Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • Trevor you wrote:

    Can you provide any evidence which shows he wasn't a homosexual?

    Can you show that the reason for his dismissal wasn't as a result of impropriety with the boys?

    Can you show any evidence to show the reason for his suicide

    Now Jonathan please answer the questions in a simple way. We don't need to hear your "own" thoughts based on what MM may have thought or said or any others for that matter.



    The answer, Trevor, is that due to recent discoveries the answer is a yes to all three.

    Is that simple enough for you, or is that still too complicated?

    Although, all you need to do is to actually sit down and read "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper" because it is essentially there too--Macnaghten's own thoughts.

    PaulB is right about action and consequence. He doesn't know how astute he is about a specific aspect of the subject but he will in March.

    To Rob Clack

    You've got it all wrong about hearsay and Druitt's guilt, but we can leave that for now.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
      Trevor
      Okay, so Rob says he doesn't think Macnaghten knew where Ostrog was in 1888 until after he'd written the marginalia.

      You reply by saying that Rob is making excuses for Macnaghten. Macnaghten, you say, doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. He was wrong, you say. Accept it and move on, you say.

      Whose close scrutiny are you refering to?

      Well the world and his brother can see that much of what is contained in the memo is not correct, close scrutiny is perahps even an exaggeration


      If it's your close scruitiny, do you have any evidence that Ostrog's whereabouts in 1888 were known to Macnaghten when he wrote his memorandum?

      Or is this "close scrutiny" just your wishful thinking?
      I never think wishfully

      MM wrote the Memo with some purpose in mind. The memo was internal so therefore we must assume that it was perhaps destined for someone higher up the chain of command.

      Now if that be the case then he would have been instructed to do so, and you would expect such a senior officer having been tasked by more senior officers, to check the information he was presenting to them after all whoever it may have been destined for may have been even higher up the chain .i.e government, and no body in those high ranks would want to end up with egg on their face as a result of MM not checking his facts.

      Clearly he did not check his facts and it to me is obvious that Ostrogs name had been mentioned during the course of the investigation and remained on file and when MM was handed the file to prepare the memo he cherry picked the best of a bad bunch to make up his list from persons who had been interviewed, or had come under some form of suspicion.


      And that last statement corroborates what Smith and Monro said that the police didn't have a clue
      Last edited by Admin; 11-10-2014, 05:02 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
        Trevor you wrote:

        Can you provide any evidence which shows he wasn't a homosexual?

        Can you show that the reason for his dismissal wasn't as a result of impropriety with the boys?

        Can you show any evidence to show the reason for his suicide

        Now Jonathan please answer the questions in a simple way. We don't need to hear your "own" thoughts based on what MM may have thought or said or any others for that matter.



        The answer, Trevor, is that due to recent discoveries the answer is a yes to all three.

        Is that simple enough for you, or is that still too complicated?

        Although, all you need to do is to actually sit down and read "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper" because it is essentially there too--Macnaghten's own thoughts.

        PaulB is right about action and consequence. He doesn't know how astute he is about a specific aspect of the subject but he will in March.

        To Rob Clack

        You've got it all wrong about hearsay and Druitt's guilt, but we can leave that for now.
        Since when has a persons thoughts been regarded as evidence?

        You have ducked the questions because you know there are no answers !

        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
          I never think wishfully


          Okay. Strike "wishfully".

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          MM wrote the Memo with some purpose in mind. The memo was internal so therefore we must assume that it was perhaps destined for someone higher up the chain of command.

          Now if that be the case then he would have been instructed to do so, and you would expect such a senior officer having been tasked by more senior officers, to check the information he was presenting to them after all whoever it may have been destined for may have been even higher up the chain .i.e government, and no body in those high ranks would want to end up with egg on their face as a result of MM not checking his facts.
          You seem to be assuming that the Scotland Yard version of the memoranda was the final draft and that Macnaghten had neglacted to check his facts, rather than a draft which he planned to check.

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          Clearly he did not check his facts and it to me is obvious that Ostrogs name had been mentioned during the course of the investigation and remained on file and when MM was handed the file to prepare the memo he cherry picked the best of a bad bunch to make up his list from persons who had been interviewed, or had come under some form of suspicion.
          This doesn't answer my question, Trevor.

          Rob said that when Macnaghten wrote his memorandum he didn't know where Ostrog was 1888. You challenge Rob, you say thathe's making excuses for the Macnaghten, you say that Macnaghten doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Your point appears to be that Macnaghten did know where Ostrog was in 1888.

          Let me try and make this a little clearer for you. If Macnaghten did not know where Ostrog was in 1888 then Rob's comment was correct. That's the same comment, by the way, that you said was making excuses for Macnaghten.

