Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • Yes of course, Jon. I forgot about the Cox surveillance. I just went by Swanson's account of the surveillance being a "short time" -- however long that may have been. And who knows if Sagar's man is the same as Cox's. Or Swanson's for that matter.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      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.
      Yes, Trevor. Anderson may have been wrong about the asylum timing, which means Kosminski may have gone in after the identification, not before. In other words, not declared insane prior to the ID.

      ......or so it seems

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

        Yes, Trevor. Anderson may have been wrong about the asylum timing, which means Kosminski may have gone in after the identification, not before. In other words, not declared insane prior to the ID.

        ......or so it seems
        It appears he was only certified insane on the 6th Feb. and by one of their own doctors, Edmund Houchin, police Surgeon for H division.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
          ...... And who knows if Sagar's man is the same as Cox's. Or Swanson's for that matter.
          My position all along, we have no real idea who Cox & Sagar are talking about.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.That is how Mac described Kosminski.
            He was sexually insane and from private info I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.That is how Mac described Druitt.
            This man's antecedents were of the worst possible types,and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained.This is how mac described Ostrog
            Three individual observations,but collectively he describes them only as persons against whom there were reasonable suspicions.
            All three can be described as 'Suspects' on Mac's theory?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.That is how Mac described Kosminski.
              He was sexually insane and from private info I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.That is how Mac described Druitt.
              This man's antecedents were of the worst possible types,and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained.This is how mac described Ostrog
              Three individual observations,but collectively he describes them only as persons against whom there were reasonable suspicions.
              All three can be described as 'Suspects' on Mac's theory?
              Strictly speaking, some may say yes, others may say no.
              As I replied in post 1045, Mac used it against Kozminski, but not with Druitt, in the memorandum.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                Yes, Trevor. Anderson may have been wrong about the asylum timing, which means Kosminski may have gone in after the identification, not before. In other words, not declared insane prior to the ID.

                ......or so it seems
                Two things, firstly if they suspected him of being the killer and they wanted to put him on an ID parade they would have had grounds to arrest him, interview him and then put him on a parade.

                Secondly if they suspected him but did not arrest him, but asked him to go with them voluntarily to the parade and after the positive identification they would have had grounds to arrest him and then interview him.

                In either scenarior a documented positive identification took place but they did nothing with him other than bring him back and leave him to his own devices

                There is no record of any arrest.

                In my opinion none of these happened, so we must view the content of the marginalia with caution.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Secondly if they suspected him but did not arrest him, but asked him to go with them voluntarily to the parade and after the positive identification they would have had grounds to arrest him and then interview him.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Hi Trev

                  Suppose the witness changed their minds . Id Kosminski, then say they are not certain when they are asked if they are 100% positive.

                  Valerie Storie in the A6 case initially picked out the wrong man in her first ID parade before Hanratty was arrested and put on a second. She said she felt pressured to pick someone out , could the witness have not said something similar ?
                  Regards Darryl

                  Comment


                  • Following on from my last post, for what it is worth that's what I think happened. He picks Kosminski out or says yes when confronted with him. Then changes his mind, some of the police are exasperated [ Anderson ], So they watch him day and night for a few days before his family think they should get him out of the way and into an asylum.
                    Regards Darryl

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                      Hi Trev

                      Suppose the witness changed their minds . Id Kosminski, then say they are not certain when they are asked if they are 100% positive.

                      Valerie Storie in the A6 case initially picked out the wrong man in her first ID parade before Hanratty was arrested and put on a second. She said she felt pressured to pick someone out , could the witness have not said something similar ?
                      Regards Darryl
                      But that doesnt change the police procedure in leading up to doing the ID parade.

                      Irresepctive of that do you not think the police would have still arrested him and interviewed him?

