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 The Baron View Post
    City Detective Inspector Robert Sagar, a Sergeant in 1888, "We had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butchers’ Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities"
    The press report we are discussing is dated Dec. 1888, if it referred to Kozminski, as you imply with the above quote, please explain the last line "After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities".
    Then who killed McKenzie in 1889?
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      The press report we are discussing is dated Dec. 1888, if it referred to Kozminski, as you imply with the above quote, please explain the last line "After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities".
      Then who killed McKenzie in 1889?
      Yes, I’ll be interested to read the response to this one as The Baron states that Mackenzie was definitely a victim of the ripper. Not ‘possibly’ a victim note. He knows this for a fact.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • .

        And yet you find a few people after some 130 years from the crimes, who know better about the case than Abberline ever did, to say Druitt is the best suspect that we have!!!
        Do you constantly ‘misunderstand’ or do you deliberately ignore so that you can make fatuous points? It’s fairly obviously the latter I’d say because I’ll repeat it yet again. All that I’ve said is that it’s my own personal opinion the Druitt is the best of the named suspects. With Kosminski being second. Druitt might not have been the ripper but he might have been. Ditto Kosminski. Why does my opinion have you foaming at the mouth? Why do you feel the need to make an appearance on these boards whenever Druitt is mentioned? Do other suspects get you this outraged? Purely because of an opinion? As opposed to you claiming that your opinion about Mackenzie is a fact when it’s nothing of the kind. I’m interested to see that you’ve changed your own opinion that Cutbush was a better suspect than Kosminski though.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          The press report we are discussing is dated Dec. 1888, if it referred to Kozminski, as you imply with the above quote, please explain the last line "After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities".
          Then who killed McKenzie in 1889?


          The press report that you brought speaks about a theory, an idea that got formulated in Dec 1888, the report didn't say they found him in Dec 1888 yet, and a "safe keeping' doesn't directly mean an asylum.

          Cox: " The man we suspected was about five feet six inches in height, with short, black, curly hair, and he had a habit of taking late walks abroad. He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey "


          The suspect was in and out of asylums, and forced to spend a portion of his time there, there is no record that in July 1889 Kosminski was incarcerated


          And notice what you have missed in your press report?!


          "particularly those in the neighbourhood of London"

          : Surrey


          You can forget this press report, it has nothing to do with Druitt, it only makes your Druitt theory looks pitiful.


          Its the time to admit and convert!



          The Baron

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Do you constantly ‘misunderstand’ or do you deliberately ignore so that you can make fatuous points? It’s fairly obviously the latter I’d say because I’ll repeat it yet again. All that I’ve said is that it’s my own personal opinion the Druitt is the best of the named suspects. With Kosminski being second. Druitt might not have been the ripper but he might have been. Ditto Kosminski. Why does my opinion have you foaming at the mouth? Why do you feel the need to make an appearance on these boards whenever Druitt is mentioned? Do other suspects get you this outraged? Purely because of an opinion? As opposed to you claiming that your opinion about Mackenzie is a fact when it’s nothing of the kind. I’m interested to see that you’ve changed your own opinion that Cutbush was a better suspect than Kosminski though.


            And if your opinions were against logic, against common sense, against rational thinking?!


            Mckenzie is one of the Whitechapel murders, same circumstances same victimology, dismissing her to support a theory is a bias, Mckenzie is a part of the Jack the Ripper's phenomenon that invaded Whitechapel, and she will remain part of it until proven otherwise.


            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



              And if your opinions were against logic, against common sense, against rational thinking?!


              Mckenzie is one of the Whitechapel murders, same circumstances same victimology, dismissing her to support a theory is a bias, Mckenzie is a part of the Jack the Ripper's phenomenon that invaded Whitechapel, and she will remain part of it until proven otherwise.


              The Baron
              My opinions are simply my opinions and are completely unbiased. I don’t state those opinions as facts which is exactly what you are dishonestly trying to do. I doubt if you’ll find anyone anywhere who will say that Alice Mackenzie was 100% certainly a ripper victim. She might or might not have been. No one can possibly know because we weren’t there. You claim to know that she was a victim as a fact which shows that nothing that you say can be taken seriously. You desperately want her to be a victim just so that you dismiss Druitt. It won’t work. You’re wasting your own and everyone else’s time.

