Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • . The difference Herlock,is that by accepting more and more persons as suspects we are expanding the list,when the intention should be the opposite.
    The problem,as has been pointed out before,is that very few posters know the proper definition of suspect,and yes there is one,so a multitude of so called'Suspects' has clogged the boards.If posters accept that as a desirable objective,so be it,but an expanded list will only make a harder task of identifying a possible offender.
    But Harry do we really think that by changing a persons statues from ‘suspect’ to ‘person of interest’ poster will discuss them any less on the boards? It would certainly be desirable for us to be able to whittle down the list but how could we possibly do that when posters have such divergent opinions as to who is or isn’t a worthy suspect? A perfect example is Lechmere who certainly divides opinion. It isn’t just a case of Fish promoting him as a suspect but many posters , even if they don’t suspect him with the same level of confidence as Fish, consider him a valid suspect. Ask one poster if he is worthy of being labelled a suspect and they will say no. Whilst some will say yes. So who makes that final decision?
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

      Hi Wick, Does that not go against what Anderson said - that certain Polish/low class Jews would not give up one of their own for justice.
      Regards Darryl
      Correct Darryl, but don't forget Macnaghten was writing an official document in 1894 while he was still on the force. In my opinion he clearly dismisses any notion of an I.D. concluding in anyone's guilt.
      Whereas Anderson was writing memoirs in 1910 long after he had retired. From his writings I see a man who has a chip on his shoulders against Jews.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        ...
        Wickerman,
        The only comment i can find on Mac's reporting of the three named persons,in any source.is that they came under police suspicion.Now that suspicion,and whether it amounted to suspect evaluation,is not given,and it clearly alludes to a time when Druitt was alive. 'Mac's suspects',as the three are sometimes referred to,never were suspects,either of the police or Mac.'Came under police suspicion',tells us nothing.That is my reading of the information.
        It's not often i'm wrong,but I am right this time.
        I'm not challenging whether you are right or wrong, I just told you where Mac. used the word "suspect" in his Memorandum. He also wrote a memoir and devoted one chapter to the Jack the Ripper enquiry - Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper.
        Nowhere in that chapter does he use the word "suspect".

        Addition:
        Perhaps this is what you recall reading from Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper.

        "Many residents in the East End (and some in the West!) came under suspicion of police, but though several persons were detained, no one was ever charged with these offenses."

        Last edited by Wickerman; 07-29-2021, 11:52 AM.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Correct Darryl, but don't forget Macnaghten was writing an official document in 1894 while he was still on the force. In my opinion he clearly dismisses any notion of an I.D. concluding in anyone's guilt..
          An official document should contain the full facts behind what was written. All the MM does is highlight who he belived to have been the killer other than Cutbush nothing more.

          The question is was there ever an ID parade for him to dismiss ?

          The Id parade as set out in the Marginalia is a game changer as it reads but when you dig deeper into what is written it raises more questions than answers.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-29-2021, 01:14 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            This isn’t a response to this post George but the subject of whether there was any proof of Druitt ever being the the East End which I believe you raised in an earlier post. This is a fuller response.

            Firstly I’d say that we would have to remember the practice of ‘slumming’, for example. Well-to-do men often went into the East End to sample the pleasures but I’d say that it would be a given that if you’d searched any of their records you would have found no evidence for these sojourns, so I don’t really see any problem or any surprise that we can find no record of Druitt being in Whitechapel 133 years ago. Why would we expect to see a record of this? I’m certain that The Ten Bells didn’t get their patrons to sign a Visitors Book.

            Then I’d mention April 1886 when Conservative MP JG Talbot held a meeting at Kings Bench Walk, where Druitt had his chambers, to try to recruit Barristers (especially former Oxford University men like Druitt) to join the mission at Oxford House which was in Bethnal Green. It was a place where the well-off could live (so there were living quarters of some kind) and do charitable work amongst the poor. Do we have proof that Druitt joined? No we don’t. But he was exactly the kind of person wanted for this work and it’s also worth remembering that Druitt’s sister Georgiana (who eventually also committed suicide) was married to the Reverend William Hough and together they ran the Corpus Christi Mission on the Old Kent Road.

            Of course this isn’t proof that Druitt was ever in Whitechapel but I’ve never understood why some find this objectionable? Why would he have left evidence of visits to a slum? Whitechapel was within easy walking distance so there’s no geographical objections and it’s entirely possible and plausible that he did charitable work for Oxford House.


