Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Hunter]

Harry,
Anderson and Swanson's position means that they would have known all about the identification even if they were not present at it. This makes them an authoritative voice, not hearsay. If George Hutchinson was telling us something he'd heard about it, that would be hearsay.

If any one of the figures we are familiar with would have personally been involved in such an ID attempt, it would have been Swanson. He did these things as part of his job and training. And any objective evaluation (as far as is possible with the limited resources) of his extensive writing on this subject in Anderson's book reasons just that - the apparent incorrect death of the suspect notwithstanding.


The very sequences of events and nature of what was written about "Kozminsky" points to the information emanating originally from the ground investigation itself, not from administrative personnel who occasionally injected themselves into an ongoing investigation.

That still does not mean that Swanson's or Anderson's personal evaluations about the witness or suspect were conclusive or correct - especially in what I believe was an opinion developed and enhanced with hindsight over time as the actual investigation dragged to what some perceived as an ignominious end.

[Monty]

Twas you that brought it up, I was merely putting it in the right perspective. I would hate for anyone to be misled

You are speaking legally. In 1888 hearsay was inadmissable, in 2014 it is admissable.

As were are currently in 2014, I say its you who is trying to mislead.

Monty

[PaulB]

If any one of the figures we are familiar with would have personally been involved in such an ID attempt, it would have been Swanson. He did these things as part of his job and training. And any objective evaluation (as far as is possible with the limited resources) of his extensive writing on this subject in Anderson's book reasons just that - the apparent incorrect death of the suspect notwithstanding.


The very sequences of events and nature of what was written about "Kozminsky" points to the information emanating originally from the ground investigation itself, not from administrative personnel who occasionally injected themselves into an ongoing investigation.

That still does not mean that Swanson's or Anderson's personal evaluations about the witness or suspect were conclusive or correct - especially in what I believe was an opinion developed and enhanced with hindsight over time as the actual investigation dragged to what some perceived as an ignominious end.

Hi Hunter
How the suspect came To the attention of The policeis speculation. You might be right, you might be wrong. If you are right then what was written was not hearsay.

Nobody is here saying that Anderson and Swanson were right.

[GUT]

You are speaking legally. In 1888 hearsay was inadmissable, in 2014 it is admissable.

As were are currently in 2014, I say its you who is trying to mislead.

Monty

Except that even in 2014 hearsay is only admissible in defined circumstances.

[PaulB]

(My bolding).

Sorry to interrupt, but I think we can clear up some of the apparent confusion fairly easily. I know there are folks on this board with a background in the Police, and I certainly mean no disrespect to their training, but for the sake of clarity perhaps we should assume that any reference to sources, evidence or fact is measured by the standards and requirements of history rather than a criminal case.

Not to belittle the talk of hearsay, etc, but to ensure everybody is using the same definitions. Even had I agreed that the sources you are discussing were records of mere hearsay for example, that would still be historically useful and offer an insight to us that the Police may not have used to draw their own conclusions.

I would agree that though we do not how their conclusions were reached, the versions of events given, even years after the fact are of great historical importance if only to show us what other information is missing.

Yes, you are perfectly correct that we are discussing valuable historical material irrespective of whether it is hearsay or not. Trevor, of course, is attempting to devalue the source. You are also correct when you say that historians use a different terminology to policemen. This has been explained to Trevor time and again, but he is unable to take it on board.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are speaking legally. In 1888 hearsay was inadmissable, in 2014 it is admissable.

As were are currently in 2014, I say its you who is trying to mislead.

Monty

You just argue for the sake or arguing

[Trevor Marriott]

It is a historical source to everyone, including you As for your hypothesising, it is fiction, unsupportrd by a single fact. We can hypothesize anything.

It is also irrelevant. It doesn't answer the question put to you. Why does it always have to be like this? You make a statement, you are asked to back it up, you don't/can't.

