Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • Originally posted by Aldebaran View Post
    Kosminski, with his wanking in public, was too obvious.
    What evidence is there that Kosminski did this? The only reference I'm aware of is MacNaghten's allusion to "solitary vices". That's a euphemism I suspect, but not one which suggests that he was in the habit of public masturbation.
    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      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, D´Onston, 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".

      There´s an expert for you...
      This may seem like a stupid question--but documented where? In police records? At Colney Hatch? Why would Hazelwood say that?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        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 any 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.
        Not just Anderson though, Fish, was it? Anderson doesn't name Kosminski, but presumably agreed with Swanson who did. MacNaghten also named Kosminski as being a better suspect than Cutbush. That's three very senior officers, two of whom were serving at the material time, and one who joined not long after and would have had access to papers which no longer exist. Kosminski is not a "suspect because he is a suspect". He is a suspect because there is documentary evidence asserting that, at the material time he was a suspect. If the marginalia are genuine then, admittedly under somewhat strange circumstances, Kosminski was identified as the killer by "the only person who ever saw the Ripper". That makes him a suspect, pure and simple.
        "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Aldebaran View Post
          This may seem like a stupid question--but documented where? In police records? At Colney Hatch? Why would Hazelwood say that?
          Because he was not sufficiently aquainted with the material to comment on it. That´s the long and the short of it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
            Not just Anderson though, Fish, was it? Anderson doesn't name Kosminski, but presumably agreed with Swanson who did. MacNaghten also named Kosminski as being a better suspect than Cutbush. That's three very senior officers, two of whom were serving at the material time, and one who joined not long after and would have had access to papers which no longer exist. Kosminski is not a "suspect because he is a suspect". He is a suspect because there is documentary evidence asserting that, at the material time he was a suspect. If the marginalia are genuine then, admittedly under somewhat strange circumstances, Kosminski was identified as the killer by "the only person who ever saw the Ripper". That makes him a suspect, pure and simple.
            So he is a suspect because he was a suspect? And there is no need whatsoever to establish WHY he was a suspect? That is to say why he was identified, what he was identified as and to what extent he was connected to the murders?

            He is a person of interest until that material surfaces. To be a suspect, you have to have specified points of accusation leveled against you.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              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?
              Hello Abby,

              But here is the problem. If it hit you like a ton of bricks isn't it likely that the police felt the same way? One would have to think so unless they were all muy estupido. That makes Hutch a person of interest. As such he got questioned and investigated as best they could. Yet, they apparently determined that he had nothing to do with the murders. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

              c.d.

              Comment


              • Hi c.d.

                I'm sure Abby won't object to me chiming in here.

                But here is the problem. If it hit you like a ton of bricks isn't it likely that the police felt the same way?
                Not really, no.

                However competent the 1888 police may have been, they had considerably less knowledge of serial killer behaviour than we do today, and as such, were unlikely to have entertained the possibility of the real offender approaching the police under the guise of a witness.

                As such he got questioned and investigated as best they could
                Which would have amounted to what, exactly? Checking whether or not he really had been "walking about all night" between 3.00 on the morning of the murder and whatever time he was supposed to have gained entry to the Victoria Home "in the morning"? If the police hoped for some sort of evidence that would confirm or deny Hutchinson's claims in this regard, they would have been looking for a very long time.

                Best regards,
                Ben

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                  Not just Anderson though, Fish, was it? Anderson doesn't name Kosminski, but presumably agreed with Swanson who did.
                  If Swanson was remembering the correct name and the correct person, as opposed to meaning to write Kaminski, or just remembered the wrong crazy guy entirely and the real Ripper suspect was named Porkins or something equally random. But Anderson never saw the notes, so had no opportunity to either agree or disagree. And since he declined to name a suspect, it's premature to assume he would agree with the name Kosminski, because Swanson could have made any number of mistakes. The might have sorted it out in 30 seconds, but Kosminski still might be wrong, and Anderson might have disagreed with Swanson's naming of him.
                  The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                  Comment


                  • "However competent the 1888 police may have been, they had considerably less knowledge of serial killer behaviour than we do today, and as such, were unlikely to have entertained the possibility of the real offender approaching the police under the guise of a witness."

                    Hello Ben,

                    You make that point over and over but it is simply your opinion and not an ascertained fact. And even if we accept it as true for the sake of argument there had to be a limit to it. It was not some cloak of invisibility as you seem to envision it. His answers had to be consistent and make sense. And even if he came forward as a witness of his own volition are we to believe that the police were simply so mesmerized by his doing so that they completely ignored the fact that he claimed to have known the victim and was one of the last people to have seen her alive? That alone made him a person of interest and the police would not have needed any understanding of serial killers to arrive at that conclusion. That was standard killer M.O.

                    Could Hutch have been the Ripper even though he was questioned? Absolutely. But then so could any of the hundreds of men that were questioned by the police and never charged.

                    For the life of me I cannot understand these Hutch arguments that go on and on. It seems pretty cut and dried to me -- either the police were complete idiots or they considered him a person of interest. He got questioned and his answers apparently satisfied the police. Now I agree with you that there was probably only so much they could have done to verify his story. But the point that seems to get overlooked in this never ending Hutch debate is that the police apparently did not think he was involved in Mary's murder. We have no later musings by anyone at Scotland Yard saying you know I personally had my suspicions about that Hutch guy.

