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 Trevor Marriott View Post
    ....

    It seems it was common knowledge of the fact that he was gay, and that in itself would likley rule him out of killing women in any event....
    Is this the same Trevor Marriott who has constantly railed against 'old traditional beliefs'?

    If you wish to know what being 'Sexual Insane' meant in the late 19th century, consult a late 19th century medical dictionary. It is a medical term and it is a general description. It is not true that 'Sexual Insanity' means being homosexual, but Sexual Insanity includes homosexuality.
    The term Sexual Insanity refers to a person who has an obsession with sexual gratification via a variety of means.
    If Druitt was Sexual Insane he could have gratified that urge by Masterbation, Prostitution, Mutilation, be it animals or people, or Homosexuality, and is equally applicable to men and women.
    Another word is Satyriasis in men and Nymphomania in women. An over indulgence for sexual gratification, by any means.
    https://books.google.ca/books?id=-tJ...ity%22&f=false
    https://books.google.ca/books?id=LAo...ity%22&f=false
    https://books.google.ca/books?id=Bx6...ity%22&f=false

    I have also pointed out that the boys school included female maids & kitchen staff.
    Last edited by Wickerman; 07-28-2021, 02:38 AM.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      ...

      There is no indication as to what if anyhting MM was told Druitt, and certainly no corrboration to what he put in the memorandum regarding Druitt so as I keep saying it is unsafe to rely on.
      It's not a memoir though, it was not written 20-30 years after he retired. Mac was still on the force, so we cannot equate it to Anderson's memoirs, or the Marginalia.

      If MM was so sure about Druitt he had the means to at least do some background work on him, but none of that appears to have taken place.
      We don't know what action, if any, was taken by Mac. To just assume he took no action is speculation, and in all honesty, unlikely.
      What is clear is that the issue was treated with respect for the family. The suspect was already dead so it was not necessary to make what he knew public knowledge. Just remember Anderson's words "no public benefit would result and traditions of my department would suffer", or words to that effect. The same is true for Mac. with his Memorandum.


      [SIZE=16px][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Calibri]Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, and the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.
      Yes, though Howells & Skinner did not have the advantage of more recent research. If I recall, they thought Druitt was going to Chiswick to visit his mother at the Asylum. Much of their plot was based on misinformation. It has been speculated that when brother William went to search Montie's things, it wasn't at the school, he had already been dismissed, so it was possibly a room at Chiswick with the family friends, the Tuke's.

      Did the police make enquiries at this club and if they did were they able to eliminate him from suspicion?
      Druitt had been dead about 5 years, why investigate anything?
      The dead cannot defend themselves.


      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        It's not a memoir though, it was not written 20-30 years after he retired. Mac was still on the force, so we cannot equate it to Anderson's memoirs, or the Marginalia.

        But it still doesnt allow for the fact that there is no mention of the ID parade and the so called positive identification, and, in the Memo the full name of the Kosminksi named is absent as it is in the Marginalia. MM was Swansons immediate superior and so he would have ovreseen the ID parade had it taken place as is written in the marginalia.

        We don't know what action, if any, was taken by Mac. To just assume he took no action is speculation, and in all honesty, unlikely.
        What is clear is that the issue was treated with respect for the family. The suspect was already dead so it was not necessary to make what he knew public knowledge. Just remember Anderson's words "no public benefit would result and traditions of my department would suffer", or words to that effect. The same is true for Mac. with his Memorandum.

        If that were the case why disclose his information in the first place especially as you say Druitt was then dead. The police wanted to solve these murders and in later years so so easy for anyone to say "the killer was"................ bluff and buster!!!!!!!!!!!

        Druitt had been dead about 5 years, why investigate anything?
        So why are we still investigating Druitt to the point that some are certain he was the killer despite there being not one scrap of evidence that points to him being the killer?

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-28-2021, 07:17 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Is this the same Trevor Marriott who has constantly railed against 'old traditional beliefs'?

