Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kosher Ripper View Post
    Kosminski wasn't JUST a suspect! He was the PRIME suspect. The police had him in custody and he was identified in a police line up. He was let go because Schwatz refused to give evidence. Even so the police had him under 24 hour survailance so they knew. This case WAS solved 126 years ago but has been concealed for some reason.
    Sorry, Kosher, there was no 'line-up'. This was a confrontation ID - so there was only one suspect from whom to choose (the reason why such ID is frowned upon in the modern criminal justice system and, in practice, not much better than worthless). The witness, who was shown the suspect several years after a brief sighting, may have been Schwartz, but we don't know that. The case was never solved; if it had been there would have been consensus among retired police officers over the killer's identity and this forum would not exist.
    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

    Comment


    • There was a consenus between at least 3 officers namely Abberline, Anderson and Swanson. How do you explain this

      "Some 20 years later Deputy Commissioner Anderson was to write his memoirs in which he confirmed that Kosminski was indeed the killer. This was further consolidated by a copy of the book owned by Detective Swanson who had annotated notes in the margins to the same effect."
      Last edited by Admin; 11-10-2014, 09:26 AM. Reason: Link removed

      Comment


      • Itīs a very odd question to ask: Is Kosminski still the best suspect?

        In order to be a suspect, you need to have something pointing to your guilt.

        Kosminski has nothing at all pointing to his guilt. There is not a shred of evidence. All there is, is a description of the type of man he was, and that description does not dovetail with what we know of Aaron.

        So, we have no evidence at all knitting him to the case. Anderson says it was him, but he does not say how he reached that conclusion, and he does not present a single bit of evidence.

        The ID? That is not evidence against Kosminski. It is a suggestion that there may once have been an identification of Kosminski, but in what role, where, how and when we donīt know. Ergo: no evidence.

        Tbe able to decide whether he is the best suspect or not, the evidence pointing against Kosmiminski must be weighed against the evidence pointing agianst other suspects.

        That means that since we have no evidence pointing against Kosminski, whereas we DO have circumstantial evidence pointing against other suspects, Kosminski is not and cannot be the best suspect, unless we decide that no matter what evidence we have against other suspects, Kosminski must still be the best suspect anyhow, since he was pointed out by Robert Anderson who headed the Met in 1888.

        If we acknowledge this as a legitimate methodology, two things will happen:

        1. As long as the real and true suspect status based on evidence cannot be firmly established for Aaron Kosminski, no other suspect will ever be able to compete with him, and

        2. We take on the roles of totally asinine evaluators of the case, and place ourselves firmly in La-La-land.

        We know that Kosminski was contemporarily suspected by Robert Anderson. Fine. That means that he must be in the picture, but to what extent we canīt tell. And as long as we canīt tell, it applies that other suspects can be regarded as better suspects, even if they were not suspected by the Victorian police, as long as we have evidence, circumstantial or hard ditto, that points in the direction of guilt on their behalfs.

        I gave a shorter answer to the question of the thread initially: No.

        This is why I gave that answer.

        The best,
        Fisherman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Sounds to me like a cover up by the Kosher Nostra.
          I send you a horse head Mishter Lusk. Not you Simon, Lusk

          Roy
          Sink the Bismark

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kosher Ripper View Post
            There was a consenus between at least 3 officers namely Abberline, Anderson and Swanson. How do you explain this

            "Some 20 years later Deputy Commissioner Anderson was to write his memoirs in which he confirmed that Kosminski was indeed the killer. This was further consolidated by a copy of the book owned by Detective Swanson who had annotated notes in the margins to the same effect."

            http://antizionistleague.com/2014/10...murder-proven/
            Abberline? He said in 1903 that the case was no nearer a solution then than in 1888.

            But even if these men had agreed that Kosminski was the probable killer, all we can say is that they were either right or wrong.

            Evidence. That is what we convict on. Nothing else.

            The best,
            Fisherman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kosher Ripper View Post
              There was a consensus between at least 3 officers namely Abberline, Anderson and Swanson. How do you explain this?
              I don't think there is. Does Abberline even mention Kosminski as a suspect? Anderson doesn't name his suspect. It is Swanson who does so in the marginal entries in his copy of Anderson's book.

              "Some 20 years later Deputy Commissioner Anderson was to write his memoirs in which he confirmed that Kosminski was indeed the killer.
              Anderson doesn't name his suspect. He certainly doesn't confirm Kosminski as a killer.

