Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • .
    In order to make this report fit Druitt, you have to make many hypotheses on too many levels, one of them is that Druitt"s brother killed him!!!

    No one has to make that hypothesis. This is something that has been suggested as a possibility. You don’t seem to be able to understand the idea of someone speculating. No one has said that Druitt must have been murdered. Please try and grow up.

    And that Kosminski's family doesn't afford a private asylum!!!!

    Again, this is a valid point. They wouldn’t have been able to afford a private asylum.

    And that He must have been looked away in a private asylum, although the press report said they were looking everywhere not only in private asylums

    Yes we know that they didn’t just look in private asylums but the question that a child could understand is…..”WHY WOULD THEY HAVE WASTED TIME LOOKING IN EVEN ONE PRIVATE ASYLUM IF THEY’D KNOWN THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR KOSMINSKI AS THEY’D HAVE KNOWN FOR A FACT THAT HIS FAMILY COULDNT HAVE AFFORDED TO HAVE PUT HIM THERE.

    And that safe keeping must mean a private asylum

    “Private asylum” meant “private asylum?”

    Too many hepotheses to even start to consider Druitt a possible fit for just one press report

    None have been made. Points have been raised and you’ve replied at your usual standard.
    Your obsession with pushing your biased, anti-Druitt nonsense is an embarrassment Baron. Please try and get someone to explain this to,you.
    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


      Then stop pushing Druitt through our noses.



      The Baron
      Did you go to the Inspector Jacques Clouseau School Of Literacy?
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-24-2021, 07:19 PM.
      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 Baron
        Please read the full reply. Do you not know what a typo is?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment



        • “Was there anything at all in the Macnaughten Memorandum that is not wrong?!

          I even believe Cutbush is a better suspect than the other three suspects mentioned there.


          So Cutbush is a better suspect than Kosminski.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-ripper-or-not

            Just a very simple example. You speak of the Mackenzie murder as if it’s an accepted fact that she was a ripper victim. This poll showed that 27 posters felt that she was and 21 thought that she wasn’t and 19 were undecided.

            This doesn’t prove anything at all but it certainly shows that it’s far from being proven that she was a victim. Only a fool or someone hopelessly biased would say that she was definitely a victim. Which one are you?
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Kosminski is the best suspect we have, and the only person in history that we have a direct evidence against him: The Seaside Identification.

              Without this identification, even Cutbush would be a better suspect than anyone of those three.



              The Baron

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Memorandums are unreliable, you should know that by now.


                Herlock used to fight Trevor whenever he says this.

                But now, it's a fellow Druittis saying the very damn same thing!

                Of course he will turn a blind eye to him.

                Aye aye Sir! Anything you say Sir! Yes Sir! Its unreliable Sir! I am sorry Sir!





                The Baron
                Last edited by The Baron; 07-24-2021, 08:30 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                  Kosminski is the best suspect we have, and the only person in history that we have a direct evidence against him: The Seaside Identification.

                  Without this identification, even Cutbush would be a better suspect than anyone of those three.



                  The Baron
                  Don’t try and wriggle out of it that way because it won’t work. You knew about the alleged Seaside Identification when you made the post about Cutbush.

                  So you said that Cutbush was a better suspect than Kosminski. What happened that made you change your mind?
                  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

                    Don’t try and wriggle out of it that way because it won’t work. You knew about the alleged Seaside Identification when you made the post about Cutbush.

                    So you said that Cutbush was a better suspect than Kosminski. What happened that made you change your mind?


                    You just cannot understand do you, Macnaghten named 3 suspects and pretended they are better suspects than cutbush, but didn't mention anything about an identification, so his report, without the identification is a complete crap, and Cutbush would be better than anyone of them.


                    I know, It is very deep for you, take it easy on yourself.




                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                      Herlock used to fight Trevor whenever he says this.

                      But now, it's a fellow Druittis saying the very damn same thing!

                      Of course he will turn a blind eye to him.

                      Aye aye Sir! Anything you say Sir! Yes Sir! Its unreliable Sir! I am sorry Sir!





                      The Baron
                      You are without a doubt the most embarrassing poster that I’ve ever come across. Every single post of yours is utter bilge.

                      You just can’t get these simple ideas through your bias-ridden skull can you. We are not saying anything for certain because we aren’t such morons that we believe that we know what cannot be known for certain. Only a fool says that they know something for certain when thee s no actual proof.

                      1. Wickerman is not a Druittist. He said this very recently on here. He keeps an open mind on the subject though. Unlike you. Please learn to read.

                      2. Wickerman’s quote was ironic (if you know what that means) He was saying that you should know about the ‘unreliable’ MM because Trevor has said it often enough.

                      3. This use of the word ‘Druittist’ is a symptom of your trollish behaviour. You only post so that you can begin an argument by trying to wind up other posters. Over on the other thread you do the same by referring to Lechmerians. Grow up. As far as I’m aware there isn’t a single ‘Druittist’ posting on here these days. I’m the nearest that you can get and you dishonestly ignore the fact that I’ve said that the most likely culprit hasn’t been named yet. So you should label me an ‘unknownist’ but you can’t start an argument with that can you.

