Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • proofs and such

    Hello Trevor. Thanks.

    Actually, your example is of an empirical object. There cannot be proof of an empirical object--only evidence.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • take two

      Hello Paul. Thanks.

      Yes. You meant that a universal negative regarding empirical objects can never be shown true. And that is correct.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • Originally posted by David Andersen View Post

        Attempted suicide was, in 1888, a 'serious offence'. So serious that it was, ironically, punishable by death.
        Hi, David,

        I studied English Law for a couple of years, back in the '90's, so I'm certainly not an expert on this matter but from my studies I was given to understand that attempted suicide was usually treated as temporary insanity and the attemptee would often find themselves admitted to an asylum.
        Depending upon which jurisdiction they committed the offence within and the temperament of those sitting in judgement upon them, they may have been more likely to find themselves doing a few months hard labour instead.

        Certainly, because suicide was perceived as an act against nature and an act against God, there was legislation regarding the manner in which the property of a person successful in suicide should be treated and there were customs and laws in place restricting the interment of the deceased.

        I am, however, unaware of any mid to late 19thC case in which a person who attempted suicide was either sentenced to death or in which that sentence was carried out.


        I should be interested if you were able to supply such information.

        Yours, Caligo
        Last edited by Caligo Umbrator; 11-10-2014, 03:10 PM. Reason: correct spelling
        https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/flag_uk.gif "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

        Comment


        • tooth ache

          Hello Robert.

          "Or maybe he was just putting it off, like a trip to the dentist."

          Perfect analogy--marriage and a nagging tooth ache. Well done. (heh-heh)

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
            Hello Paul. Thanks.

            Yes. You meant that a universal negative regarding empirical objects can never be shown true. And that is correct.

            Cheers.
            LC
            Hi Lynn

            I may have meant that. I'm not really sure.

            Paul

            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Andersen View Post
              Have you any evidence that Druitt WAS Homosexual? No. You don't. It is assumed that his dismissal from the school for a serious offence must be of a sexual nature. The clues are there Mr Marriot.

              Druitts note was to the effect that he felt he was 'becoming like mother' and that the best thing, for him, was to die. That is the reason he committed suicide.

              Druitts Mother was suicidal which is why she had been certified in July 1888. Ergo - Druitt himself was suicidal and it is just as likely to have been the reason for his dismissal from the school.

              Attempted suicide was, in 1888, a 'serious offence'. So serious that it was, ironically, punishable by death.

              I hope that alternative scenario is simple enough.
              Simple enough for me. Great riposte!
              "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


              • Well if you don't know by now I am not going to waste my time repeating myself
                Rest assured. You won't be repeating yourself. You haven't answered the question.
                "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


                • In Ireland the legal penalty for suicide was death. In 1888 the penalty was beefed up, becoming death plus two years' hard labour.

                  Comment


                  • It seems there''s been quite an amount of 'Verballing'regarding Kosminski and Druit.It's time that good solid evidence was offered.Neither can be suspect of killing anyone on the information to hand.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Caligo Umbrator View Post
                      Hi, David,

                      I studied English Law for a couple of years, back in the '90's, so I'm certainly not an expert on this matter but from my studies I was given to understand that attempted suicide was usually treated as temporary insanity and the attemptee would often find themselves admitted to an asylum.
                      Depending upon which jurisdiction they committed the offence within and the temperament of those sitting in judgement upon them, they may have been more likely to find themselves doing a few months hard labour instead.

                      Certainly, because suicide was perceived as an act against nature and an act against God, there was legislation regarding the manner in which the property of a person successful in suicide should be treated and there were customs and laws in place restricting the interment of the deceased.

                      I am, however, unaware of any mid to late 19thC case in which a person who attempted suicide was either sentenced to death or in which that sentence was carried out.


                      I should be interested if you were able to supply such information.

                      Yours, Caligo
                      Hi Caligo. Here is the info from Wikipaedia.

                      Historically in the Christian church, people who attempted suicide were excommunicated.[10] Suicide and attempted suicide, while previously criminally punishable, is no longer in most Western countries. It remains a criminal offense in most Islamic countries.[11] In the late 19th century in Great Britain, attempted suicide was deemed to be equivalent to attempted murder and could be punished by hanging.[10] In the United States, suicide is not illegal but may be associated with penalties for those who attempt it, such as being placed in a mental hospital.[10][not in citation given] No country in Europe currently considers attempted suicide to be a crime.[10]
                      David Andersen
                      Author of 'BLOOD HARVEST'
                      (My Hunt for Jack The Ripper)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        It seems there''s been quite an amount of 'Verballing'regarding Kosminski and Druit.It's time that good solid evidence was offered.Neither can be suspect of killing anyone on the information to hand.
                        I'm not going to argue with you Harry. Just what is the actual evidence that suggests there's the chance that either Kosminiski or Druit were the Ripper?