            It is easy to forget how easy it is to walk about London. I've walked from the city into Whitechapel many a time. It is not like he was living out in the suburbs.
            Best Regards,

            Tristan

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

              It is easy to forget how easy it is to walk about London. I've walked from the city into Whitechapel many a time. It is not like he was living out in the suburbs.
              Exactly Tristan. Druitt was young and fit too.
              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

                An official document should contain the full facts behind what was written.
                I call it an official document to distinguish it from Memoirs, which are not official.
                That distinction does not imply there will be no errors, but we must be careful in attributing what Mac. wrote in his memoirs (unofficial) from what he wrote in the Memorandum (official).
                Official documents can & do contain errors Trevor regardless of the expectation of clear facts.

                All the MM does is highlight who he belived to have been the killer other than Cutbush nothing more.
                I'm not so sure that is even true. I don't see personal belief in his choices, especially when he wrote:

                "A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide (Druitt?), or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum (Kozminski?).

                Followed by:

                "I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders."

                Where we get his personal beliefs is from his Memoirs (1914), thats where we read:

                "....the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November i888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer."

                And:

                "....and the probability is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide."

                And:

                "....The man, of course, was a sexual maniac..."


                The question is was there ever an ID parade for him to dismiss ?
                If there was, the outcome was not as conclusive as we have been led to believe via the Marginalia. But I don't think Swanson was offering his opinion. In my view he was explaining who his old boss Anderson believed was the killer.

                The Id parade as set out in the Marginalia is a game changer as it reads but when you dig deeper into what is written it raises more questions than answers.
                Right, faulty recollections. There may have been a number of I.D.'s, we read one involving Violenia & Pizer, there must have been others. Swanson has confused locations & parties involved.
                The Marginalia isn't as reliable a document as Mac's Memorandum, in my view.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


                  The Marginalia isn't as reliable a document as Mac's Memorandum, in my view.
                  Personally, I think from an evidential aspect, they are unsafe to totally rely on they both contain flaws.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    I'm not seeing how "a very short time" can mean "a few days". It seems to refer to the time between July 15, 1890 and Feb. 4, 1891 which is about ten days short of seven months.
                    Consider that the city police would have been watching him by day and night between return from the ID and being sent again to the workhouse. Six or seven months is a long time for 24-hour surveillance on a person.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                      Consider that the city police would have been watching him by day and night between return from the ID and being sent again to the workhouse. Six or seven months is a long time for 24-hour surveillance on a person.
                      Agreed Scott

                      And wouldn't someone from the press have got wind of it over that length of time especially with the manpower of a 24 hr surveillance over 6 mths. With the different officers involved word might have got out.

                      My opinion for what it is worth is that things happened very quickly indeed with Kosminski which may explain some of the discrepancies. Anderson - Id After Kosminski was in an asylum. Swanson - Before etc
                      Regards Darryl

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Personally, I think from an evidential aspect, they are unsafe to totally rely on they both contain flaws.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                        From the other side I’d say that they cannot and should not simply be dismissed just because there are flaws.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                          My opinion for what it is worth is that things happened very quickly indeed with Kosminski which may explain some of the discrepancies. Anderson - Id After Kosminski was in an asylum. Swanson - Before etc
                          I'd recommend John Malcolm's book The Whitechapel Murders of 1888 -- Another Dead End? for a detailed analysis of the various conundrums surrounding the Anderson/Swanson suspect.

                          Comment


                          • Setting aside the brief historical narrative for Aaron Kosminski, I'd say the Sagar/Butcher's Row story, if it involved a "Kosminski", may have fit Swanson's story a bit better.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                              Agreed Scott

                              And wouldn't someone from the press have got wind of it over that length of time especially with the manpower of a 24 hr surveillance over 6 mths. With the different officers involved word might have got out.

                              My opinion for what it is worth is that things happened very quickly indeed with Kosminski which may explain some of the discrepancies. Anderson - Id After Kosminski was in an asylum. Swanson - Before etc
                              Regards Darryl
                              If Kosminski was in an asylum it is unlikley that the doctors would have allowed him to be removed for the purpose of taking part in an ID parade.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                                Consider that the city police would have been watching him by day and night between return from the ID and being sent again to the workhouse. Six or seven months is a long time for 24-hour surveillance on a person.
                                I see your point but do you recall Henry Cox's account?, he claims to have been on surveillance for nearly three months. Cox does not emphasize his duty was exceptionally long or unusual.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X