                      4. The Seaside Identification os not ‘direct evidence.’ It’s not even close to ‘direct evidence.’ It’s no stronger than MacNaghten saying that he received private information. The Seaside home has NOT even bern identified. Even the witness has NOT been identified. And the only identification of the suspect was in the form of a pencil note in a book written years later.


                      If you need something to write your next post on try this because that’s all that the comments of a are worth. Or better still, do us all a favour and posting as your suggestions and your constant makes everyone So a long period of on your part would be gratefully appreciated.
                      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
                        Macnaghten named 3 suspects and pretended they are better suspects than cutbush, but didn't mention anything about an identification, so his report, without the identification is a complete crap
                        Some have disputed this point, Baron.

                        From the Aberconway draft of Macnagthen’s notes: -

                        "No 2. Kosminski, a Polish Jew....This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

                        Many take this to mean that Macnaghten WAS aware of the identification, but it gets complicated and would require a rather long conversation.

                        RP

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                          You just cannot understand do you, Macnaghten named 3 suspects and pretended they are better suspects than cutbush, but didn't mention anything about an identification, so his report, without the identification is a complete crap, and Cutbush would be better than anyone of them.


                          I know, It is very deep for you, take it easy on yourself.




                          The Baron
                          Try again…..

                          You said:


                          I even believe Cutbush is a better suspect than the other three suspects mentioned there.

                          “I even believe.”

                          You’re wriggling like a worm on a hook.
                          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
                            Kosminski is the best suspect we have, and the only person in history that we have a direct evidence against him: The Seaside Identification.

                            Without this identification, even Cutbush would be a better suspect than anyone of those three.



                            The Baron
                            As I said before, none of the suspects are any good.

                            And where did that Seaside Home identification take place?

                            We all know that if we are to align Swanson's claim with the asylum records, the only time the suspect was "returned to his brothers house" was after a 4 day incarceration at the Mile End/Stepney Workhouse- July 12 - 15, 1889.
                            Yet the Seaside Home at Hove only opened the next year in March 1890.
                            So, is this another case of faulty recollection by Swanson?
                            Perhaps it was the Seaman's Home in the East End?

                            You say, "Without this identification", yet you do not have an "identification", it has never been verified and the circumstances surrounding it are faulty, if not actually false.

                            No-one saw a 23 year old suspect anywhere near the crime scenes, and you have no idea what he looked like, sure Cox offers a physical description of his suspect, but he doesn't give a name. So you are no nearer with regard to evidence.
                            The whole case is wishful thinking based on faulty recollections, you're so desperate to defend your suspect you are not thinking straight.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              As I said before, none of the suspects are any good.

                              And where did that Seaside Home identification take place?

                              We all know that if we are to align Swanson's claim with the asylum records, the only time the suspect was "returned to his brothers house" was after a 4 day incarceration at the Mile End/Stepney Workhouse- July 12 - 15, 1889.
                              Yet the Seaside Home at Hove only opened the next year in March 1890.
                              So, is this another case of faulty recollection by Swanson?
                              Perhaps it was the Seaman's Home in the East End?

                              You say, "Without this identification", yet you do not have an "identification", it has never been verified and the circumstances surrounding it are faulty, if not actually false.

                              No-one saw a 23 year old suspect anywhere near the crime scenes, and you have no idea what he looked like, sure Cox offers a physical description of his suspect, but he doesn't give a name. So you are no nearer with regard to evidence.
                              The whole case is wishful thinking based on faulty recollections, you're so desperate to defend your suspect you are not thinking straight.


                              You can try to discredit this identification as you wish, but you won't be able to remove it away, you can't, whatever you do, you will fail

                              And who is the desperate one here?! I didn't claim that Druitt's family looked him away in a private asylum to make him fit a press report, you claimed this with zero evidence that Monty was ever committed to any asylum, let alone a private one.


                              I didn't claim that Druitt's own brother killed him, you tried your luck pushing such a twisted theory in order to make the suicide note a hoax to fit again the press report.


                              I didn't claim that Kosminski's family couldn't afford a private asylum, you did this again to twist everything to make Druitt a better fit to the press report.


                              I didn't claim that Rob House removed sentences from the report to make it better fit to his suspect, you claimed this with zero convincing argument, and except smoke and mirrors, you didn't provided any good point to justifies such a claim.


                              One understand why you are trying hardly to take this press report, you don't have anything against Druitt, you need it badly.



                              The Baron

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                                Some have disputed this point, Baron.

                                From the Aberconway draft of Macnagthen’s notes: -

                                "No 2. Kosminski, a Polish Jew....This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

                                Many take this to mean that Macnaghten WAS aware of the identification, but it gets complicated and would require a rather long conversation.

                                RP

                                Hello Palmer

                                Yes of course, this is a good possibility, although I doubt the witness was a city PC after refusing to testify in a court.

                                It was maybe this City PC sighting that brought Kosminski to the police attention in the first place, but we may never know.



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X