Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Aldebaran]

I see you believe he had learnt how to remove organs? Well yes the killer could have been trained, equally he may not have been. that as I am surely you are aware is an ongoing debate, and probably always will be. I am not convinced such debatable points should be used to rule a candidate in or out of being the killer, if you view it differently fair enough.

Personally I think he is the best of a bad bunch, he is very possible, but the evidence is lacking to take that to a probable.

In the end, he is the ONLY suspect named by more than one senior police officer at or around the time of the murders. Agreed we do not know why, but there must have been some evidence of some sort to allow this surely.
On those grounds alone he should not be dismissed at present.

All the best and a belated welcome to the forums.

Thanks, but I did not write that I thought Kosminski had learned to remove organs. I wrote: "Well, a paranoid schizophrenic could become a serial killer [some did] but the Ripper seems to have been quite cunning in a way that just doesn't seem to fit with Kosminski. And where would that guy, a hair dresser by trade, when he worked, have learned to remove organs? I don't think one gets that information as a barber's apprentice."

So I don't think the man had learned to remove organs. I agree that he shouldn't be dismissed and I recently even pointed out that the mtDNA found in the semen on the shawl could belong to an Ashkenazi Jew--although some people on certain websites don't believe the haplogroup subgroup T1a1 is one to which a Jew would belong. But he certainly could, as I demonstrated, although it would be a rarer group for an Ashkenazi Jew, the most common being K and H and their subgroups. The fact that Kosminski's living relative belongs to T1a1 is pretty significant. It's probably his semen, but that doesn't necessarily make him the killer. That's what bothers me when it comes to him--the removal of the organs--and the possibility of a man in his mental state having the subtle cunning of JTR.

Can someone remind me, though, why that shawl was connected to Catherine Eddowes. I don't see it listed under her clothing or possessions.

[Elamarna]

Thanks, but I did not write that I thought Kosminski had learned to remove organs. I wrote: "Well, a paranoid schizophrenic could become a serial killer [some did] but the Ripper seems to have been quite cunning in a way that just doesn't seem to fit with Kosminski. And I don't think one gets that information as a barber's apprentice."

So I don't think the man had learned to remove organs. I agree that he shouldn't be dismissed and I recently even pointed out that the mtDNA found in the semen on the shawl could belong to an Ashkenazi Jew--although some people on certain websites don't believe the haplogroup subgroup T1a1 is one to which a Jew would belong. But he certainly could, as I demonstrated, although it would be a rarer group for an Ashkenazi Jew, the most common being K and H and their subgroups. The fact that Kosminski's living relative belongs to T1a1 is pretty significant. It's probably his semen, but that doesn't necessarily make him the killer. That's what bothers me when it comes to him--the removal of the organs--and the possibility of a man in his mental state having the subtle cunning of JTR.

Dear Aldebaran


Sorry yes there is a misunderstanding, and I happily accept that my response was more than a touch unclear.

When I said:

"I see you believe he had learnt how to remove organs?"

I meant the killer not AK, however that is not how it read.


So in response to your comment

"where would that guy, a hair dresser by trade, when he worked, have learned to remove organs? "


I am right then in assuming that you believe the killer was trained?


With regards to your concerns about his mental state, I replied

"In addition the only information on AK's mental state is from the time of his detention. Even then the records are far from complete.
Given that he appeared to be ok in court in 1889, while he certainly was not in 1891, it really is not possible to say how he was, or appeared to be in 1888. That of course includes his shall we call it, debatable habits in public!"



Whether JtR was cunning or not is not certain, but for purpose of debate lets for now assume he was. ( I am of the school he was more lucky than cunning)

There is however no data to show how AK was functioning in 1888.
There are no records or reports of any type I am aware of from that period.
The closest records we have are the court appearance in 1889, and it seems he did not appear to be ill at that time and was functional in court.

All the best

Steve

[Aldebaran]

"where would that guy, a hair dresser by trade, when he worked, have learned to remove organs? "


I am right then in assuming that you believe the killer was trained?

Yes, I do.

