Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Varqm]

In my mind if Kosminski was a good suspect they would have remembered something about him like
they found a bloody piece of clothing in one of his premises-even if days after any of the murders-
something good.
Instead the best they could remember was he indulged in solitary vices,he had homicidal tendencies
(possibly the sister incident),he had hatred of women.Those do not point to Kosminski's
guilt in any way.If thats the best thing they could remember it tells us/me about the quality of the so called
missing lost pieces of evidence against him.


If the witness in the identification explicitly said he saw Kosminski with one of the victims,lets say minutes
before a murder,whether he agreed to testify or not,the statement "no evidence against anyone" does not hold.After all during that time witness testimony was one of the primary evidence to convict.

[harry]

I am not belittleing anyone.What I am stating is that claims made by those senior officers lack the necessary proof.In the case of Kosminski,no information is available to justify the claim of a seaside home identification.In the case of Druit,no information is available as to the reasons he drowned.Belief itself is of no value.There has to be at least some solid piece of evidence to support the belief,and in the case of the ripper,that evidence has to connect a suspect to a killing,What is the evidence that connects either Kosminski or Druit to a Ripper murder?

[PaulB]

I am not belittleing anyone.What I am stating is that claims made by those senior officers lack the necessary proof.In the case of Kosminski,no information is available to justify the claim of a seaside home identification.In the case of Druit,no information is available as to the reasons he drowned.Belief itself is of no value.There has to be at least some solid piece of evidence to support the belief,and in the case of the ripper,that evidence has to connect a suspect to a killing,What is the evidence that connects either Kosminski or Druit to a Ripper murder?

Harry,
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Those senior officers are unlikely to have made those claims without some sort of evidence to base them on. We don't know what that was, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[Jonathan H]

I agree with PaulB, except I think the essential evidence against both suspects is known.

Nobody agrees with me.

[Fisherman]

I agree with PaulB, except I think the essential evidence against both suspects is known.

Nobody agrees with me.

I much respect you and your extensive work and knowledge, Jonathan. That will have to do in my case, and that´s not half bad.

But hey, wait - on the issue you mention, I do agree with you. I also think that the essential evidence against both men is known.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jonathan H]

Dear Fisherofmen

You mean, you too believe that Druitt failed to kill Dark Sarah, panicked, confessed to his clerical brother-in-law and then took his own life rather than be sectioned?

And that Anderson believed that Kosminski masturbated himself into a madhouse soon after the Kelly murder and then died of, well, exhaustion?

Now I know how Crusoe felt when he saw Man Friday's footprint.

I am not alone ...

[Fisherman]

Dear Fisherofmen

You mean, you too believe that Druitt failed to kill Dark Sarah, panicked, confessed to his clerical brother-in-law and then took his own life rather than be sectioned?

And that Anderson believed that Kosminski masturbated himself into a madhouse soon after the Kelly murder and then died of, well, exhaustion?

Now I know how Crusoe felt when he saw Man Friday's footprint.

I am not alone ...

Maybe I´m more of Thursday than Friday. Or Monday even, to be fair. But I will stand by you when it comes to thinking that the essential evidence against Dru and Kos being already known!

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

I agree with PaulB, except I think the essential evidence against both suspects is known.

In that case neither Druitt not Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

[Amanda]

Perhaps...

In that case neither Druitt not Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

Hi Paul,
I agree with that comment. It is so easy to pursue suspects who have already been 'discovered' whether it be by the police, Ripperologists or FBI profilers, but what about all those desperate, degenerate nobodies living in Whitechapel in 1888?
If we take Kosminski & Druitt (not that he was a degenerate nobody!) as examples, it just goes to show that there were such a lot of diverse mental health issues in that era. Even the perception of insanity was different ( self-abuse was a fine example of how a chap could drive himself crazy).

Perhaps we should be moving the focus away from these suspects and looking at individuals who slept, worked, and breathed Whitechapel. Ordinary men who had a grudge against particular women or struggled to maintain normal relationships.
Or then again, the suspect list would probably grow tenfold..

Amanda

[Jonathan H]

To Amanda

This is based on an assumption.

That "Jack the Ripper" is a mystery. That it was not solved.

My research for what this worth, shows that this assumption is likely to be mistaken. It is a modern misconception.

The recent DNA over-reach was an attempt to also show that the modern notion is mistaken; that it was solved by the police of the day.

Wrong police suspect and wrong 'evidence'.

[Amanda]

To Amanda

This is based on an assumption.

That "Jack the Ripper" is a mystery. That it was not solved.

My research for what this worth, shows that this assumption is likely to be mistaken. It is a modern misconception.

The recent DNA over-reach was an attempt to also show that the modern notion is mistaken; that it was solved by the police of the day.

Wrong police suspect and wrong 'evidence'.

Hello Jonathan,
I was simply stating my opinion, and did not assume either way.

I will have to read more of your research before making up my mind.
I too work in historical research and have spent a good many years trying to eliminate the suspects who can be proven beyond doubt to have been many miles from Whitechapel at the time of the C5 murders.

However, I do find that some authors, despite being shown concrete evidence that their favoured suspect could not possibly be Jack the Ripper, continue to fill the bookshelves with literary c**p.
I'm happy to give further details by PM if you would like an example of how thorough my research is.

Amanda

[Varqm]

"suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified"

When Swanson said "he knew he was identified",surely it was not from the suspects mouth. It was just a "read', and that also applies to the statement the "suspect was identified" by the witness.
I do not think much should be mad of their statements.

[Bridewell]

Actually Trevor made a good point with regard to the whole Seaside Home thing. Why take Kosminski to the witness when it would surely be easier to take the witness to wherever Kosminski was?

Trevor himself would argue, I think, that the incident never took place but if it did, it would suggest (to me anyway) that it would have been even more difficult to do things the other way round. Why would that be?

[GUT]

Actually Trevor made a good point with regard to the whole Seaside Home thing. Why take Kosminski to the witness when it would surely be easier to take the witness to wherever Kosminski was?

Trevor himself would argue, I think, that the incident never took place but if it did, it would suggest (to me anyway) that it would have been even more difficult to do things the other way round. Why would that be?

Could the witness have been at the seaside home, perhaps, convalescing.

[Jonathan H]

To Amanda

But is an an assumption or theory or belief.

It has to be, because it assumes--perhaps correctly--the following primary source is wrong and inaccurate and empty:



Washington Post (Washington, D.C.)
4 June 1913

FATE OF JACK THE RIPPER
Retiring British Official Says Once Famous Criminal Committed Suicide
London Cable to the New York Tribune
The fact that "Jack the Ripper", the man who terrorized the East End of London by the murder of seven women during 1888, committed suicide, is now confirmed by Sir Melville Macnaughten, head of the criminal investigation department of Scotland Yard, who retired on Saturday after 24 years' service.

Sir Melville says:

"It is one of the greatest regrets of my life that "Jack the Ripper" committed suicide six months before I joined the Force.

That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea as to who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me."