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 caz View Post

    Absolutely, Herlock.

    In my book, the dictionary definition of 'sexually insane' includes a photo of Ray Alan, with one hand up Macnaghten's bottom, while throwing a toasted cheese sandwich in the bin with the other.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hello Caz,

    You’ve seen it too
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • The gone with the wind classification strikes again!

      According to it, any person that can be shown was in London 1888, be it a Queen, a Police officer, a Pope, anyone, is a beter suspect than a convicted murderer whose wherabout during the murders were unknown!

      This old classifications and the minds behind it hadn't been updated since the Neanderthal!

      Nevertheless it has a historical value, that shows the development of logical thinking!



      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        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?
        feigenbaum isnt even a person of interest. he cant even be placed in the country let alone the city. hes nothing-except a suspect in trevors eyes. Druit and koz were at least suspects to the police at the time.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



          Absolutely. Feigenbaum is a better suspect than Druitt, there is no comparison.

          Feigenbaum is a convicted murderer, and we have the source and information that suggest him as a suspect.

          The Baron
          Hold it one minute, your comparison is way off mark.
          Feigenbaum was not a murderer in 1888, just like Druitt.

          Feiganbaum only 'became' a murderer six years later in 1894.
          Comparison's must be on the same level, or they are not comparable.
          You need to know what Feiganbaum was doing in 1888 to compare him with Druitt.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            Hold it one minute, your comparison is way off mark.
            Feigenbaum was not a murderer in 1888, just like Druitt.

            Feiganbaum only 'became' a murderer six years later in 1894.
            Comparison's must be on the same level, or they are not comparable.
            You need to know what Feiganbaum was doing in 1888 to compare him with Druitt.

            How about you acknowledge your error and wrong information first and answer my post #940?!




            (( Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            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? ))


            And my answer:

            Wrong.

            Actually it is a case of faulty recollection by yourself.


            Kosminski was admitted to Mile End Old Town Workhouse on 12 July 1890, three days later 15 July 1890 he was discharged into the care of his brother[-in-law], Wolf’s care.


            12-15 July 1890


            The Seaside Home at Hove was already open since March 1890


            It helps when you first get your basic information right.



            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              feigenbaum isnt even a person of interest. he cant even be placed in the country let alone the city. hes nothing-except a suspect in trevors eyes. Druit and koz were at least suspects to the police at the time.
              Exactly

              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 gone with the wind classification strikes again!

                According to it, any person that can be shown was in London 1888, be it a Queen, a Police officer, a Pope, anyone, is a beter suspect than a convicted murderer whose wherabout during the murders were unknown!

                This old classifications and the minds behind it hadn't been updated since the Neanderthal!

                Nevertheless it has a historical value, that shows the development of logical thinking!



                The Baron
                So any murderer, in any country, should be classed as a ripper suspect according to you.? Try thinking. When we were discussing Mackenzie you made a big noise about her being ‘same victimology.’ So why the different rules for Feigenbaum? His victim wasn’t a prostitute. She wasn’t killed in the street. She wasn’t mutilated. She was killed in a house and her son was present. The only similarity was that it was a knife murder. Until it’s PROVEN that he was in England and not 4,500 he’s a complete non-starter and NOT a valid suspect. You bleat and whine about Druitt being a few minutes walk away but you’ll back a suspect that was for all that we know 4,500 miles away.

                How the hell have you got the nerve to comment? I raised 11 points which proved in black and white that you are a dishonest poster and you’ve avoided them as you always do when you’ve been caught out.

                Everything that you say is white noise.

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • I think in the case of Aaron Kosminski, he was identified and watched at his brother's house before being taken to the workhouse for a second time on February 4, 1891. This was also Sugden's conclusion as well. Thus Swanson's marginalia note that in "a very short time" after being watched, he was sent back to the workhouse. So the identification proceeding and surveillance occurred a few days prior to February 4th.