[wigngown]

I'm with the 48.61% and IMHO, Kosminski is not the best Suspect,

Best regards,

[Steadmund Brand]

I think we should clarify something.... I think Kosminski is the best "suspect" but I'm not so sure he is the "Ripper" ... I think he was the person who many of the police suspected....but I don't think it makes him the most likely killer....

That being said, Aldebaran, you do think the killer was trained....trained in what, human anatomy? animal anatomy? (Please don't think I am sounding confrontational... I don't mean to, I am interested in your theory.. but I know that things can sound " mean" thru message boards)

Steadmund Brand

[Fisherman]

Kosminski is something of a meta-suspect - he is a suspect because he is a suspect.

To determine his status as a suspect is not possible, since such a weighing works from the amount of ties the suggested suspect has to the crime/s investigated.
In Kosminski´s case, there are no such ties. There is only the fact that Anderson seemingly pointed a finger at him (if it was him, which is not 100 per cent certain), and that fact does not disclose in a ny shape of form what it was that supposedly lay behind Andersons allegations. Had Kosminski confessed? Had he been seen close by one of the murder sites, weapon in hand? Had he been caught with any belongings of the victims?
In each of these cases - and others - it could apply that the occurrence could have been witnessed by Andersons fellow Jew witness. The thing is, we have not a clue what it was that made Anderson believe Kosminski was the killer, and consequently we have no evidence pointing in his way.
He can therefore only be the best suspect if there is nobody else who HAS evidence pointing to this person being the killer. And since there is at least such a person around, Kosminski can hope for nothing more than second place - at the very best.

[Abby Normal]

Kosminski is something of a meta-suspect - he is a suspect because he is a suspect.

To determine his status as a suspect is not possible, since such a weighing works from the amount of ties the suggested suspect has to the crime/s investigated.
In Kosminski´s case, there are no such ties. There is only the fact that Anderson seemingly pointed a finger at him (if it was him, which is not 100 per cent certain), and that fact does not disclose in a ny shape of form what it was that supposedly lay behind Andersons allegations. Had Kosminski confessed? Had he been seen close by one of the murder sites, weapon in hand? Had he been caught with any belongings of the victims?
In each of these cases - and others - it could apply that the occurrence could have been witnessed by Andersons fellow Jew witness. The thing is, we have not a clue what it was that made Anderson believe Kosminski was the killer, and consequently we have no evidence pointing in his way.
He can therefore only be the best suspect if there is nobody else who HAS evidence pointing to this person being the killer. And since there is at least such a person around, Kosminski can hope for nothing more than second place - at the very best.

Hi Fish
well, he is the only suspect that has any possible direct evidence against him-eyewitness evidence, and a possible ID by a witness, due to police suspicion.
True, we don't know exactly why he came under police suspicion, but I would say it probably has to do with threatening his sister with a knife and being sent to an asylum. Plus he is mentioned as a suspect by three police officials.

I don't think hes the best suspect, not by a long shot. just one of the least weak. as theyre all weak, including my favored suspects.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
well, he is the only suspect that has any possible direct evidence against him-eyewitness evidence, and a possible ID by a witness, due to police suspicion.
True, we don't know exactly why he came under police suspicion, but I would say it probably has to do with threatening his sister with a knife and being sent to an asylum. Plus he is mentioned as a suspect by three police officials.

I don't think hes the best suspect, not by a long shot. just one of the least weak. as theyre all weak, including my favored suspects.

But Kosminski has no direct evidence against him, other than evidence that a police bigwig claimed that it was him.
To me, that is secondary, not primary evidence.

Otherwise I agree, he is definitely one of the least weak suspects, but not the top suspect.

[Aldebaran]

I think we should clarify something.... I think Kosminski is the best "suspect" but I'm not so sure he is the "Ripper" ... I think he was the person who many of the police suspected....but I don't think it makes him the most likely killer....

I'm not even sure why the police suspected him.

