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 Wickerman View Post
    Thankyou RJ.

    Of course you will thank him.

    One will not expect you to point to him that:

    -When Anderson said Mckenzie was not the act of Jack the ripper, at that time he still had no idea who Jack the Ripper was.

    -And that Swanson included Mckenzie in the list of the Whitechapel murders.


    Mckenzie , until proven otherwise, is a ripper victim in my book:

    Druitt was not the ripper.



    The Baron

    Comment


    • -When Anderson said Mckenzie was not the act of Jack the ripper, at that time he still had no idea who Jack the Ripper was.
      Which means that he was basing his opinion on the physical evidence which told him that Mackenzie wasn’t a victim. Munro disagreed. We can’t say if Mackenzie was or wasn’t a victim but it’s typical Baron thinking. He claims Mackenzie as a definite victim purely so that he can eliminate Druitt as a suspect in his own mind.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Which means that he was basing his opinion on the physical evidence which told him that Mackenzie wasn’t a victim. Munro disagreed. We can’t say if Mackenzie was or wasn’t a victim but it’s typical Baron thinking. He claims Mackenzie as a definite victim purely so that he can eliminate Druitt as a suspect in his own mind.


        How clever, some of medical openions of the time didn't even agree on the 5 being cut by the same hand.


        With Tabram and Mckenzie, that makes at least 7 victims.


        The arguments that one of these may not be a ripper victim is old and boring and outdated, mostly aimed to bring a week suspect to the table.


        Druitt doesn't need to be eliminated, the man didn't even set a foot in Whitechapel as far as I know, do you know otherwise, or you just speculating?!


        Let me guess, you are just speculating.

        Druitt was in another part of england the day Tabram, Chapman, maybe even Nichols, and Mckenzie lost there lives.


        Feel free to keep suspecting him, the human ability to find scenarios that suit there believes is unlimited, we see people everyday believing the diary is genuine, even worse, and because someone found a body, they made him the one who killed all the whitchapel victims and all the torsos in the east and west end, Druittis are not an exception in that regard



        The Baron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


          Yes I know you don't like your Ripper to be anything like 23 years old boy.

          Quite the contrary to your old fashioned sentiment, it is the perfect age for a schizofrenic ripper and Aaron's age is just spot on.
          Just, getting back to your point. what did you mean by "perfect age"?
          According to whom?

          A Dr Aamodt, professor of psychology, studied 2600 serial killers, looking for averages.
          The average age when a male serial killer makes their first kill is 27.5, so 28 is a good round number. With females it is 31.
          Kozminski was 23.

          They have an I.Q. of 90-110.
          What was Kozminski's I.Q.?

          The S.K. with an average I.Q. is most likely to be a strangler, or use a gun (we can rule that out).
          You can look it up for yourself.
          https://www.businessinsider.com/a-su...-killer-2015-5

          Here is a crime writer who seems to have made a study of 54 serial killers.
          https://www.murdermiletours.com/blog...-start-killing

          He provides their age when they first killed.
          Just to be gracious, I'll give you a range of 20-25, instead of precisely 23.
          The author says that 22 out of 54 were in their 20's, but 11 were women, so lets look at the remaining 43 men.
          How many of these 43 subjects were between 20-25?
          We have 8 who killed while they were between 20-25, whereas 10 were between 26-29.
          Then we see 13 who were between 30-39.

          Eight is not even one fifth of male serial killers.

          So, where did you get this idea of a "perfect age"?



          Last edited by Wickerman; 07-20-2021, 12:35 PM.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • I am not giving the avarage age of a sirial killer in general.

            Kosminski suffered from Schizofrenia, the average age of onset tends to be in the late teens to the early 20s for men.

            This is the mad jew police theory. and Kosminski fit it perfectly.



            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              They have an I.Q. of 90-110.
              What was Kozminski's I.Q.?

              Funny, based on this let's do an IQ test to every suspect of sirial killings, if he is less than 90-110 then we rule him out.

              How do you know Kosminski's IQ at the time of the murders was less than 90 ?!

              Or do you realy believe smart people don't suffer from Schizofrenia?! If so, the I encourage you to watch the "Beautiful Mind" movie.


