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 Columbo View Post

    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 is only on the list because he was on the list.

    Is there a flaw there somewhere that I'm not seeing?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

      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
      I mentioned the 3 names solely because I’m tired of hearing Baron dismissing Druitt as if he’s some fringe suspect that only loonies give time to. This isn’t the case.

      Anyone can say “I don’t think that Druitt was the ripper” and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. What they shouldn’t say though, and it’s what the Baron repeatedly does say, is that Druitt can be eliminated as a suspect as if it’s been proven. This is factually incorrect.

      “Cutbush is a suspect but is not JTR.”

      Can you prove that Columbo? Can you conclusively and factually eliminate him or do you really mean “I don’t think that he was JTR?” I’ve heard of far, far worse suspects than Cutbush.

      Druitt was also mentioned by different officials but I don’t see it as a competition to count up how many officials mention him.
      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


      • Isn't Druitt a suspect because he was originally thought to be a medical man, which turned out to be untrue ? Why is he still a suspect, purely because he killed himself at the right time ?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

          .... 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
          Not for the same reason, if you mean that he was named by Macnaghten ok, but he did die weeks after the last of the canonical victims, so he is contemporary. The Ripper investigation was still active when Druitt's body was found.

          When do we first hear of Kozminski?
          If Anderson was so absorbed by Kozminski, then why did he write in October 1888 that the police have no clue who the Ripper is, there not being a shred of evidence against anyone?
          No-one resembling Kozminski was spoken of in the subsequent Kelly case.

          Is the description by Mrs Long a good fit for a 23 year old Kozminski?
          What about BS-man in Berner st.?
          Or the suspect seen by PC Smith?
          Then there's the suspect in Duke St.
          Finally, we have Blotchy, Astrachan or the Britannia-man.
          Who among them looked 23 years old, and Jewish?

          Or are we going down that road where we claim age is hard to determine at night?
          It certainly is, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Stride were estimated to look younger than their real age due to their bodies being found by people who didn't know them - unlike Kelly.
          So at night the recorded evidence appears to suggest people look younger in poor light. Which means our middle-aged suspect was likely older than he looked, not 10 years younger.

          It seems quite likely that Anderson adopted Kozminski as an after-thought, well after the murders had finished.
          He found some lunatic Jew to hang the murders on. And of course, if he was so certain, how is it no other police official in 1888 agreed with him?
          https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...steryplay.html
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dickere View Post
            Isn't Druitt a suspect because he was originally thought to be a medical man, which turned out to be untrue ? Why is he still a suspect, purely because he killed himself at the right time ?
            He was named as a suspect by the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police who was confident that he knew the ripper’s identity until the end of his life.

            Why did he kill himself ‘at the right time?’ MacNaghten’s friend and boss believed that Mackenzie was a victim so if Mac was just putting together a random list of ‘better than Cutbush’ suspects why not pick someone that had died after Mackenzie?

            Of all the criminals and ‘lunatics’ that Mac had at his disposal for a place on his list why choose a man with no criminal record or history of violence?

            At a time of rigid class consciousness why would Mac throw an innocent Druitt under the bus. Winchester school, Oxford, Inner Temple, cricket for the MCC? Not only that he was related by marriage to one of Mac’s best friends.

            Druitt’s an unlikely choice to have been simply ‘plucked out of thin air.’

            Mac, as you will know, said that Druitt’s family felt that he was guilty. So there has to be at least a possibility that they were correct.

            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

              He was named as a suspect by the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police who was confident that he knew the ripper’s identity until the end of his life.

              Why did he kill himself ‘at the right time?’ MacNaghten’s friend and boss believed that Mackenzie was a victim so if Mac was just putting together a random list of ‘better than Cutbush’ suspects why not pick someone that had died after Mackenzie?

              Of all the criminals and ‘lunatics’ that Mac had at his disposal for a place on his list why choose a man with no criminal record or history of violence?

              At a time of rigid class consciousness why would Mac throw an innocent Druitt under the bus. Winchester school, Oxford, Inner Temple, cricket for the MCC? Not only that he was related by marriage to one of Mac’s best friends.

              Druitt’s an unlikely choice to have been simply ‘plucked out of thin air.’