              This was further consolidated by a copy of the book owned by Detective Swanson who had annotated notes in the margins to the same effect."
              Swanson puts a name to the suspect whom Anderson doesn't name. Where is the consensus?
              Last edited by Bridewell; 11-09-2014, 02:38 PM.
              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

              Comment


              • (2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

                Well if Macnaghten made him a 'Strong Suspect' then I don't think anyone here can say he is not a suspect. Especially when we don't know what the 'many circumstances' connected with him were.

                Rob

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                  (2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

                  Well if Macnaghten made him a 'Strong Suspect' then I don't think anyone here can say he is not a suspect. Especially when we don't know what the 'many circumstances' connected with him were.

                  Rob
                  Good luck in getting that message across. I tried some days ago but all you get is a twisting of words and a lecture on what constitutes evidence, which is ironic as they rarely apply those standards to their own preferred man/woman/whatever.

                  Monty
                  Monty

                  https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                  Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                    Good luck in getting that message across. I tried some days ago but all you get is a twisting of words and a lecture on what constitutes evidence, which is ironic as they rarely apply those standards to their own preferred man/woman/whatever.

                    Monty
                    No names - no pack drill.
                    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                      Good luck in getting that message across. I tried some days ago but all you get is a twisting of words and a lecture on what constitutes evidence, which is ironic as they rarely apply those standards to their own preferred man/woman/whatever.

                      Monty
                      Yes but I was bored for two minutes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                        (2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

                        Well if Macnaghten made him a 'Strong Suspect' then I don't think anyone here can say he is not a suspect. Especially when we don't know what the 'many circumstances' connected with him were.

                        Rob
                        Rob
                        You are right, we don't know, but many seem to want to accept that there was something more than his incident where he threatened his sister with a knife, which in effect may have been the incident, which knowing the police mindset in 1888 triggered then to look at him as suspect, when in reality it should have simply been a person of interest

                        Where is the supporting evidence to show he had homicidal tendencies?

                        Where is the supporting evidence to show he had a hatred of women in particular prostitutes.

                        There isn't one piece of anything evidence or otherwise, which can point to what Macnaghten said as being true.

                        The MM has been proven to be unsafe and unreliable in any event so why do people still keep seeking to rely on it.

                        http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

                        http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

                        http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

                        Comment


                        • The MM has been proven to be unsafe and unreliable in any event so why do people still keep seeking to rely on it.
                          Trevor, what is it specifically which renders the MacNaghten Memoranda "unsafe and unreliable"?
                          "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                            Trevor, what is it specifically which renders the MacNaghten Memoranda "unsafe and unreliable"?
                            Ostrogg
                            5 Murders
                            The Kosminski crap

                            www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

                            www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

                            www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Rob
                              You are right, we don't know, but many seem to want to accept that there was something more than his incident where he threatened his sister with a knife, which in effect may have been the incident, which knowing the police mindset in 1888 triggered then to look at him as suspect, when in reality it should have simply been a person of interest

                              Where is the supporting evidence to show he had homicidal tendencies?

                              Where is the supporting evidence to show he had a hatred of women in particular prostitutes.

                              There isn't one piece of anything evidence or otherwise, which can point to what Macnaghten said as being true.

                              The MM has been proven to be unsafe and unreliable in any event so why do people still keep seeking to rely on it.

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392
                              Trevor,

                              Unless we know for certain what brought Kosminski to the attention of the police then we have to keep an open mind. It's not as if it was just Macnaghten who mentioned him, we have Swanson as well. Whether he was Jack the Ripper or not, I don't know. But my point in posting is that he is a suspect and we can't dismiss him with a wave of the hand because he doesn't fit in with our agendas. Personally I think people should be looking at why he was suspected in the first place and the age old argument 'there is not a shred of evidence' just doesn't cut it with me. There had to be a paper trail and that is now gone.

                              Rob

                              And thanks for the list of reading material

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Ostrogg
                                5 Murders
                                The Kosminski crap
                                Ostrog: We now know that Ostrog was in prison. In all probability MacNaghten didn't. How does this make the MM "unsafe and unreliable"

                                5 Murders: MacNaghten had an opinion; so do I; so, in all probability, do you. Why is his "unsafe and unreliable"?

                                The Kosminski crap: macNaghten made a number of statements about Kosminski. How do we know that they are "crap"? We don't - because we don't know what they were based on.
                                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X