              The Baron

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                How clever, some of medical openions of the time didn't even agree on the 5 being cut by the same hand.


                With Tabram and Mckenzie, that makes at least 7 victims.


                The arguments that one of these may not be a ripper victim is old and boring and outdated, mostly aimed to bring a week suspect to the table.


                Druitt doesn't need to be eliminated, the man didn't even set a foot in Whitechapel as far as I know, do you know otherwise, or you just speculating?!


                Let me guess, you are just speculating.

                Druitt was in another part of england the day Tabram, Chapman, maybe even Nichols, and Mckenzie lost there lives.


                Feel free to keep suspecting him, the human ability to find scenarios that suit there believes is unlimited, we see people everyday believing the diary is genuine, even worse, and because someone found a body, they made him the one who killed all the whitchapel victims and all the torsos in the east and west end, Druittis are not an exception in that regard



                The Baron
                I agree. Druitt wasn't JTR. He really didn't fit the descriptions and is only on the list because he was mentioned in the same memoranda as Kosminski. He definitely had mental issues. But does anyone really believe he was out killing before a cricket match dressed in shabby clothes and carrying organs around?

                Columbo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                  Of course you will thank him.

                  One will not expect you to point to him that:

                  -When Anderson said Mckenzie was not the act of Jack the ripper, at that time he still had no idea who Jack the Ripper was.
                  Why would he point that out?

                  It's not true.

                  Anderson wrote that McKenzie was an 'ordinary murder' and 'by another hand' in 1910--in the same breath that he was accusing the unnamed Polish Jew.

                  So why is he so certain that this was the case, if his prime suspect was running around loose?


                  Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                  -And that Swanson included Mckenzie in the list of the Whitechapel murders. The Baron
                  That list has been seriously overplayed. "Retweets are not endorsements," as they say on Twitter.

                  Swanson also included Francis Coles on the same list, and she was murdered several days AFTER Aaron Kosminski's committal.

                  Do you still want to use the list?


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                    How clever, some of medical openions of the time didn't even agree on the 5 being cut by the same hand.

                    Exactly. Which means that none of us can say for certain which were victims of the Ripper and which were not. Strangely though you appear to have knowledge that no one else has which allows you to state as a fact that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. Your knowledge is not only better than modern day experts but it’s better than the experts at the time. With that kind of omniscience Baron you should have sewn up the case by now.


                    With Tabram and Mckenzie, that makes at least 7 victims.

                    Neither of those can be stated as ripper victims (only possible victims.) Also we have Strise who might not have been a victim. Your “….at least 7 victims,” is baseless nonsense. Your speciality.

                    The arguments that one of these may not be a ripper victim is old and boring and outdated, mostly aimed to bring a week suspect to the table.

                    “Old, boring and outdated.”

                    Have you just chosen 3 random words from the dictionary? You’re talking as if I’m the only person that holds these opinions which is weird, but again, perfectly normal for you. A significant proportion of Ripperologist don’t think Tabram was a victim. Likewise Mackenzie. Likewise Stride.

                    Your silly statement about me trying to eliminate Mackenzie to keep Druitt as a suspect is drivel. I’d say that you only want her as a victim so that you can try to eliminate him. This is something that you’ve constantly tried in the past. And of course, no matter how many times I say something you dishonestly ignore it to try and make a false point. So again……

                    For the 200th time - I am not saying that Mackenzie couldn’t have been a ripper victim. She might have been. All I have said is that it’s an unknown. She might or might not have been. No one knows. That is the reasonable position to take unlike you claiming to know something that you don’t.


                    Druitt doesn't need to be eliminated, the man didn't even set a foot in Whitechapel as far as I know, do you know otherwise, or you just speculating?!

                    Can you prove that he never stepped foot in Whitechapel? The answer is no. You really should stop posting this embarrassing nonsense Baron.

                    Let me guess, you are just speculating.

                    He lived easily close enough to the area. That’s enough. Unless you have evidence to eliminate him….and you don’t. And please don’t try the cricket crap. That one’s dead-in-the-water.

                    Druitt was in another part of england the day Tabram, Chapman, maybe even Nichols, and Mckenzie lost there lives.

                    Unless you can prove that…..and you won’t be able to……it’s further proof of your dishonesty. Druitt cannot be eliminated.