              A very obvious example (or a ‘gotcha’ as you call them) is this.

              dismissing her to support a theory is a bias,
              You are here saying in black and white that I dismiss her as a victim even though I’ve said numerous times that she ‘might’ have been a victim. And she ‘might’ not. Even though I repeatedly state this you keep stating the same lie. This is because you are a dishonest and biased poster. It’s there for everyone to see.

              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • . Even Macnaghten's own daughter didn't believe him or his fantasy theory.
                You forgot to answer my question……..where did you get this info from?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • . He was busy taking photos and approaching the press
                  Was MacNaghten a photographer? Where did you get that from? And why do you insinuate that he made a habit of approaching the Press?
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • . and gave up to his armchair and the lazy afternoon
                    Even though he was known for being hands-on and for visiting crime scenes which, for a man of his rank, he didn’t need to do.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                      The press report that you brought speaks about a theory, an idea that got formulated in Dec 1888, the report didn't say they found him in Dec 1888 yet, and a "safe keeping' doesn't directly mean an asylum.

                      Cox: " The man we suspected was about five feet six inches in height, with short, black, curly hair, and he had a habit of taking late walks abroad. He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey "
                      Asylums in Surrey, like Earlswood, Brookwood, Cane Hill, Springfield, Holloway, do any of those sound familiar with Kozminski?
                      Both Sagar & Cox could have been observing anyone. People like to attach those stories to Kozminski only because him waving a knife at his sister and taking an unmuzzled dog for a walk are the only crimes he was guilty of.

                      The suspect was in and out of asylums, and forced to spend a portion of his time there,...
                      But who was the suspect?


                      And notice what you have missed in your press report?!


                      "particularly those in the neighbourhood of London"
                      Like Chiswick, the Manor House Asylum run by the Tuke family?


                      You can forget this press report, it has nothing to do with Druitt,...
                      That may or may not be true, but the details contained in the Dublin Express article could easily fit Druitt.

                      You don't like the fact we have no knowledge of a connection between Kozminski & any private asylum, but we do have knowledge of connections between the Druitt's and the Tuke family asylum.
                      Not only that, but among the police records is the name of doctor who worked for the Tuke's. It seems this doctor had reason to write to police, we can only speculate what the subject matter was.
                      Last edited by Wickerman; 07-23-2021, 09:31 PM.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Both Sagar & Cox could have been observing anyone. People like to attach those stories to Kozminski only because him waving a knife at his sister.

                        How desperate you are Wickerman?! ... only because of this?!

                        I was looking for a better respond than that, I may have misjudged you.


                        "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.

                        Kosminski was the suspect"




                        But who was the suspect?

                        Anyone but not Druitt, he was not a jew and he didn't live or work in Whitechapel, don't lose track to the subject, your beloved press report.



                        Like Chiswick, the Manor House Asylum run by the Tuke family?

                        The police were searching for a mad person in asylums, forget about Druitt, he was not a mad man, he won a case before he disappeared.



                        That may or may not be true, but the details contained in the Dublin Express article could easily fit Druitt.

                        Nothing there fit Druitt, only your wishful thinking.
                        Swanson, Cox and Sagar give a better understanding and a bigger picture to the situation and the development of the investigation and the police theory.



                        You don't like the fact we have no knowledge of a connection between Kozminski & any private asylum, but we do have knowledge of connections between the Druitt's and the Tuke family asylum.
                        They were searching everywhere not only in private asylums.

                        And we have Cox report of watching a jew suspect in Whitechapel that was committed at sometime to a private asylum, that fits anyone except Druitt.

                        You are in the La La Land, we know for sure that Kosminski was insane and was committed to asylums, and you have the nerves to compare this to a possible connection of Druitt's family to a private asylum?! A man who you cannot ever show he was in an asylum any time in his life?! What the hell were you smoking?!



                        Not only that, but among the police records is the name of doctor who worked for the Tuke's. It seems this doctor had reason to write to police, we can only speculate what the subject matter was.

                        Gotcha!

                        If a doctor who worked for the Tuke's was writing to the police informing them as you are speculating, then why were they looking at different asylums in and around London?! This doctor may have forgotten to tell them which asylum it was?!

                        Losing consistency again, I must try this that you are smoking.

                        And please, speculate away, that's the only thing a druittis can do. One time it is a vicar who revealed it, other time it is a doctor!


                        It is easy Wickerman, you just need to make the first step..




                        The Baron
                        Last edited by The Baron; 07-24-2021, 12:20 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                          How desperate you are Wickerman?! ... only because of this?!

                          I was looking for a better respond than that, I may have misjudged you.


                          We certainly haven’t misjudged you.