                  Comment


                  • My problem with Macnaghten and Druitt is a very simple one - said to be a Doctor. By whom ? Somebody who obviously didn't know him personally. So is that who MM got his info off ?
                    It doesn't exactly fill you with confidence that he investigated Druitt thoroughly
                    Regards Darryl

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                      How about you acknowledge your error and wrong information first and answer my post #940?!
                      Are you serious?
                      You've been waiting four days for me to confirm your reply?
                      Of course the year was wrong, it was a typo. The subsequent point about Swanson is then negated.
                      That was my post #928, in your reply #929 I see you completely missed it, perhaps you are not reading the posts?

                      Likewise with post #936, if you had read that one you would have known the year was a simple typo. In that post I had "1890" as the year Kozminski first came to Mile End Workhouse.

                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Interesting fact, when admitted for the second time to the Mile End Workhouse in 1891 and certified insane, some notes on the form read:
                      Age at first attack: 25 years.
                      Duration of existing attack: 6 months (referring back to July 1890)
                      Which tells us Kozminski was not suffering this illness in 1888, as the "muzzled dog" incident tends to testify in 1889.
                      You knew it was a typo.

                      So, lets get back to my point.
                      What was Feiganbaum doing in 1888?
                      What does his criminal record say his status was?

                      I can wait four days if you prefer.


                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Also MM says that Druitt WAS sexually insane. Yet in his auto he describes the term as someone who derives pleasure from killing and uses Dr Cream as an example I believe. He also may mean ultra violence as well as far as I remember. So following on from that he is either saying that Druitt was a killer. Which of course there is no evidence for, unless you believe he meant he was the ripper. But if that is the case the evidence would be cast iron and not a circumstantial theory.
                        So that leaves us with ultra violence. This is purely conjecture but could that be the serious trouble he got into ? Sado masochistic tendencies towards his pupils. Maybe ?
                        Regards Darryl

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          Are you serious?
                          You've been waiting four days for me to confirm your reply?
                          Of course the year was wrong, it was a typo. The subsequent point about Swanson is then negated.
                          That was my post #928, in your reply #929 I see you completely missed it, perhaps you are not reading the posts?

                          Likewise with post #936, if you had read that one you would have known the year was a simple typo. In that post I had "1890" as the year Kozminski first came to Mile End Workhouse.



                          You knew it was a typo.

                          So, lets get back to my point.
                          What was Feiganbaum doing in 1888?
                          What does his criminal record say his status was?

                          I can wait four days if you prefer.


                          No it was not a typo, you said exactly this:


                          Yet the Seaside Home at Hove only opened the next year in March 1890.
                          So, is this another case of faulty recollection by Swanson?



                          You don't want to acknowledge your error I don't care, no point arguing with you.

                          Swanson recollection was better than yours.



                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                            I think in the case of Aaron Kosminski, he was identified and watched at his brother's house before being taken to the workhouse for a second time on February 4, 1891.
                            Scott.
                            Are you taking Sagar's recollections of surveillance of an unnamed suspect as evidence Kozminski was watched?

                            This was also Sugden's conclusion as well. Thus Swanson's marginalia note that in "a very short time" after being watched, he was sent back to the workhouse. So the identification proceeding and surveillance occurred a few days prior to February 4th.
                            Isn't this an assumption?
                            We don't know who Sagar was watching, or if it was Kozminski, why he would be anywhere near Butchers Row.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                              No it was not a typo, you said exactly this:


                              Yet the Seaside Home at Hove only opened the next year in March 1890.
                              So, is this another case of faulty recollection by Swanson?



                              You don't want to acknowledge your error I don't care, no point arguing with you.

                              Swanson recollection was better than yours.



                              The Baron
                              You just don't read posts too well do you.

                              Feiganbaum?
                              Last edited by Wickerman; 07-28-2021, 09:58 PM.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                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.

                                They are not potential suspects they are either persons of interest, suspects, or prime suspects.

                                How can you even start to catergorize Aaron Kosminski when we dont even know the real identity of the Kosminski named in the MM and the Marginalia


                                How come Feiganbaum isn't listed by anyone in official documents?
                                Because Feigenbaum was as far as we know not reported to the British Police as a suspect because of legal client confidentiality that Lawton was under and after his execution the same situation would have prevailed as did with Druitt, although as stated there was more circumstantial evidence against Feigenbaum than Druitt.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X