Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fisherman my friend,

Steve 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.

There is a distinct possibility that Swanson simply rehashed what Anderson had been saying, with no explicit agreeing on his own behalf. And "reasonable" never equated "proven". I also think that Aaron was Andersons man, and I realize that Swanson may have agreed, but thatīs as far as I can go before tampering with the facts.

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 far from me would it be to claim such a thing. Whoīs the third part you are referring to here, by the way?

And as for primary evidence, two of those three say he was identified.

As what?

While you may dismiss that claim, as many do, it should be mentioned to give a balanced view.

Identified as what? I donīt dismiss the claim that Anderson said that he was identified, or that Swanson backed him up. But how does an identification we cannot place in time, where we cannot name the witness, where we are not 100 per cent certain that Aaron was the identified party and where we have no clue whatsoever about what the ID identified the identified person as, be part of a "balanced view"? "View" is connected to seeing - and what can we see here? Nothing. We are blind.
Before we can find the information lacking here, we have nothing to accuse Aaron Kosminski of. He consequentially walks free until further notice, remaining a person of interest but not a genuine suspect, legally speaking. Thatīs how a balanced view works.

[Aldebaran]

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



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?

This is what I wrote yesterday and, having thought about it a bit more, have decided that this could be the key. Confidence. If you are murdering someone out in the open, where someone might come by at any time, even a copper, you won't want to dawdle. However, if you are someone accustomed to surgery, post mortems--you might feel confident in your ability to do a quick job of removing an organ. So you chance it. After all, this person already knew how to incapacitate the women in a hurry so there wouldn't be any screaming to raise an alarm. Go for the throat and the jugular. I feel certain that the killer seized the women by chin, turned them away from him, quickly slitting the throat and covering the mouth and nose afterward with one hand so as to smother them. And that's why the cuts were from left to right. The killer was right-handed and the victim facing away from him. [BTW, that's how one is taught to kill the enemy from behind in commando training.]

From this site regarding Annie Chapman: "The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

He thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If he had down [sic] it in a deliberate way such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon it probably would have taken him the best part of an hour."

[Steadmund Brand]

I would agree, to some respect... however a slaughter house worker would also be able to do this, and probably much quicker then a "surgeon"....I go back and forth on if I believe the anatomical knowledge aspect, due to "job or education"....it's also possible whoever did this was not "new" to killing.... these may not have been the first murders... possibly they had years of "experience"... we will never know for sure... but the fact remains... the police DID suspect Kosminski...for reasons we will never fully know.... same with Druitt (which makes far less sense, to me anyway) and Tumblety for that matter....and countless others we don't know about....

Do you have a particular suspect in mind Aldebaran? It almost seems like you are hinting at one, would love to hear your take on it and reasons why you believe them to be the killer.

Steadmund Brand

[Elamarna]

Fisherman

There is a distinct possibility that Swanson simply rehashed what Anderson had been saying, with no explicit agreeing on his own behalf. And "reasonable" never equated "proven". I also think that Aaron was Andersons man, and I realize that Swanson may have agreed, but thatīs as far as I can go before tampering with the facts.

That may be true however we cannot say so categorically, I was only saying that he is the only suspect named by more than one officer, and that there must have been a reason for this.

That is along way from saying he is the killer.

[B]And far from me would it be to claim such a thing. Whoīs the third part you are referring to here, by the way?

Macnaghten, I am aware of all the problems with him.

However there must have been a reason for naming AK in the first place, if that information was strong or weak we have no way of knowing because unfortunately the information has not reached us today.

As what?


[B]Identified as what? I donīt dismiss the claim that Anderson said that he was identified, or that Swanson backed him up. But how does an identification we cannot place in time, where we cannot name the witness, where we are not 100 per cent certain that Aaron was the identified party and where we have no clue whatsoever about what the ID identified the identified person as, be part of a "balanced view"? "View" is connected to seeing - and what can we see here? Nothing. We are blind.

I did not say you did dismiss it, only that you might.

The two officers (Swanson and Anderson, and that assumes they are talking about the same man) said as you well know that the only person who got a view of the killer identified AK as the person they saw.

Yes there are lots of problems with it, just as there are lots with your own theory.


pros we have police officers naming him, and saying he was identified,

Against that we have no records of such and so the position cannot be taken any further.

remaining a person of interest but not a genuine suspect, legally speaking. Thatīs how a balanced view works.

I fully agree with you there.
However we have no one who would meet the criteria of a genuine suspect legally speaking, I prefer the status "possible" and "probably" but that is just different words the understanding is I think the same.



regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fisherman

That may be true however we cannot say so categorically, I was only saying that he is the only suspect named by more than one officer, and that there must have been a reason for this.

That is along way from saying he is the killer.

We cannot say what categorically...? I wrote that "there is a distinct possibility", and that is very uncategorical.