              Mac, as you will know, said that Druitt’s family felt that he was guilty. So there has to be at least a possibility that they were correct.
              Druitt was absolutely not plucked out of thin air, that's pretty clear. but we'll never know the reasoning for his addition to the list. Private information.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Not for the same reason, if you mean that he was named by Macnaghten ok, but he did die weeks after the last of the canonical victims, so he is contemporary. The Ripper investigation was still active when Druitt's body was found.

                When do we first hear of Kozminski?
                If Anderson was so absorbed by Kozminski, then why did he write in October 1888 that the police have no clue who the Ripper is, there not being a shred of evidence against anyone?
                No-one resembling Kozminski was spoken of in the subsequent Kelly case.

                Is the description by Mrs Long a good fit for a 23 year old Kozminski?
                What about BS-man in Berner st.?
                Or the suspect seen by PC Smith?
                Then there's the suspect in Duke St.
                Finally, we have Blotchy, Astrachan or the Britannia-man.
                Who among them looked 23 years old, and Jewish?

                Or are we going down that road where we claim age is hard to determine at night?
                It certainly is, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Stride were estimated to look younger than their real age due to their bodies being found by people who didn't know them - unlike Kelly.
                So at night the recorded evidence appears to suggest people look younger in poor light. Which means our middle-aged suspect was likely older than he looked, not 10 years younger.

                It seems quite likely that Anderson adopted Kozminski as an after-thought, well after the murders had finished.
                He found some lunatic Jew to hang the murders on. And of course, if he was so certain, how is it no other police official in 1888 agreed with him?
                https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...steryplay.html
                I meant he was named by Macnaughten. although by the descriptions, not the age, he doesn't seem to fit. a shabby, genteel foreigner. I don't know his height but I bet he was over 5'5. A supposition on my part of course, not really germane to the thread.

                Comment


                • Mac, as you will know, said that Druitt’s family felt that he was guilty. So there has to be at least a possibility that they were correct.

                  But we don't know whether they communicated that to him directly or whether it came from a third party, correct?

                  c.d.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                    But we don't know whether they communicated that to him directly or whether it came from a third party, correct?

                    c.d.


                    It came from a third party.

                    "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."


                    He would not have said "I have little doubt but that...." If Druitt's family directly contacted him.


                    As Trevor once put it, he took it on a glass of cherry.



                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                      It came from a third party.

                      "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

                      From that quote you cannot assume that someone from the family didn’t speak directly to him. You are hearing what you want to hear. As usual.


                      He will not say "I have little doubt but that...." If Druitt's family directly contacted him.


                      As Trevor once put it, he took it on a glass of cherry.



                      The Baron
                      A pointless, meaningless post.

                      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 c.d. View Post
                        Mac, as you will know, said that Druitt’s family felt that he was guilty. So there has to be at least a possibility that they were correct.

                        But we don't know whether they communicated that to him directly or whether it came from a third party, correct?

                        c.d.
                        True c.d. But it doesn’t mean that the evidence against Druitt wasn’t substantial though.
                        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 Columbo View Post

                          Druitt was absolutely not plucked out of thin air, that's pretty clear. but we'll never know the reasoning for his addition to the list. Private information.....
                          So the question is “why not just pick a dead criminal or a dead or incarcerated lunatic?” Why pick someone with no record of violence? Someone looking into Druitt’s life might easily have found an alibi if one existed (unlike an unknown like Kozminski)

                          Choosing Druitt makes no sense unless Mac at the very least believed that he had good reason to name him.
                          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

                            A pointless, meaningless post.

                            You may have totally forgotten what Sam once teached you, well you need someone else to explain plain English to you.


                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Choosing Druitt makes no sense unless Mac at the very least believed that he had good reason to name him.

                              Do you truly believe this is a worthy argument?!



                              Really funny, as if naming Ostrog makes any sense huh?!



                              The Baron

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                True c.d. But it doesn't mean that the evidence against Druitt wasn't substantial though.

                                There is no evidence against Druitt, only one armchair officer, who didn't do the slightest of basic investigations.


                                Except the name, Macnaghten did't know anything about Druitt.



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X