Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Rob
You are right again we don't, but dismissing him is also easy, the antecedents of the Kosminski mentioned in The MM do not fit Aaron Kosminski ascertained facts tells us that

And whether the reference in The MM was regarding Aaron Kosminski, Jacob Cohen, or Uncle Tom Cobbly, the fact is that MM in the Aberconway version eliminates whoever the Kosminski was he was initially referring to, another ascertained fact.

Now for those who choose to accept the MM as being correct, then they also have to accept the Aberconway version as also being correct they both stand or fall together

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

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

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

[Hunter]

To the poster under the pseudonym "Kosher Ripper." I have read the link you provided and some of your other post. If I had the power to immediately remove you from this site I would. However, I'm confident that you will do enough to initiate that yourself in due time once enough thick heads catch onto what you're about.

In the end, maybe God will have mercy on even you.

[Bridewell]

To the poster under the pseudonym "Kosher Ripper." I have read the link you provided and some of your other post. If I had the power to immediately remove you from this site I would. However, I'm confident that you will do enough to initiate that yourself in due time once enough thick heads catch onto what you're about.

In the end, maybe God will have mercy on even you.

Thanks, Hunter. I hadn't spotted the nature of that link.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Because the we know Otrsogg could not have committed the murders so how can he be put froward as a suspect when he was in jail at the time

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

Was it opinion? My interpretation of his writing does not lead me to believe he was giving an opinion. This 5 and 5 only victims has formed the back bone of this Ripper mystery. Are you trying to say that all happened simply on an opinion?

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.

Of course we do, he sets out the antecedents of the Kosminski he is referring to not Aaron and in The later versions eliminated the Kosminski previously named

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

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

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

[Rob Clack]

Rob
You are right again we don't, but dismissing him is also easy, the antecedents of the Kosminski mentioned in The MM do not fit Aaron Kosminski ascertained facts tells us that

And whether the reference in The MM was regarding Aaron Kosminski, Jacob Cohen, or Uncle Tom Cobbly, the fact is that MM in the Aberconway version eliminates whoever the Kosminski was he was initially referring to, another ascertained fact.

Now for those who choose to accept the MM as being correct, then they also have to accept the Aberconway version as also being correct they both stand or fall together

The MM and the Aberconway version both contain errors that just can't be explained away, which is why I think (in my opinion) it is best to keep an open mind. Just dismissing them on errors is I think a mistake. Until we find out why and how those mistakes were made.

Rob

[Trevor Marriott]

The MM and the Aberconway version both contain errors that just can't be explained away, which is why I think (in my opinion) it is best to keep an open mind. Just dismissing them on errors is I think a mistake. Until we find out why and how those mistakes were made.

Rob

But there are many who don't look on them as errors hence the hype with him being a prime suspect

The question is should these senior officers be making error with regards to such a high profile case?

Clearly MM prepared the MM from information within the murder file. The information gathering and recording process is still the same today.

All information is recorded

Whether it be verbal information give to an officer of the beat by a member of the public

Information received in writing

Information received via anonymous letters

The SB register clearly show that they received anonymous letters some of which may have been malicious, .

Or by a certain event in this case perhaps the knife incident with his sister

Now some of this information mat simply be hearsay some may be malicious, some may have been correct

Clearly with regards to Ostrog the information was incorrect and one has to ask why MM wasn't aware of this being in the high position he was?

So all in all whatever they were told or ascertained by whatever means the information may not have been correct. So if Ostrog was wrong how do we know all the rest were not also wrong.

Of course we also know of the mindset of the police in 1888 and that it didn't take much for them to categorize someone as a suspect.

But today researchers never seem to want to look at in that way

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

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

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

[Bridewell]

Of course we do, he sets out the antecedents of the Kosminski he is referring to not Aaron and in The later versions eliminated the Kosminski previously named

"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 circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'."

What in this do we know to be "crap"?

By "the later versions" I presume you mean the Aberconway version, yes? I don't see a significant difference between the two. Kosminski is still a Polish Jew, still living in the relevant area, still has the insanity owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices and is still described as confined in a lunatic asylum around 1889. There is the additional reference to "This man, in appearance, strongly resembled the man seen by the City PC near Mitre Square". Where does he 'eliminate the Kosminski previously named?'

[Rob Clack]

But there are many who don't look on them as errors hence the hype with him being a prime suspect

The question is should these senior officers be making error with regards to such a high profile case?

Clearly MM prepared the MM from information within the murder file. The information gathering and recording process is still the same today.

All information is recorded

Whether it be verbal information give to an officer of the beat by a member of the public

Information received in writing

Information received via anonymous letters

The SB register clearly show that they received anonymous letters some of which may have been malicious

Or by a certain event in this case perhaps the knife incident with his sister

Now some of this information mat simply be hearsay some may be malicious

Clearly with regards to Ostrog the information was incorrect and one has to ask why MM wasn't aware of this being in the high position he was?

So all in all whatever they were told or ascertained by whatever means the information may not have been correct. So if Ostrog was wrong how do we know all the rest were not also wrong.

Of course we also know of the mindset of the police in 1888 and that it didn't take much for them to categorize someone as a suspect.

But today researchers never seem to want to look at in that way

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

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

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Was Macnaghten going by memory when he wrote it? The information he was given could be wrong we just don't know and we can speculate until the cows come home.