          But it would be correct.

          Unless Macnaghten did know where Ostrog was in 1888.

          So what's your evidence that MAcnaghten knew where Ostrog was in 1888?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            [B]Can you provide any evidence which shows he wasn't a homosexual?

            Can you show that the reason for his dismissal wasn't as a result of impropriety with the boys?

            Can you show any evidence to show the reason for his suicide
            Trevor, this really won't do. It won't do at all. Nobody can provide any evidence that Druitt was a homosexual, nor do they have to. You can't provide that he wasn't a Martian either. Or, perhaps more prosaically, an anarachist or a Fenian or a glove puppetteer.

            You can't prove a negative.

            The same goes for being dismissed for impropriety with the boys or the causes for his suicide (though he said it was because he thought he was going potty).

            You can't prove that you didn't have eggs and chips and two slices of white bread and butter for lunch either.

            Comment


            • negatives

              Hello Paul.

              "You can't prove a negative."

              Don't mean to contradict, but there are some negatives which CAN be proven.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                Trevor, this really won't do. It won't do at all. Nobody can provide any evidence that Druitt was a homosexual, nor do they have to. You can't provide that he wasn't a Martian either. Or, perhaps more prosaically, an anarachist or a Fenian or a glove puppetteer.

                [B]I think they do have to, and should do if there is any available. The suggestion is that Druitt was the killer and that Kelly was the last victim, and that after that he topped himself.

                Now I and many other don't subscribe to that. So there has to be another reason for the suicide. If he had been touching boys up and had got found out and didn't want to bring shame on himself and his family whose to say that's what didn't happen and the reason for the suicide. You cant negate that although I am sure you will try.


                If he wasn't a homosexual then that suggestion also goes down the pan

                You can't prove a negative.

                The same goes for being dismissed for impropriety with the boys or the causes for his suicide (though he said it was because he thought he was going potty).

                Do you know why he got dismissed ?

                You can't prove that you didn't have eggs and chips and two slices of white bread and butter for lunch either.
                Yes I can cos i know i didn't

                Comment


                • Yes. The simplest ones are when you prove X and thereby prove "it is not the case that X is untrue."

                  Comment


                  • being negative

                    Hello Robert. Thanks.

                    Yes, also when the negative involves a logical contradiction, as:

                    "There are no round-square tables."

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                      Hello Paul.

                      "You can't prove a negative."

                      Don't mean to contradict, but there are some negatives which CAN be proven.

                      Cheers.
                      LC
                      Are you positive about that?

                      Rob

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                        Hello Paul.

                        "You can't prove a negative."

                        Don't mean to contradict, but there are some negatives which CAN be proven.

                        Cheers.
                        LC
                        Hi Lynn
                        One such negative would be the fact that in 1888 the police were made aware that Ostrog could have been the ripper, but way back then they chose not to pursue any lines of enquiry to row him in or out, and as a result he remained on file till MM cherry picked him from the bad bunch of person of interest.

                        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
                          Hi Lynn
                          One such negative would be the fact that in 1888 the police were made aware that Ostrog could have been the ripper, but way back then they chose not to pursue any lines of enquiry to row him in or out, and as a result he remained on file till MM cherry picked him from the bad bunch of person of interest.

                          www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

                          www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

                          www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392
                          That's not quite true Trevor as he was mentioned as being wanted in the Police Gazette in November 1888 and July 1889. Can't remember tge exact details as I am not at home.

                          Rob

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                            Hello Paul.

                            "You can't prove a negative."

                            Don't mean to contradict, but there are some negatives which CAN be proven.

                            Cheers.
                            LC
                            Well, you know what I mean.

                            Comment


                            • Hi All,

                              Macnaghten would have known by October 1894 that Ostrog had been in a Parisian jail during the Whitechapel murders, because this was the date when Ostrog was released from wrongful imprisonment in a UK prison and paid 10 compensation by the police, "taking his receipt as in full discharge of all claims."

                              Yet four years later he was still on the list of Ripper suspects [albeit unnamed] which Macnaghten [or Anderson, if you believe Littlechild] furnished to Major Griffiths for his 1898 book.

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                Hi All,

                                Macnaghten would have known by October 1894 that Ostrog had been in a Parisian jail during the Whitechapel murders, because this was the date when Ostrog was released from wrongful imprisonment in a UK prison and paid 10 compensation by the police, "taking his receipt as in full discharge of all claims."

                                Yet four years later he was still on the list of Ripper suspects [albeit unnamed] which Macnaghten [or Anderson, if you believe Littlechild] furnished to Major Griffiths for his 1898 book.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Preciaely. I was trying to ascertain whether Trevor's "close analysis" included all the available facts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X