Whatever

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, you are perfectly correct that we are discussing valuable historical material irrespective of whether it is hearsay or not. Trevor, of course, is attempting to devalue the source. You are also correct when you say that historians use a different terminology to policemen. This has been explained to Trevor time and again, but he is unable to take it on board.

Facts historical or otherwise are there to be proved or disproved. You seem to want to accept all historical facts are true and none should be disproved.

Are historical facts going to solve a case no they are not, evidence is what is going to solve a case and much of the evidence little as it is in this case is contentious to say the least.

Yes there is a lot of what you call historical facts and much of which does not stand up to close scrutiny.

[Jonathan H]

Cause and Effect?

An historical interpretation or solution of limited and contradictory data is provisional. It cannot be absolute; to be evidence to be used in a trial.

How could it be? What trial? Everybody's long gone.

Lizzie Borden was acquitted but most people make the provisional conclusion that she was guilty of double homicide. That can't be absolute either.

A provisional solution concedes that it is a theory based on what people said they believed-deduced, based on information or material that are forever denied to us.

That might mean said evidence never existed. It is more likely that it is simply not preserved, or could not be. Therefore we are left with making assessments of the people making said claims.

Sir Robert Anderson was not a knee-jerk anti-Semite. This conclusion is based on a range of sources. For him to accuse not just one Hebrew but more than one of letting a vile killer off the hook was a wrench for him--it goes against his own personal bias.

But that was his conclusion.

As for hearsay, the meager sources allow us to similarly speculate that Sir Melville Macnaghten met with a Druitt, he heard their version of Montague's confession and, perhaps, in that secondary account there was an accurate and singular detail (perhaps more than one) that was not in the press accounts and thus could only have been known to the murderer and the authorities.

I realize there are orthodox posters reaching for the smelling salts at such a suggestion, but Macnaghten also went against his class, religious and clubby prejudices to go with a fellow gentleman as the Ripper (one who was in no position to defend himself). We have the end result, his belief, and so it had to come from something--as it did for Anderson.

[harry]

The Ripper murders are not that far back in the past that we can abandon anything other than an historical approach to their investigation.The terminology has not changed that dramatically,and hearsay is as it w as then,and Anderson and Swanson words suggests strongly,their information came from others.They were not themselves witnesses.Not to the events that would have led to suspicion of Kosminski,and not to events at a seaside home.They would know of it only if it had been communicated to them.Pure hearsay on their part in the retelling.
Incidentally I am eighty seven(87) years old today,16-11-1927)Cannot prove it here ,it is just a claim,partly hearsay, as I have no recollection of being born,and those others present have passed on.However, the large amount of documentation that exists,plus a few persons of long standing who can bear witness,and whose integrity is beyond reproach,leads me to the belief that I can justly claim that age, historically at least. Cheers.

[RockySullivan]

There's nothing to indicate Koz could take out the body parts Ina few minutes in the dark So he's not the best suspect

[Rosella]

I agree. I think JTR had to be someone with anatomical experience, (of mammals, if not humans.) Someone who had worked or was still working as a butcher, even someone with slaughterhouse experience. Kos did not even have, as far as is known, Chapman's feldscher training.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Harry,

Happy Birthday.

Regards,

Simon

[RockySullivan]

I agree. I think JTR had to be someone with anatomical experience, (of mammals, if not humans.) Someone who had worked or was still working as a butcher, even someone with slaughterhouse experience. Kos did not even have, as far as is known, Chapman's feldscher training.

Right I think the way Kate's eyelids were nicked suggests someone with good precision with a knife. Especially in the dark. Are there any professions besides butcher that use a knife to cut flesh, remove organs? Taxidermist?

[Monty]

Except that even in 2014 hearsay is only admissible in defined circumstances.

Yes, but admissable none the less.

The point is that despite its changing acceptance, hearsay should not be utterly dismissed, especially when evidence supports said hearsay.

Monty