Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But Macnaghten who was Swansons immediate superior makes no mention of any such ID parade in his later memorandum, and in a second memorandum having initially mentioned the name Kosminski as a likely suspect then states that he exonarates Kosminski. hardly corroboration of the marginalia, in fact quite the opposite

    I think you should be looking at who actually wrote the marginalia and when it was written!

    www.trevormarriott
    He doesn't quite clear Kosminski in the second version, rather, after listing the 3 suspects he considers more worthy of suspicion than Cutbush, he goes on to give his opinion as to which is to be preferred. The memorandums tend to come across as if the 3 he listed were selected from a larger pool and are given as examples of individuals who make better suspects than Cutbush, though one could be justified in presuming he chose what he considered the best three examples. He goes on to then state his opinion as to which of those three he considers the most likely (Druitt) but he does clarify that the case against him isn't proven (his truth at the bottom of the Thames statement). He also indicates that his suspicions against Druitt have grown over time, and that leaves me with the impression that the growth of his suspicions against Druitt are not because more evidence came forward to support that, rather, because he felt there were no more murders by JtR, and Druitt suicided shortly after Kelly's murder, the absence of any further murders and his suicide both seemed easy enough to explain as a result. I don't think, however, he was indicating there was a strong case against any of them really, rather these were just three men whom the police felt there was reason to look into for some reason but they had not fully exonerated them (if I recall correctly, he even says that Ostrog's whereabouts at the time of the murders was not known, so he didn't even have evidence that Ostrog was actually in the area at the appropriate time - not that that has ever been considered a barrier to suggesting someone as a suspect of course). In short, the purpose of the memorandum seems more about arguing how weak the case against Cutbush is, and that argument is illustrated by listing the three "better examples", rather than listing the 3 as if they were individuals against whom strong cases could be made. They are "relatively stronger cases than Cutbush's case" even if their cases were not strong in the absolute sense.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    Do you know of a better suspect?

    Who killed those women Simon?!

    Don't you agree he could have been a mentaly sick local person?!

    Don't you agree he hadn't been caught maybe because those who saw him or knew of his guilt didn't talk?!

    Don't you agree he could have been a jew in a crowded jewish neihborhood?!

    Swanson didn't give his first name, Anderson didn't even mention Kosminsk, Macnaughten agreed he is a strong suspect with many sircumstances surrounding him.

    ​​​​​
    He is the best suspect that we have, if all the police of the time were a band of liars, then what else do we have here to discover?!



    The Baron
    But Macnaghten who was Swansons immediate superior makes no mention of any such ID parade in his later memorandum, and in a second memorandum having initially mentioned the name Kosminski as a likely suspect then states that he exonarates Kosminski. hardly corroboration of the marginalia, in fact quite the opposite

    I think you should be looking at who actually wrote the marginalia and when it was written!

    www.trevormarriott

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    There is no proof against anyone, and if you will not accept evidence from the police, I doubt you will accepet anything at all.

    He got away with his crimes, right Simon?!


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Baron,

    Oh Boy, now you're really stretching.

    You'll need to do better, like offering some proof.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Do you know of a better suspect?

    Who killed those women Simon?!

    Don't you agree he could have been a mentaly sick local person?!

    Don't you agree he hadn't been caught maybe because those who saw him or knew of his guilt didn't talk?!

    Don't you agree he could have been a jew in a crowded jewish neihborhood?!

    Swanson didn't give his first name, Anderson didn't even mention Kosminsk, Macnaughten agreed he is a strong suspect with many sircumstances surrounding him.

    ​​​​​
    He is the best suspect that we have, if all the police of the time were a band of liars, then what else do we have here to discover?!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • jason_c
    replied
    A contemporary working class suspect. Yes, Kosminski is the best of an admittedly bad bunch of suspects.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Baron,

    What I see is no better than a lynch mob, a band of people who, without a scrap of evidence, are doing their damnedest to safeguard the reputations of two high-ranking LVP policemen by helping to pin a series of murders on an innocent man.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    ​​​​
    Donald Swanson, or, most probably, someone on his behalf, conjured this Seaside Home crap out of thin air to bamboozle a gullible Ripperological audience.


    Simon, you can see that you are the one here who is conjuring an alternative scenarios out of thin air.

    ​​​​

    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Baron,

    No, it didn't. What a surprise!

    Donald Swanson, or, most probably, someone on his behalf, conjured this Seaside Home crap out of thin air to bamboozle a gullible Ripperological audience.

    Good luck with your winning cards.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Thanks Simon,

    Did the March 1910 Blackwood's article tells us that:

    "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the 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. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to ColneyHatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect"


    Sorry Simon, but your theory makes no sense, Swanson is the winning card here!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Baron,

    On Page 138 of TLSOMOL, Anderson wrote—"I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him."

    There was no mention of either the suspect or witness being a Jew.

    But Swanson had added in pencil, "because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind. D.S.S."

    From where had Swanson got this piece of information?

    It had previously appeared in a footnote to Anderson's March 1910 instalment of TLSOMOL in Blackwood's magazine—

    "I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."

    So at best, all the page 138 marginalia tells us is that retired Chief Inspector Swanson remembered the March 1910 Blackwood's article and pencilled in the information missing from the published volume.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    "May have been a liar" is a wishful thinking and doesn't jive either, Simon.

    Whether his master was a liar doesn't automatically make Swanson a liar too the way you want us to believe.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Baron,

    I know no such thing. For all you know, Swanson may have been a liar.

    His old master certainly was.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    Hi Simon,

    you know as I know that Swanson is not a liar, thats why you tend to disaprove that he wrote those marginals.The Baron
    Everything about and connected to the marginalia is also flawed.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 02-18-2022, 01:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Hi Simon,

    you know as I know that Swanson is not a liar, thats why you tend to disaprove that he wrote those marginals.

    I on the other hand fully accept them.


    Hi Fishy,

    well I can tell if it is a woman only by looking at her hands and fingers, besides, MJK was positively ifentified by her friend.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X