                    Feel free to keep suspecting him, the human ability to find scenarios that suit there believes is unlimited, we see people everyday believing the diary is genuine, even worse, and because someone found a body, they made him the one who killed all the whitchapel victims and all the torsos in the east and west end, Druittis are not an exception in that regard

                    A perfect example of your continuing inability to respond properly to what another poster writes. Find me the post, anywhere on here, where I’ve stated that Montague John Druitt was Jack the Ripper and there’ll be a cheque in the post. To save you wasting your own time (like you waste everyone else’s) I’ll repeat what I’ve always said. I think it’s most likely that the ripper has yet to be named. That he’s an unknown. But if I had to choose between the suspects already named I would go for Druitt (just ahead of Kosminski) If that makes you unhappy then there’s little I can do about it.



                    The Baron
                    You might want to eliminate Druitt but that means little. Posters/researchers like Paul Begg, Roger Palmer, Wickerman (to name just 3 who’ve forgotten more about the case than you’ll ever know) all keep an open mind and consider Druitt a possibility. As do authors Jon Hainsworth and David Anderson. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t burst into to tears because you dismiss him. I’d actually consider you dismissing him as a point in his favour.

                    Druitt remains a suspect.

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                      I am not giving the avarage age of a sirial killer in general.

                      Kosminski suffered from Schizofrenia, the average age of onset tends to be in the late teens to the early 20s for men.

                      This is the mad jew police theory. and Kosminski fit it perfectly.



                      The Baron
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        Why would he point that out?

                        It's not true.

                        Anderson wrote that McKenzie was an 'ordinary murder' and 'by another hand' in 1910--in the same breath that he was accusing the unnamed Polish Jew.

                        So why is he so certain that this was the case, if his prime suspect was running around loose?




                        That list has been seriously overplayed. "Retweets are not endorsements," as they say on Twitter.

                        Swanson also included Francis Coles on the same list, and she was murdered several days AFTER Aaron Kosminski's committal.

                        Do you still want to use the list?


                        Don't know what do you want from bringing out Anderson's openion about Mckenzie.

                        In my book Mckenzie is a ripper victim, whether Anderson believed it or not. Should I repeat this again?!

                        If Coles Murder was anything like Mckenzie, I would have ruled Kosminski out.

                        And Kosminski is the best suspect we have, not because Anderson said so, its because the seeside home identification, a dirct evidence, that you don't have against any other person in history, and because of the many circumstances that made him a strong suspect.



                        That Baron

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Posters/researchers like Paul Begg, Roger Palmer, Wickerman ........ all keep an open mind and consider Druitt a possibility. As do authors Jon Hainsworth and David Anderson.

                          You like to be guided by others, many people need this, I positively think you better keep tracing them, it is definitly better than depending on your own judgement and comprehension of the case.


                          I on the other hand beg to differ, I follow what I personaly think and believe right.


                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • Clarification: Swanson's list was the Whitechapel Murders 1888-1891. Not exclusively the Jack the Ripper murders.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              You might want to eliminate Druitt but that means little. Posters/researchers like Paul Begg, Roger Palmer, Wickerman (to name just 3 who’ve forgotten more about the case than you’ll ever know) all keep an open mind and consider Druitt a possibility. As do authors Jon Hainsworth and David Anderson. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t burst into to tears because you dismiss him. I’d actually consider you dismissing him as a point in his favour.

                              Druitt remains a suspect.
                              Well this really doesn't mean a thing. These may be revered names in JTR research, but they also discount suspects other prominent researchers insist upon. Druitt is still a suspect as he is mentioned by contemporaries but that doesn't mean much against the actual facts. Cutbush is a suspect but is not JTR. Kosminiski is a suspect for the same reason Druitt is but he's named by several officials at different times which makes him the most likely but not necessarily JTR.

                              Columbo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                                You like to be guided by others, many people need this, I positively think you better keep tracing them, it is definitly better than depending on your own judgement and comprehension of the case.


                                I on the other hand beg to differ, I follow what I personaly think and believe right.


                                The Baron
                                No. You are stating your opinion as if it’s a fact. It’s not even a worthwhile opinion.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X