                        Comment


                        • To Harry

                          You are belitting the men of Scotland Yard who would not have advocated suspects as 'Jack' if they were not sincere. They were serious and they were competent.

                          They were there, they saw the evidence.

                          Reportedly the "Mad Doctor" told his physicians, when in a private asylum, that he felt compelled to savage harlots--and upon release he carried out his dark desires.

                          This was the evidence. How do you know that if you had had a chance to examine it you woud not have agreed that he must be the Ripper?

                          Comment


                          • Hi Jonathan,

                            If I may paraphrase you—

                            The men of Scotland Yard would not have advocated suspects as 'Jack' if they were not sincere.

                            I wouldn't bet the ranch on that rather naive contention.

                            Ostrog is a good case in point.

                            Yes, they were serious. Yes, they were competent.

                            They were also ruthless, as were their political masters.

                            With respects.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • To Simon

                              As you well know I subscribe to the theory of Macnaghten as an affable fox who concealed from his coleagues the true identity of the Ripper.

                              He had to.

                              You are also right about Ostrog. He was cleared after the official version of his report was written.

                              But when Macnaghten rewrote the memo in 1898 he still included the Russian out of a private revenge and to amuse himself.

                              No, that is not sincere. It is ruthless in a rather infantile way.

                              He quite deceitfully created the fictional "Kosminski", out of a real and tragic figure: Aaron Kosminski.

                              But he was sincere about Druitt, in my opinion. He had enormous counter-vailing pressures on him to clear this drowned, gentleman suspect -- but he could not.

                              Comment


                              • I am going to be intentionally provocative here, since we are having a discussion concerning itself to a large degree with the amount of trust we must award the old police notions about Kosminski and Druitt.

                                "You are belitting the men of Scotland Yard who would not have advocated suspects as 'Jack' if they were not sincere. They were serious and they were competent", is what Jonathan says, and I donīt doubt that they may well have been sincere enough.

                                But were they competent?

                                Letīs be very rough and apply a timeline perspective, concerning itself with centuries only, just for jolly.

                                We live in the 21:st century.

                                They Ripper crimes were committed in the 19:th century.

                                The difference is two centuries.

                                If we back down two centuries from the 19:th century, we end up in the 17:th century. That was a century when legal proceedings involved throwing perceived witches in lakes to see if they floated, in which case they were considered guilty.

                                Then followed the 18:th century, with some of the greatest scientists of all time, concerning themselves with nature and itīs wonders. In Sweden, we had Carl von Linné, the inventor of the taxonomic system.
                                He believed that the swallows spent the winters sleeping on the bottoms of lakes, only to reemerge when spring drifted into summer.

                                Then followed the 19:th century, with the Ripper killings.

                                Then we had the 20:th century, when Elliot Ness Went after the Kingsbury Run killer with the aid of a Bertillonage. It was meant to guide Ness on the matter of how a deranged decapitator and eviscerator would look.

                                ... and here we are in the 21:st century, discussing how the 19:th century police bigwigs were very competent fellows.

                                They were regarded as extremely competent by their contemporaries, and justifiedly so - but their competence rested on the knowledge levels provided by their time!

                                The exact same thing will go for Kosminskiīs viability as a suspect - he was regarded as a prime suspect by Anderson, but that too rested on the knowledge levels provided in a time when masturbation was regarded as a certain trip to insanity.

                                Kosminski WAS a prime suspect for Anderson. What it was based on, we donīt know, although the masturbation rot seemingly belonged to the judging material. The rest could well be equally poorly based, as far as we can tell.

                                Therefore, I think all we owe Anderson is to accept that he did as best as he could and that his competence was up to scratch in 1888 - but not today.

                                Today, we can dispell many of the misconceptions, preconceived notions and prejudices that were prevalent in the Victorian society, and we should accordingly not try and grade Kosminski as a very good suspect since that could be way off the map. We should acknowledge that he was once a main suspect, but whether there were reasons for it that we would accept today is another story altogether.

                                So he stays on the map - but we donīt get to grade him.

                                The best,
                                Fisherman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X