No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    So he is a likely serial killer because he masturbated in public? Or does that just cement the theory about a serial killer because it appears in modern research about known and convicted, interviewed and documented serial killers ? Sheesh. Why people insist on basing all discussions on what we have learned about serial killers since that time, before we have even a validated series of kills to study, is beyond me. Cart before the horse. They are ALL unsolved, without any known evidence to use as a connection to each other, its all theory and case anyone is wondering.

    Monty said it best regarding this thread posit....yes, Kosminski is a viable suspect for some of the unsolved murders. There is too much documentation specific to his potential candidacy that matches other more official records that he cannot be excluded at this time.

    And also when he said few if any people characterized as "Suspects" actually were, are, or should be considered as such.

    Michael Richards


    • #92
      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      The original question was whether Kosminski´s compulsive masturbating, perhaps being carried out in public, would increase his viability as a serial killer or not.

      It was presented in a post of Robs, worded:

      "If Koz did frequently masturbate in public or in front of us others, this would be the one and only thing about him that might fit the ripper profile..."

      The behaviour as such is not something that fits my Ripper profile. But if we had examples of serialists being frequent masturbators in public, it would go along with what Rob wrote.

      So there´s the background.

      The best,

      But there is not one iota of proof that Koz frequently masturbated in public.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.


      • #93

        Hello Scott, Neil.

        Eminently sensible speculation.



        • #94
          To Scott Nelson

          I think that Anderson and Swanson were misled by Macnaghten, as how else to explain that the latter knows things about Aaron Kosminski that they did not--worse they think the opposite of what is true?

          Macnaghten sexed-up the local, Polish madman for public consumption and then altered the data quite considerably with Sims in 1907 (for example, the "solitary vices" are replaced by a fictional sojourn in a Polish hospital).

          I also think that Anderson's conceit and egoism forced him to shy away from admitting, in public, that the Ripper was deceased. He knew it was not a good look; e.g. to accuse a man who was dead and in no position to defend himself (and who was a poor immigrant), and so he did so only in private. Swanson did so just once in 1895, but never again in public.

          It is the proof that Anderson's belief in Kosminski's demise is sincere and not propagandist; e.g. it was never widely disseminated for that purpose.

          Both Anderson and Macnaghten believed that the fiend was a man who was long deceased, but only one suspect actually was six-foot under, and only one chief knew this.

          A few years ago a poster tried to argue that because Anderson believed that the Jewish suspect was dead whilst Macnaghten wrote in 'Aberconway' that he was alive, this meant that Mac was mistaken--even though he was correct?! How does that work? Because Macnaghten had misrecalled what Anderson had told him--or some other such torturous gyration.

          This is an excellent measure of how thick the foundational prejudice is for some re: so-called Ripperology.


          • #95
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            For whom, apart from Anderson?

            The best,
            "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).


            • #96
              He peeped into people´s homes, while masturbating - that´s not what I would call masturbating in public.
              Wouldn't that depend on where he was when he did it? If he was outside someone's home looking in when he was masturbating he is more likely to have been in a public place than a private one, surely? If he's in a public place he's doing it in public.
              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).


              • #97
                Bridewell you're horrible at quoting! Who says that Aaron was a My understanding was he just did it whenever and wherever, but not necessarily in 1888.

                Yours truly

                Tom Wescott


                • #98
                  Originally posted by robhouse View Post
                  3 references to masturbation:

                  Kozminski's asylum record
                  All of which is true, but it could just be repeated anecdote from a common source.
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).


                  • #99
                    Isn't this in danger of becoming a Kosminski masturbation thread rather than a Kosminski as a 'best suspect' one? (And yes I've been posting about it as well before anyone else points that out). But, quite apart from anything else, even if it is accepted that many serial killers masturbate in public, that cannot be considered evidence that people who masturbate in public are therefore serial killers. Shall we all move on from the subject of where and when Aaron Kosminski jacked himself off? Tempers are getting heated and it's not really germane to the subject under discussion.

                    Best suspect? There are so many claims for who is and is not a valid suspect that the identification of a 'best' seems an exercise in futility. Name any suspect and someone will jump in with an explanation as to why he shouldn't be one. Aaron Kosminski has to be in the top tier because he was named in contemporary documentation as having been suspected contemporaneously. Ditto Druitt.
                    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).


                    • Ditto Tumblety.


                      • Who was in a position to identify Kosminski (or whoever the Jewish suspect was)? It couldn't have been Lawende, for the simple reason that he was used in the Thomas Sadler identification for the Frances Coles murder. Surely it's unlikely that had Lawende already identified the Ripper and refused to testify, he would've then been used to ID another suspect?

                        Leaving us only with Schwartz? ...Or does it? Who DID get a good look at the Ripper? Perhaps there is an altogether unknown witness who caught sight of our man and came forward, but whose identity was kept off the record?

                        On what basis was Kosminski suspected in the first place? Because certain officials got it into their heads that the Ripper was a sexual deviant, and Kosminski was jerking off in public? So many questions, so little answers.


                        • It was Lawende.

                          Yours truly

                          Tom Wescott


                          • I disagree that it is that mysterious.

                            The masturbation is germane as Anderson refers to it, with much fear and loathing, in the book version of his memoir and, implicitly, yet at length in a letter to the Jewish newspaper.

                            There was no witness identification of Aaron Kosminski. He was a minor suspect of no consequence to Anderson and Swanson--until revived in 1895.

                            The eyewitness 'slam dunk' is a mistake by Anderson that only enters the extant record as late as 1910.

                            An honest, albeit self-serving, ego-driven mistake.

                            Anderson was suported by nobody in public on this. It is not something whose literal existence could exlude Smith and Macnaghten.

                            Sadler and Grant are the Ripper suspects who were subjected to a witness dientification by a Jewish witness, almost certainly Lawende both times.

                            The Marginalia is the giveaway and arguably confirmation that the tale is not literally true:

                            1. The bizarre Seaside Home element is a refraction of the Sailor's Home of 1891.

                            2. A chastened Anderson has, in retelling Swanson, softened his damnation of the witness; e.g. he was fearful of the suspect being hanged (How? If he is already "safely caged" in an asylum? Here the timline was altered too, and the blame for the whole matter shifted to the City Police).

                            3. On the other hand, the guilt of the witness is amplified by having him 'confess' via his guilt-ridden facial reactions to being positively identified.

                            Author of "Jack the Ripper-Case Solved, 1891"



                            • Answer:


                              Imho a damned useful patsy... over promoted beyond reason.

                              Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙

                              Justice for the 96 = achieved
                              Accountability? ....


                              • I still think Koz was prime suspect.

                                Personally I think Anderson, knowing the law as he did, gave just enough information about the prime suspect to avoid litigation. I dont think he was a racist man.
                                The fact that he stated that it was a Jew was interesting, why would he give that info out?
                                Macnaghten appeared (to me) to be practicing damage limitation.

                                Monro stated to one of his family that the case was a "Hot Potato" I believe? A political situation could have been playing out "in camera" since Andersons "Jew" statement. I think it was supressed to stem the rising tide of socialism. It appears throughout misinformation was used to bury the case.

                                Harry Cox stated in his memoir that the CID watched a Jewish man who lived among the tailors, and that it was thought widely that this man was connected to the murders. Quite rightly at the end he said there was no proof that this was the murderer. What he did say was this man was a very high suspect !

                                Just my opinion !