                          "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.

                          Kosminski was the suspect"

                          Have you ever heard of the concept of mistaken identity? Witnesses aren’t always correct. And why wouldn’t the police announce that the ripper was incarcerated? They chose to continue being criticised by the public and the Press rather than saying “we’ve got him.”

                          Anyone but not Druitt, he was not a jew and he didn't live or work in Whitechapel, don't lose track to the subject, your beloved press report.

                          Druitt committed suicide which is hardly the action of someone of sound mind. You obviously have a cartoon idea of what constitutes madness. They aren’t all drooling and raving. Monty was still functioning, at least on the surface, and so would have been easily able to engage with prostitutes, gain their trust, and commit murder. Would Kosminski who was more your idea of a drooling lunatic. A man so divorced from reality he would eat food from the gutter.

                          We might also ask about medical/anatomical knowledge? Opinion is divided on this but if the killer did have some knowledge where would Kosminski have acquired his? And would he have been up to the task of completing these quickly and efficiently in his state of mind?



                          The police were searching for a mad person in asylums, forget about Druitt, he was not a mad man, he won a case before he disappeared.

                          Druitt committed suicide. He left a note saying that he believed that he was going to end up like his mother (in an asylum.) There was madness in the family (and not just his mother) Plus he was sacked from the school for something very serious. We don’t know what this was but it might have been a behavioural issue connected with his mental health.


                          Nothing there fit Druitt, only your wishful thinking.

                          The only piece of wishful thinking is your desperate and laughable attempt to eliminate Druitt. You are simply wasting your time. And ours.

                          Swanson, Cox and Sagar give a better understanding and a bigger picture to the situation and the development of the investigation and the police theory.

                          They were searching everywhere not only in private asylums.

                          But they did search private asylums. Where Kosminski’s family couldn’t have afforded to have sent him.

                          And we have Cox report of watching a jew suspect in Whitechapel that was committed at sometime to a private asylum, that fits anyone except Druitt.

                          You are claiming that the case is solved over one quote.

                          You are in the La La Land, we know for sure that Kosminski was insane and was committed to asylums, and you have the nerves to compare this to a possible connection of Druitt's family to a private asylum?! A man who you cannot ever show he was in an asylum any time in his life?! What the hell were you smoking?!

                          And what were you eating? Thick Pie? There is absolutely zero evidence that eliminates Druitt so you are wasting your time trying. Please stop foaming at the mouth and calm down. Why are you so obsessed with Druitt? Ok, you don’t think that he was the ripper. Move on. Maybe there’s a padded thread that you can post on? Why waste so much time and energy on a suspect that you dismiss?

                          It’s because for you, this is personal.


                          Gotcha!

                          If a doctor who worked for the Tuke's was writing to the police informing them as you are speculating,


                          No, this isn’t speculation. It’s fact. It’s in black and white.

                          then why were they looking at different asylums in and around London?! This doctor may have forgotten to tell them which asylum it was?!

                          Losing consistency again, I must try this that you are smoking.

                          Try thinking…then again, don’t bother. He might have left one asylum and the Doctor no longer knew his whereabouts.

                          And please, speculate away, that's the only thing a druittis can do. One time it is a vicar who revealed it, other time it is a doctor!

                          You are getting confused in your ranting.

                          It is easy Wickerman, you just need to make the first step..

                          And you really do need to find another interest. Try colouring in books.

                          The Baron
                          No reply to my question in post #891 of course.

                          And you haven’t explained where you got the information that Mac daughter didn’t believe him?

                          Or that he took photographs?

                          Or that he made a habit of approaching the Press.



                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • My apologies to Wick for responding to a post that was aimed at him.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • It’s an obvious point that your posts are entirely personal and completely biased……..

                              You claim to know for a fact that Druitt wasn’t guilty - something that you cannot possibly know.

                              You claim to know for a fact that Mackenzie was a ripper victim - something that you cannot possibly know.

                              You also post as if it’s proven that Kosminski was the ripper - something that no one can possibly know.

                              You ignore points and questions that you can’t respond to. And….

                              Its also very noticeable that your silly comments are directed solely at Wickerman and myself and yet you have not once directed a post at Trevor who rates Kosminski no higher than Druitt as a suspect. I wonder why that is?

                              As far as showing you to be a poster who posts in a biased and personal way I think we can safely call this one a ‘gotcha!’
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                My apologies to Wick for responding to a post that was aimed at him.


                                Don't bother, Your's looks like anything except a respond





                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X