With Ostrog I believe Macnaghten was unaware of where he was in 1888. He only found out later that year or early the next? So I don't think he was in error when he wrote it or the draft.

I wouldn't classify Kosminski as a prime suspect, one of the main suspects yes, as I would with Druitt.

Rob

[Trevor Marriott]

"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 circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'."

What in this do we know to be "crap"?

Well if you don't know by now I am not going to waste my time repeating myself

By "the later versions" I presume you mean the Aberconway version, yes? I don't see a significant difference between the two. Kosminski is still a Polish Jew, still living in the relevant area, still has the insanity owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices and is still described as confined in a lunatic asylum around 1889. There is the additional reference to "This man, in appearance, strongly resembled the man seen by the City PC near Mitre Square". Where does he 'eliminate the Kosminski previously named?'

[B]My reply is as above ![/B

[pinkmoon]

But there are many who don't look on them as errors hence the hype with him being a prime suspect

The question is should these senior officers be making error with regards to such a high profile case?

Clearly MM prepared the MM from information within the murder file. The information gathering and recording process is still the same today.

All information is recorded

Whether it be verbal information give to an officer of the beat by a member of the public

Information received in writing

Information received via anonymous letters

The SB register clearly show that they received anonymous letters some of which may have been malicious, .

Or by a certain event in this case perhaps the knife incident with his sister

Now some of this information mat simply be hearsay some may be malicious, some may have been correct

Clearly with regards to Ostrog the information was incorrect and one has to ask why MM wasn't aware of this being in the high position he was?

So all in all whatever they were told or ascertained by whatever means the information may not have been correct. So if Ostrog was wrong how do we know all the rest were not also wrong.

Of course we also know of the mindset of the police in 1888 and that it didn't take much for them to categorize someone as a suspect.

But today researchers never seem to want to look at in that way

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

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

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Hi Trevor ,the whole of what sir Melville wrote all depends on how good his "private information "was .I personally think that ostrog was added to make the numbers up but I do think sir Melville had absolute faith in his source when it came to Druitt .

[lynn cates]

Bedlam

Hello Cris. After reading your post I went back and checked out that site.

Hoooo boy. Now I can understand why Dickens had Scrooge say, "I'll retire to Bedlam." And, for us old folks, retirement is not so far away. (heh-heh)

Well spotted.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor ,the whole of what sir Melville wrote all depends on how good his "private information "was .I personally think that ostrog was added to make the numbers up but I do think sir Melville had absolute faith in his source when it came to Druitt .

Well if the police believed that the later murders were the work of the same killer that would rule Druitt out in any event.

Look at two suspects Druitt and Tumblety both homosexual why would they kill women that's not the norm. In the case of Tumblety he was in jail the night MK was murdered.

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

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

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Was Macnaghten going by memory when he wrote it? The information he was given could be wrong we just don't know and we can speculate until the cows come home.

With Ostrog I believe Macnaghten was unaware of where he was in 1888. He only found out later that year or early the next? So I don't think he was in error when he wrote it or the draft.

I wouldn't classify Kosminski as a prime suspect, one of the main suspects yes, as I would with Druitt.

Rob

But this thread is all about the best suspect, isn't prime suspect the same?

Rob, I am not singling you out specifically in this reply. but what you have stated above is typical of researchers who wont accept that what has been written does not stand up to close scrutiny and prop their beliefs up by continually saying exactly what you have said that any errors they made which we have now identified were unintentional, or by saying we simply we didn't know what they knew, as to why they said what they said.

Why not simply accept that these things are wrong and move on?

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

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

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

[Jonathan H]

Sir Melville Macnaghten in his 1913 press conference did not say that there were three good suspects and he favoured one, but other policemen favoured others.

Instead he said that he knew the identity of the killer, that he was a suicide, and that the secret had come to him -- and would exit with him.

In his 1914 memoir he implicitly debunked the notion of the Ripper as a Polish madman locked up in madhouse.

By implication, in "Days of My Years" Aaron Kosminski, rightly or wrongly, is considered nothing.

In the 'Aberconway' version he uses the word 'exonerated' about Kosminski.

His pal, Sims writes in 1907 that the Polish suspect cannot be the killer because he was alive long, long after the Kelly murder.

As for Ostrog, it was impossible for Macnaghten not to know later in 1894 that he had been cleared of the Whitechapel murders. Yet he still allowed Major Griffiths and later George Sims to claim that the un-named Russian was still a Ripper suspect. He also knew that Ostrog was no more a doctor than Druitt.

[Rob Clack]

But this thread is all about the best suspect, isn't prime suspect the same?

Rob, I am not singling you out specifically in this reply. but what you have stated above is typical of researchers who wont accept that what has been written does not stand up to close scrutiny and prop their beliefs up by continually saying exactly what you have said that any errors they made which we have now identified were unintentional, or by saying we simply we didn't know what they knew, as to why they said what they said.

Why not simply accept that these things are wrong and move on?

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

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

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

I think the thread is about 'is' Kosminski the best sususpect. In my opinion he is one of the best.

I except there are problems with the MM, Swanson Marginally etc but I think it is foolish to dismiss them out of hand. I'd like to know why the errors were made and what we can learn more about these suspects before I move on. If we ignore everything the police say what are we going to end up with? Silly suspects like Lechmere and then we go vack to the dark ages.

Rob