          If you wish to know what being 'Sexual Insane' meant in the late 19th century, consult a late 19th century medical dictionary. It is a medical term and it is a general description. It is not true that 'Sexual Insanity' means being homosexual, but Sexual Insanity includes homosexuality.
          The term Sexual Insanity refers to a person who has an obsession with sexual gratification via a variety of means.
          If Druitt was Sexual Insane he could have gratified that urge by Masterbation, Prostitution, Mutilation, be it animals or people, or Homosexuality, and is equally applicable to men and women.
          Another word is Satyriasis in men and Nymphomania in women. An over indulgence for sexual gratification, by any means.
          https://books.google.ca/books?id=-tJ...ity%22&f=false
          https://books.google.ca/books?id=LAo...ity%22&f=false
          https://books.google.ca/books?id=Bx6...ity%22&f=false

          I have also pointed out that the boys school included female maids & kitchen staff.
          what is your point with this post?

          Can you prove he was not a homosexual?


          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            There is no difference here but you appear to think that we are conducting a police investigation and so should adhere to rigid and pointless terminology. Why can’t you understand this very simple piece of thinking. It doesn’t matter one iota if we call Druitt or Kosminski or Bury or Lechmere a suspect, a prime suspect or a person of interest. No one is going to die if we follow a wrong lead. We aren’t going to waste money and man hours following a weak or strong suspect. The wrong person isn’t going to prison and the killer isn’t going to escape justice. Terminology means zero. As far as we are concerned, as posters on a true crime thread and not professional detectives, a ‘suspect’ is anyone that has been mentioned as a suspect. End of story Trevor. Please just drop this crap. We don’t want to go over this ‘explaining the bleeding obvious to Trevor’ again. You’re only saying it because you want to set up some kind of league table with Druitt right at the bottom and Feigenbaum right at the top.

            And as we’ve said before if we have to start evaluating on who is a person of interest and who is a suspect and who is a prime suspect who makes that judgment? Is it you? Me? Al? Who? We all have different opinions on SUSPECTS so how could we come to any agreement? We very obviously couldn’t.

            A SUSPECT, ON HERE, IS A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN SUSPECTED BY SOMEONE (WHOEVER THAT PERSON IS)

            So Sir William Gull, Lewis Carroll and Prince Eddy are SUSPECTS. They are crap SUSPECTS but as far as armchair detectives are concerned they are SUSPECTS.

            Lets this go for f*^+s sake Trevor
            the categories i set out in my post above are determined by the facts and the evidence there is against them.

            what evidence is there to make druitt a prime suspect?


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              the categories i set out in my post above are determined by the facts and the evidence there is against them.

              what evidence is there to make druitt a prime suspect?


              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              I’ve never specifically called him a Prime Suspect. All that I’ve ever said is that in my opinion he’s the likeliest of the named suspects. He’s a suspect because he’s been suspected. Firstly by Sir Melville MacNaghten. How do you know that he didn’t see incredibly strong evidence for Druitt’s guilt? You don’t. Just like I don’t know that he did because we don’t know what his information/evidence was. Just parroting ‘unsafe to rely on’ is as pointless as me saying ‘well if MacNaghten thought Druitt was guilty then he must have been.’ You have shown how we would ‘rate’ Druitt. You’ve just expressed doubts.

              I’ll make my point one last (hopefully?) time about terminology.


              We know that in an ongoing police investigation the use of person of interest, suspect and prime suspect is important because the police have to focus their limited resources. Time spent following the wrong person might lead to the loss of life or to the guilty party escaping justice but those kind of pressures don’t apply to us though. What we do on here is of no importance in the real world. We can ‘waste’ as much time as we like discussing anything and no one will suffer, no one will die or escape justice and every poster can simply decide whether they want to take part in the discussion or not. We know that words can have different uses and meanings in different contexts and so for us the term ‘suspect’ simply means someone that someone suspects might have been the ripper. We can easily differentiate between those that were suspected at the time and those that have been suspected in the preceding years so that’s no problem. And individuals decide who they feel are the stronger or weaker suspects and how strong or weak they are. Trying to divide people into categories of suspect though is a waste of time and effort. It achieves nothing as it’s still down to the individual on how they rate that persons likelihood of being guilty.