                    We will never know if Hutch was in fact the Ripper but we do know that the police did not think he was. I think that has to carry a fair amount of weight.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • Hi CD,

                      You make that point over and over but it is simply your opinion and not an ascertained fact.
                      Firstly, I make that point "over and over" because the claim that Hutchinson "must" have been suspected is made "over and over". The latter demands redress because it is annoyingly unimaginative, and obstinately refuses to place itself in the shoes of an investigator from 1888, when serial killers were an entirely unknown entity. Hutchinson came forward of his own volition, claiming to be a witness - the last thing an 1888 police force expected the most wanted man in history to do, realistically speaking. If John Douglas, a leading expert in criminal psychology, considers it likely that a number of unidentified offenders in modern times have managed to slip through the net as a result of coming forward as "witnesses", I'm not sure how the nascent police force of 1888 were supposed to have had superior wisdom and insight on such matters.

                      And even if he came forward as a witness of his own volition are we to believe that the police were simply so mesmerized by his doing so that they completely ignored the fact that he claimed to have known the victim and was one of the last people to have seen her alive?
                      If it's just a "claim" - as you acknowledge - it can't be a "fact", can it?

                      So why would the police uncritically accept that his self-alleged presence on Dorset Street must be true, but that his reasons for being there might not have been? If they doubted his story, what was to prevent them from doubting it in its entirety, including his "claim" to have been there at all? Emanuel Violenia claimed to have witnessed the beginnings of an assault on Annie Chapman on Hanbury Street. That claim was ultimately considered bogus, but did he become a "suspect" as a result? Did the police dismiss his claim to have witnessed an assault on the victim, but for some reason cling to his assertion that he was there to witnesses this non-existent assault? No, he was dismissed as a publicity-seeker who lied about the whole ruddy lot, including the claim that he was walking about on Hanbury Street, and thus in a position - or rather no position at all - to witness Annie Chapman being assaulted.

                      Why would Hutchinson have been treated any differently?

                      Packer claimed to have been the last person to see Stride alive - but was dismissed as a publicity-seeker.

                      Violenia claimed to have been the last person to see Chapman alive - but was dismissed as a publicity-seeker.

                      Hutchinson claimed to have been the last person to see Kelly alive....well, I'm sure you get the idea.

                      The point being, the precedent for the police treatment of false witness had been established by the time Hutchinson came forward, and the outcome in those cases was not the conversion of those false witnesses into suspects. If a "witness" is dismissed as a fame-grabber who was not, in fact, there at all, how could that same non-witness be said to be engaging in what you describe as "standard killer M.O."?

                      Could Hutch have been the Ripper even though he was questioned? Absolutely. But then so could any of the hundreds of men that were questioned by the police and never charged.
                      Yes, but how many of those "hundreds of men" were observed loitering outside a murder scene shortly before that murder occurred, which you insist was true of Hutchinson? Not many, I would surmise.

                      "But the point that seems to get overlooked in this never ending Hutch debate is that the police apparently did not think he was involved in Mary's murder."
                      There's no "overlooking" at all.

                      There is simply the likelihood that after Hutchinson's story was discarded, he was dismissed as a publicity-seeker, as other questionable witnesses had been before him, without the possibility of murderous guilt even being considered - just as it wasn't in the case of Violenia, for example.

                      We will never know if Hutch was in fact the Ripper but we do know that the police did not think he was. I think that has to carry a fair amount of weight.
                      Correction - there is no evidence that the police ever considered Hutchinson a possible candidate for the ripper, which is completely different to considering the possibility and then deciding against it.

                      Best regards,
                      Ben
                      Last edited by Ben; 07-08-2016, 05:36 PM.

                      Comment


                      • I wouldn't go so far as to label any of them "best". I don't have a favorite horse in the race. I know I've said that before but at this point it would take a lot for me to change that view.
                        I’m often irrelevant. It confuses people.

                        Comment


                        • Maybe the question should be is Kosminski one of the worst suspects we have?
                          Last edited by John Wheat; 10-28-2016, 07:51 PM.

                          Comment


                          • But who was this Kosminski who died shortly after being locked in an asylum ?!

                            Aaron was not Anderson's man.. end of the story.

                            Building a movie in which a confusion had taken place that made Anderson thinks the prime suspect was died, is way heavy to my taste..

                            No way the Ripper was well identified and no one hear about it... keeping such thing a secret is too heavy to my taste...

                            He was a jew, saying that the one who wrote "jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" was also a jew, is to heavy to my taste..

                            This whole story about Aaron Kosminski being the Ripper is realy salty...

                            But I admit it, better than Bury of course...


                            Rainbow°

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                              All the dirty business of Shawlgate aside, is Aaron Kosminski still the most compelling Ripper suspect based on all the known facts of the case?
                              No.

                              Read about Charles Lechmere, he is the prime suspect, and the only one ever being cought standing by the freshly murdered woman at the exact moments of her death ..


                              Rainbow°

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
                                No.

                                Read about Charles Lechmere, he is the prime suspect, and the only one ever being cought standing by the freshly murdered woman at the exact moments of her death ..


                                Rainbow°
                                Maybe go back to crossmere threads. Instead of trying to take this one down the rabbit hole.

                                A. He wasn't caught by anyone, he found the body and then bought it to the attention of the first person he saw.

                                2. "The exact moment if her death???" Yeah, let's prove that one.
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X