Macnaghten, I am aware of all the problems with him.

Ah yes - so am I!

However there must have been a reason for naming AK in the first place, if that information was strong or weak we have no way of knowing because unfortunately the information has not reached us today.

Which is exactly what I am saying. We are blind in this respect.


I did not say you did dismiss it, only that you might.

Well then, itīs good to dissolve that notion.

The two officers (Swanson and Anderson, and that assumes they are talking about the same man) said as you well know that the only person who got a view of the killer identified AK as the person they saw.

Eh, no - they said that the person identified K, to be exact. And yes, I am perfectly aware of that. But what they identified him AS (Running in Berner Street? Expressing a hatred towards whores, threatening to cut them up? Wielding a bloody knife in a pub? Speaking to Annie Chapman?) is beyond our grasp. Remember what it took to make Issenschid the prime suspect!
We do know, however, that Smith and MacNaghten vehemently disagreed with the idea that Kosminski was the killer - or indeed that the killer was ever identified, in Smiths case.


Yes there are lots of problems with it, just as there are lots with your own theory.

My "problems" are not anywhere near those of the Kosminski theory. I have a proven presence, a timetable, a geographical connotation, a nameswop, the hidden wounds, the bleeding schedule, the Mizen scam...
I have a case, built on relevant details, good enough for a QC to take to court with hopes of a conviction.
Kosminski has nothing at all in that respect. Not a iot.

pros we have police officers naming him, and saying he was identified

Yep, and thatīs about it. To me, it goes but a very short way. Some may think it leaves hopes of a much longer promenade in the park, and thatīs fair enough as long as they can tell hopes from facts.

Against that we have no records of such and so the position cannot be taken any further.

Not an inch, no.


I fully agree with you there.
However we have no one who would meet the criteria of a genuine suspect legally speaking, I prefer the status "possible" and "probably" but that is just different words the understanding is I think the same.

Scobie and Griffiths disagreed very much with you, and so do I - Lechmere is a suspect on very genuine grounds, with heaps of circumstantial and factual evidence pointing in his direction. There is no comparison at all, which is why Kosminski et al were hot bids until the carman arrived. But no longer.
...if you ask me.

[Elamarna]

Fisherman

Its funny, someone agrees with much of what you say, and you still feel the need to argue.

On Lechmere we will continue at this time to disagree.

all the best

steve











Scobie and Griffiths disagreed very much with you, and so do I - Lechmere is a suspect on very genuine grounds, with heaps of circumstantial and factual evidence pointing in his direction. There is no comparison at all, which is why Kosminski et al were hot bids until the carman arrived. But no longer.
...if you ask me.
[/QUOTE]

[Fantomas]

The presumed MO and profile of the Ripper does not fit Kosminski's community and police reputation/profile.
I think the Ripper - if one man - was as extraordinarily ordinary as one might get in an area like Whitechapel. Frequent serial killers fit this bill. An ordinary tradesman with to him a perfectly rational punishment/treatment of the victims. Maybe the most unremarkable saddler in the whole of London. We maupy nit even have his name yet.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

Its funny, someone agrees with much of what you say, and you still feel the need to argue.

On Lechmere we will continue at this time to disagree.

all the best

steve

[/QUOTE]

"Hälsan tiger still", Steve - a Swedish proverb, translating into "well-being keeps silent".

In other words, as long as people agree, what is there to discuss? Itīs the parts where we disagree I find interesting to discuss.

I think that is a universal truth.

[Elamarna]

"Hälsan tiger still", Steve - a Swedish proverb, translating into "well-being keeps silent".

In other words, as long as people agree, what is there to discuss? Itīs the parts where we disagree I find interesting to discuss.

I think that is a universal truth.

Hi Fisherman

Agreed, but you seemed to be arguing even when I was agreeing, not complaining.
Yes it is enjoyable, just found it funny.

All the best


Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

Agreed, but you seemed to be arguing even when I was agreeing, not complaining.
Yes it is enjoyable, just found it funny.

All the best


Steve

I was a bit confounded by your first paragraph, to be honest, when you wrote "That may be true however we cannot say so categorically" in response to my stating that "There is a distinct possibility that Swanson simply rehashed what Anderson had been saying, with no explicit agreeing on his own behalf. And "reasonable" never equated "proven"."

Maybe I got that wrong, I donīt know...?

[Aldebaran]

I would agree, to some respect... however a slaughter house worker would also be able to do this, and probably much quicker then a "surgeon"....I go back and forth on if I believe the anatomical knowledge aspect, due to "job or education"....it's also possible whoever did this was not "new" to killing.... these may not have been the first murders... possibly they had years of "experience"... we will never know for sure... but the fact remains... the police DID suspect Kosminski...for reasons we will never fully know.... same with Druitt (which makes far less sense, to me anyway) and Tumblety for that matter....and countless others we don't know about....