              Then we have to ask how we would decide who is a person of interest, who is a suspect and who is a prime suspect? Who would make the decision? Would we appoint a panel of judges? And how would we arrive at our decision? What criteria would we use and how would we agree on them? Would we create a table of points for each person and then spend days quibbling over each point with the aim of giving each suspect a rating and then probably never arriving at a consensus?

              Can anyone seriously think that there’s any point in this except for some who want to see certain names at the bottom of the table and others at or near the top? Quibbling over whether someone is a person of interest, a suspect or a prime suspect is about as pointless an exercise as I can imagine. There is zero need for it and it would serve zero purpose. No one would benefit. And even if we wanted to do this it would be next to impossible to achieve because we would end up quibbling for years over each point. Then we would be accusing each other of skewing assessments to boost one suspect at the expense of another.

              Feigenbaum is a case in point. How do we get consensus to decide how we rate him. You rate him a prime suspect whereas I say that someone can’t be a suspect if you have no evidence that he was in the country at the time of the murders. Some might agree with you; some would agree with me. So who decides what we call him? He’s been suspected by you therefore he’s a suspect. It’s the only workable way.

              As far as armchair detectives on a Forum are concerned a suspect is a term for a person who has been suspected by someone. It’s as simple as that and there’s no need for pointless complications. We decide as individuals on their strengths and weaknesses. To the police these terms have significance but not to us. Why do we even have to waste time discussing this excruciatingly obvious point?
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                what is your point with this post?

                Can you prove he was not a homosexual?


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                No we can’t. We can’t prove he wasn’t a keen ventriloquist either or that he hated cheese or that he had a secret relationship with Sir Melville MacNaghten. The only relevant point is that we have no evidence that he was gay.

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • .
                  So why are we still investigating Druitt to the point that some are certain he was the killer despite there being not one scrap of evidence that points to him being the killer?
                  What harm does it do for some to investigate him? How can you possibly know that there isn’t still some vital information out there? Who is treating Druitt as if he’s certainly guilty Trevor? Please tell us? As far as I can see Jon Hainsworth is pretty convinced but who else has that level of certainty? I’ve certainly never said that he was definitely guilty only that, in my personal opinion, he’s the best of the named suspects - although I waste my breath saying it because it gets ignored. Wick doesn’t rate him as a strong suspect and I can’t name another poster who rates him anymore than a ‘possible’ so why does this bother you so much? One author is convinced, I think there’s a good chance and some others think him a ‘possible.’ It’s hardly a wave of misinformation is it and it hardly justifies the hysterical approach that surfaces whenever his name is mentioned. Frankly it’s a bit weird.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • Surely Herlock,it needs some definition of the term suspect,if one is to get to the truth.As it is now,and what you and others seem to prefer,is that one can simply pick a name at random,or accept the most unlikely information,and a suspect is created.
                    The Ripper killings were real.There was a real investigation,The criminal went undetected.Sites such as this attempt to,however difficult the task,name that criminal to an extent that shows who ,according to information,appears the most likely person.
                    So it's either Trevor's view in limiting the number of real suspects,.or open slather as to who can be included.I'll back Trevor.
                    As to Druitt and the others named by Mac,were they actually named as suspects at any time.in official sources?

                    Comment


                    • French writer Sophie Herfort has argued that Macnaghten himself was responsible for the Jack the Ripper murder!

                      According to the gone with the wind dictionary, Macnaghten is a suspect!


                      Druitt is a suspect of a suspect of being Jack the Ripper!


                      That's alone makes the case against Druitt very weak one!




                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        what is your point with this post?

                        Can you prove he was not a homosexual?


                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Have you forgotten your training?
                        The point is to prove he was Homosexual.