                      There is no record, and no mention of him being arrested, and nothing from anyone in later years outside of Anderson and Swanson who mentions such an important event, and we have to ask can Anderson be believed, and did Swanson pen all of the marginalia?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                        Following on from my last post, for what it is worth that's what I think happened. He picks Kosminski out or says yes when confronted with him. Then changes his mind, some of the police are exasperated [ Anderson ], So they watch him day and night for a few days before his family think they should get him out of the way and into an asylum.
                        Regards Darryl
                        Hi Darryl,

                        Could this be where the suggestion that witness refused to give up a fellow Jew come from? Maybe the witness, as you say, was pretty confident when first confronted, but after a bit of thought uncertainties crept in and he started to worry about the possibility of helping to send an innocent man to the gallows and so he backtracked? Perhaps some officer at the Parade believed that he was only backtracking because he now knew that the man was a fellow Jew and he passed this opinion on to Anderson?
                        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

                          In my opinion none of these happened, so we must view the content of the marginalia with caution.
                          I understand the caution, but analyzing what both Anderson & Swanson wrote still requires interpretation. No-one just invents an ID, memoirs can & do contain errors but claiming outright inventions, and by two people, is an altogether different scenario.
                          For myself, I can't see an ID being a unique event, I would expect them to happen frequently, maybe even weekly at different periods, typically following a murder. So confusing one ID with another is quite possible.

                          I also can't imagine Anderson being present for an ID, he is too high up the chain to concern himself with day to day policing. So, Anderson is recalling hearsay or what he has read in earlier reports. He just writes about it as though he was present, that tends to boost his importance. Then you have Swanson basically confirming what Anderson suggested, though I still think Swanson is only explaining who Anderson's suspect was. It's not his own opinion.

                          Then there's the location, a police convalescent home, in Brighton?, a 65 mile journey just for an ID?, no. Unless a policeman was there resting or recovering from something, then this is ludicrous. Swanson most likely misremembered the name, some have suggested he meant the Seaman's Home in the East End which would be more logical from a distance point of view, but we are still left with, why?
                          And then, how to control the security and the resulting publicity for Scotland Yard officers being seen at a Seaman's Home in the East End?
                          Why not Leman St. or Scotland Yard?

                          I agree the marginalia shouldn't be relied on to bolster any theory, it contains too many uncertainties.


                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Hi Darryl,

                            Could this be where the suggestion that witness refused to give up a fellow Jew come from? Maybe the witness, as you say, was pretty confident when first confronted, but after a bit of thought uncertainties crept in and he started to worry about the possibility of helping to send an innocent man to the gallows and so he backtracked? Perhaps some officer at the Parade believed that he was only backtracking because he now knew that the man was a fellow Jew and he passed this opinion on to Anderson?
                            My thoughts exactly Herlock
                            Regards Darryl

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              But that doesnt change the police procedure in leading up to doing the ID parade.

                              Irresepctive of that do you not think the police would have still arrested him and interviewed him?

                              There is no record, and no mention of him being arrested, and nothing from anyone in later years outside of Anderson and Swanson who mentions such an important event, and we have to ask can Anderson be believed, and did Swanson pen all of the marginalia?

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                              Hi Trev

                              Abberline says that a report was made to the Home Office regarding the young Doctor [his words], found drowned in the Thames. And Littlechild said there was a large dossier kept on Tumblety. As far as I am aware neither document as surfaced and we only have the inspectors words for them. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

                              I believe Anderson and in particular Swanson meant what they wrote [ yes i do believe all the marginalia to be genuine ].

                              One last point after the double event, without looking at my notes as far as I remember, there was a report saying 300 men were questioned by police with 80 having further enquires against them being sought. Do we know all 80 of these ?

                              Regards Darryl

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Then there's the location, a police convalescent home, in Brighton?, a 65 mile journey just for an ID?, no. Unless a policeman was there resting or recovering from something, then this is ludicrous. Swanson most likely misremembered the name, some have suggested he meant the Seaman's Home in the East End which would be more logical from a distance point of view, but we are still left with, why?
                                And then, how to control the security and the resulting publicity for Scotland Yard officers being seen at a Seaman's Home in the East End?
                                Why not Leman St. or Scotland Yard?
                                This has always been a sticking point for me Wick. I can’t think of any logical reason why any ID parade would have needed to have taken place anywhere but locally?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X