If you are confused then please go back and read again my relevant post

[Chris]

Now can you see that Kosminksi`s family allowing him to be subjected to an Id parade for a crime which if found guilty would result in him hanging

That's an interesting point. It's pure speculation, of course, but if the family did make some sort of deal with the police to arrange an identification, a condition might have been that the police would ensure he didn't hang, but was sent to an asylum instead.

[Trevor Marriott]

The identification took place at the seaside. No arrest followed, but we are told 24-hour surveillance was maintained. What intentions the police had were curtailed when the family had him certified insane and committed.

Again, Nobody was arrested. Nobody was charged. The points you made are irrelevant. So we are back to square one: what procedures prevented the police arranging for "Kosminski" to be identified?

The ones that i mentioned in my original post and i dont recall saying prevented.. I was asking how he was sent or taken i.e under arrest or as a volunteer it had to be one or the other.

I highlighted the problems with both cases i cant see what the big argument is on this?

[PaulB]

Now can you see that Kosminksi`s family allowing him to be subjected to an Id parade for a crime which if found guilty would result in him hanging

You are also forgetting the consent issue they couldnt consent on his behalf

It rather depends on what they were told why he was wanted.

And they may have felt they had no option. And if they didn't suspect he was guilty, why would they refuse?