                        The post explains that Mac. was talking about a sexual urge, not a sexual preference.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          But it still doesnt allow for the fact that there is no mention of the ID parade and the so called positive identification, and, in the Memo the full name of the Kosminksi named is absent as it is in the Marginalia. MM was Swansons immediate superior and so he would have ovreseen the ID parade had it taken place as is written in the marginalia.


                          I cannot defend the Marginalia, I think it has too many errors. It relies on recollection too long after the stated events.
                          Mac's Memorandum is a different issue. It reads like an explanation to his superiors of the sensational article published in The Sun newspaper. As you can see it is marked 'Confidential', so was not intended for public consumption.
                          As far as the ID is concerned, I see no cause for Mac. to mention it if it was not as conclusive as we have been led to believe. You notice Mac. did write:
                          "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."
                          That takes care of the ID. in his opinion, and I think we should take that as the official opinion at the Met. in 1894.
                          Swanson was still in the same rank - Chief Inspector, until 1896, so he was right there if Mac. had need to consult with him.
                          Mac. would risk too much if he replied to the Home Office with an ill-informed personal opinion. The Home Office expect factual information.

                          If that were the case why disclose his information in the first place especially as you say Druitt was then dead. The police wanted to solve these murders and in later years so so easy for anyone to say "the killer was"................ bluff and buster!!!!!!!!!!!
                          It was an internal memorandum, for the Home Office only. We were never intended to see it.


                          So why are we still investigating Druitt to the point that some are certain he was the killer despite there being not one scrap of evidence that points to him being the killer?
                          Some may feel certain, others feel the same about Kozminski, and then there are dozens of other suggested suspects. The one common denominator between ALL of them is, to quote Mac.:
                          "....no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

                          It's a challenge for students of the case to try find something with which to incriminate their personal suspect. That's human nature, as you yourself can testify to.


                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Really appreciate all this new (at least for me) light thrown on Druitt from this thread, there is certainly a lot to consider here. I don't really understand the 'pile on' here though? Yes I get that some people have there own preferred suspects but I don't get the need go completely overboard in attempts to dismiss/disparage other people/suspects in doing so? It smacks of a complete loss of objectivity and a blinkered view of things. The fact of the matter is that without all the facts or conclusive proof otherwise anyone could be in the frame. We just don't know for sure and it is very unlikely that we ever will. Until we DO know for sure surely it is best for all to keep our minds open and be as objective as possible?
                            Best Regards,

                            Tristan

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              Surely Herlock,it needs some definition of the term suspect,if one is to get to the truth.As it is now,and what you and others seem to prefer,is that one can simply pick a name at random,or accept the most unlikely information,and a suspect is created.
                              The Ripper killings were real.There was a real investigation,The criminal went undetected.Sites such as this attempt to,however difficult the task,name that criminal to an extent that shows who ,according to information,appears the most likely person.
                              So it's either Trevor's view in limiting the number of real suspects,.or open slather as to who can be included.I'll back Trevor.
                              As to Druitt and the others named by Mac,were they actually named as suspects at any time.in official sources?
                              There’s no point in ‘limiting the number of real suspects’ Harry. Do you think that would stop people discussing all the suspects? Do you think that posters will say ‘well he’s not on the list so we can’t discuss him or research him further? Of course it wouldn’t. It serves less than no purpose. And as I said, who would decide who is a suspect, or prime suspect or person of interest and what criteria would they use. And what about when posters disagree with them?

                              Are you suggesting that we limit discussion to those who were mentioned as suspects at the time? Where would that get us? Trevor’s suggestion serves absolutely no purpose and would be absolutely impossible to achieve even if there was a purpose.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                the categories i set out in my post above are determined by the facts and the evidence there is against them.

                                what evidence is there to make druitt a prime suspect?


                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Can you resist the urge to overkill your accusations?
                                Druitt is not a Prime Suspect, he is a potential suspect.
                                Kozminski is also not a Prime Suspect, he is the same - a potential suspect.
                                For the sake of Rob H.'s book, Kozminski was apparently Anderson's Prime Suspect, but not Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect. I take issue with that.

                                How come Feiganbaum isn't listed by anyone in official documents?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X