Do you have a particular suspect in mind Aldebaran? It almost seems like you are hinting at one, would love to hear your take on it and reasons why you believe them to be the killer.

Steadmund Brand

I don't have one yet, as I am only a constable and haven't made detective yet. Although in time....Seriously, I am very far from having the expertise on the JTR case and all its aspects that most others here have acquired. Years ago, I had read considerably about the matter, but things have receded in my memory. Then, more recently, I became intrigued by the DNA connections to the Ripper and renewed my interest--but I need to catch up.

From Dr. Robert Anderson: "...the conclusion that we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice..."

I think Anderson over-estimated Jewish solidarity, but that his witness, who "unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him" may have had some other reason for not wanting to give evidence seems not to have occurred to him. And then "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than those of a brute."

So much prejudice, so much hypocrisy in this 19th Century. First of all, Christians and Jews alike had little pity for the prostitutes and their drinking habits, due to Victorian morality--and religion. As to masturbation--oh, right! Kosminski was the one wanker in the city of London As to brutes, I suppose Anderson had never seen a dog gaze longingly at a human leg. It seems plain to me that the "utterly unmentionable vices" of Kosminski, while not very charming in the way he practiced them, caused somebody to believe that someone who could do what he did was perfectly capable of murder, too. No shame, no self-control, no Victorian morality--end of story. On the other hand, Robert Anderson couldn't have anticipated how under-represented Jewish men would prove to be among the ranks of serial killers of the future.

[Aldebaran]

And here's a good point brought up by Scott Nelson in an article in Ripperologist Magazine, also published on this site: "Both Anderson and Swanson speak of an eye-witness identification and of the refusal of the witness to give evidence. A point often made in relation to Kosminski is that a witness was not likely to have been required to give evidence against a certified lunatic already confined in an asylum. A certified lunatic would automatically be deemed unfit to plead and would simply have been kept in the asylum. The implication of this is that if the police hoped the witness would testify, then the identification took place before the suspect had been committed. "

[Errata]

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

Haha it's nothing special. Hutch's behavior was such that a modern women would call the cops on him for being generally creepy. It Just was. So either he was just that guy and couldn't help it, or he was to an extent stalking Kelly.

Which provides a narrative of a man obsessed with a woman who kills surrogates for as long as he can until he is finally overwhelmed and kills the actual object of his obsession. It explains the somewhat clinical detachment of the wounds of the first four victims, might even explain the overkill of the throat, and would explain both why the murder of Kelly was so different, and why the murders stopped after Kelly. An obsessed man who wants to possess the object of his obsession, know every part of her, wants the empty her... but because he loves her, kills others in her place.

It's a good story. Clearly there are zero facts in that theory, but it is a good enough story that it warrants a look. So people should look at Hutch. I don't think he killed them, but he's still worth a look. Behavior that bizarre before a murder is always worth a look.

It's the stories that get us, suck us in to this. Not the facts. Humans are prone to being susceptible to narrative.

[Abby Normal]

Haha it's nothing special. Hutch's behavior was such that a modern women would call the cops on him for being generally creepy. It Just was. So either he was just that guy and couldn't help it, or he was to an extent stalking Kelly.

Which provides a narrative of a man obsessed with a woman who kills surrogates for as long as he can until he is finally overwhelmed and kills the actual object of his obsession. It explains the somewhat clinical detachment of the wounds of the first four victims, might even explain the overkill of the throat, and would explain both why the murder of Kelly was so different, and why the murders stopped after Kelly. An obsessed man who wants to possess the object of his obsession, know every part of her, wants the empty her... but because he loves her, kills others in her place.

It's a good story. Clearly there are zero facts in that theory, but it is a good enough story that it warrants a look. So people should look at Hutch. I don't think he killed them, but he's still worth a look. Behavior that bizarre before a murder is always worth a look.

It's the stories that get us, suck us in to this. Not the facts. Humans are prone to being susceptible to narrative.

Thanks!
makes sense to me! When I first heard about hutch and his stalking behavior and then probable corroboration by Lewis-it hit me like a ton of bricks.

whats your take on the idea he came forward to police because of lewis and tried to divert suspicion by inventing a suspect. Hows that fit?

[Fisherman]

Just saw a 1988 documentary called "The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper", where Peter Ustinov put the question "Who was Jack the Ripper?" to a panel of experts. From a choice of Druitt, DīOnston, Gull, the Duke of Clarence and Aaron Kosminski, everybody in the panel favoured Aaron K.

Roy Hazelwood of the FBI, author of a number of forewords and commentaries in Ripper literature justified his take on matters with the sentence that Kosminskis hatred of women was "extremely well documented".

Thereīs an expert for you...