That being said, Aldebaran, you do think the killer was trained....trained in what, human anatomy? animal anatomy? (Please don't think I am sounding confrontational... I don't mean to, I am interested in your theory.. but I know that things can sound " mean" thru message boards)

No worries. Well...I tried to put myself in the place of the killer, who doesn't have much time. [Except with Mary Kelly] Someone could come along at any moment. I know I've done a terrible thing, even though I like doing it, and I don't want to get caught. I know my knife is sharp because I sharpened it. I can take a rip here and a nick there and even cut off a nose in no time flat. But cut out a kidney or a uterus? Where do I even start? I would have no confidence whatsoever, even though I do know more or less where those organs are located in a human form. One thing is for certain. I know I couldn't excise those things in a hurry. Because I am not a surgeon. I am not even a person who has watched dissection in medical school. Do I want those organs badly enough to be caught by someone crouching or standing over a murdered woman while fumbling about with my knife?

[Monty]

Kosminski is something of a meta-suspect - he is a suspect because he is a suspect.

To determine his status as a suspect is not possible, since such a weighing works from the amount of ties the suggested suspect has to the crime/s investigated.
In Kosminski´s case, there are no such ties. There is only the fact that Anderson seemingly pointed a finger at him (if it was him, which is not 100 per cent certain), and that fact does not disclose in a ny shape of form what it was that supposedly lay behind Andersons allegations. Had Kosminski confessed? Had he been seen close by one of the murder sites, weapon in hand? Had he been caught with any belongings of the victims?
In each of these cases - and others - it could apply that the occurrence could have been witnessed by Andersons fellow Jew witness. The thing is, we have not a clue what it was that made Anderson believe Kosminski was the killer, and consequently we have no evidence pointing in his way.
He can therefore only be the best suspect if there is nobody else who HAS evidence pointing to this person being the killer. And since there is at least such a person around, Kosminski can hope for nothing more than second place - at the very best.

This is incorrect.

Swanson named Kosminski, not Anderson.

Monty
😃

[Errata]

I think Kosminski makes a hell of a suspect given the narrative that would go with him that hits on a lot of stereotypes about killers and the mentally ill. It's a great story. I don't think the facts line up, but it's easy to see how he would be compelling as the killer. And being a named suspect roughly at the time of the events in question certainly rates a look. When you look at this case, of course you look at Kosminski. Of course you look at Druitt. And even Hutch. There are some damned fine reasons to look at them.

I just don't think it was actually any of them. Well maybe Hutch. Not that I have evidence but I can come up with a really good story for him that might actually fit the crimes.

[Abby Normal]

I think Kosminski makes a hell of a suspect given the narrative that would go with him that hits on a lot of stereotypes about killers and the mentally ill. It's a great story. I don't think the facts line up, but it's easy to see how he would be compelling as the killer. And being a named suspect roughly at the time of the events in question certainly rates a look. When you look at this case, of course you look at Kosminski. Of course you look at Druitt. And even Hutch. There are some damned fine reasons to look at them.

I just don't think it was actually any of them. Well maybe Hutch. Not that I have evidence but I can come up with a really good story for him that might actually fit the crimes.

wow. errata! I think this is the first time Ive heard you say that about hutch.
Please continue!

[MsWeatherwax]

wow. errata! I think this is the first time Ive heard you say that about hutch.
Please continue!

Equally intrigued!

[Elamarna]

But Kosminski has no direct evidence against him, other than evidence that a police bigwig claimed that it was him.
To me, that is secondary, not primary evidence.

Otherwise I agree, he is definitely one of the least weak suspects, but not the top suspect.

Fisherman my friend,

It was not Apolice bigwig, it was Two of them to varying degrees, and of course while Anderson did not name his suspect, it seems reasonable given what Swanson said that it was Kosminski Anderson was referring too.
So that gives 3 who can be seen to included him as a suspect Being a suspect does not of course make him the killer.

And as for primary evidence, two of those three say he was identified. While you may dismiss that claim, as many do, it should be mentioned to give a balanced view. And yes I did notice the reference in your post to the "jewish witness" so you did mention it, but for anyone new to the case they may not have picked up on the reference.


cheers

Steve

[Elamarna]

I'm not even sure why the police suspected him.

Dear Aldebaran,

that of course is one of the problems is it not?

We have three senior officers who suggest he could be a suspect, to varying degrees it is true.
However for three to allude to him, it does suggest that there was some evidence of some sort, which we do not unfortunately have.

all the best


Steve