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 Monty View Post
    The police had a better clue then than any of us.

    And Abberlines word fit with a Fido Kosminski. Besides, by 90 he had been removed from the case, so whilst in close touch, he was not involved.

    Monty
    I beg to differ I would say that the police didn't have any clues but many simply had their own opinions, which is clearly shown by the different documented opinions given by different police officials.

    And of course not forgetting those officials who publicly stated that they didn't have a clue.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GUT View Post
      But there is not one iota of proof that Koz frequently masturbated in public.
      No, and I am not saying that there is.

      I am discussing what evidence there is for ANY serialist ever having masturbated frequently in public. And the reason I do so, is that I believe that we need to differentiate between the groupings that can be identified.

      For example, Rob tells us that there have been many serialists that have been compulsive masturbators. And he says that if Kosminski was a compulsive masturbator, then that means that he answers to this trait that can be found in serialists.

      I can see the superficial logic of the argument, but I think we need to go a bit deeper. Now, I don´t have all the facts on hand, so I am going to have to make a few guesses along the way, but if I am wrong, I´m sure people will correct me.

      My supposition is that the serialists spoken about as being compulsive masturbators, are to a great extent killers who have revealed this themselves in interviews carried out after they have been caught. My next supposition is that the masturbation they have engaged in has been fuelled by violent fantasies - they have fantazised about tormenting, hurting and killing. We have examples like Peter Kürten, who could only be sexually aroused by fantasizing about extreme violence - until he realized that performing it gave him an even greater kick.

      Next supposition: This act of masturbation on behalf of developing serialists will be a very private act, and not something they will do in public - on the contrary, it will belong to the spheres they closely safeguard.

      Moving on, I would say that the overwhelming part of the compulsive masturbators do not fantazise about hurting or killing people when they masturbate.

      As I said before, when it comes to the ones who do not mind being watched when they masturbate, two groups can be immediately identified:

      The ones who enjoy being watched and get a kick from it.

      Those who are mentally challenged, and are to a greater or lesser degree oblivious of others watching.

      Neither of these groups are likely to be serialists - the first group get the kick they want without even pondering anything sinister, and the second group contains people that will normally be quite harmless to others.

      If we are to place Kosminski in any one of the three groups I outline, which one would be the more credible one? My choice would be the last one, and if I had to swop groups, I´d go for group two.

      My guess is that the compulsive masturbation Kosminski supposedly engaged in was of a type where he was anything but cautious about getting caught in the act, so to speak, and that what little caution he showed decreased further as he was incarcerated and his brain successively gave way.

      In all of this, we can only guess, but given the picture that emerges of Kosminskis mental health problems, my best guess is that yes, he was a compulsive masturbator, but no, he was not the type of compulsive masturbator that inhabits serialists.

      Others may guess differently and be equally entitled to their guesses, but this is where I am coming from in the Kosminski/masturbation issue.

      The best,
      Fisherman

      Comment


      • Trevor

        I think you're dead wrong.

        I think it was "in all probability" solved, albeit posthumously and along the Old Boy Net, thus avoiding normal police channels. What other police who were not in the loop said is close to irrelevant.

        Furthermore, it is a modern misconception that it is a mystery at all.

        Here is that solution, already being disguised:

        "The Bristol Times and Mirror"Feb 11, 1891:

        'I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder. I can't give details, for fear of a libel action; but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it. He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania. I do not know what the police think of the story, but I believe that before long a clean breast will be made, and that the accusation will be sifted thoroughly.'

        Here is the disguise about the same suspect now full blown, but the element of certainty remains the same:

        "The Referee", Dagonet in "Mustard and Cress", March 29, 1903.

        '... It is perfectly well known at Scotland Yard who "Jack" was, and the reasons for the police conclusions were given in the report to the Home Office, which was considered by the authorities to be final and conclusive.
        ... The genuine "Jack" was a doctor. His body was found in the Thames on December 31, 1888.'

        I realize you regard this as impossible to be the solution.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          I beg to differ I would say that the police didn't have any clues but many simply had their own opinions, which is clearly shown by the different documented opinions given by different police officials.

          And of course not forgetting those officials who publicly stated that they didn't have a clue.
          Define 'clue'.

          I don't think we are in a position to dismiss Kosmiski, or many of the contemporary suspects, with ease, as we are not in command of the full details.

          Clearly Kosminski was a suspect. Why, and to what degree is unclear.

          Monty
          Monty

          https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

          Comment


          • We may not be in command of the full details but the primary reasons for suspecting Kosminski are known...

            This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

            The primary reason for suspicion was that he was insane and a masturbator. Hmmm. What are we to make of that...
            Then there is the bit about hating women. I have always suspected that was a reference to homosexuality.
            Strong homicidal tendencies? If true this is not given reference in Aaron Kosminski's medical records indeed it is explicitly contradicted.
            removed to a Lunatic Asylum not long after what Macnaghten thought as the last murder - although Aaron Kosminski wasn't.

            And of course Macnaghten was inclined to exonerate him anyway.
            Given the primary reason for suspicion I think we can say that we are in a better position to evaluate his guilt that the late Victorian police with all their prejudices and misconceptions - when their case was very clearly not primarily based on any criminal evidence or crime scene information.

            Comment


            • Why do you quote this version, and not the other?

              In the other a witness, a cop no less, may have been able to place Kosminski with a victim.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                MacNaghten.
                You should ask Jonathan how much he thinks MacNaghten believed Kosminski to be a major suspect...

                Anyways, Mac only says that "the terrible three" were better suspects than Cutbush. They need not have been major suspects in his eyes, and indeed, it would seem that he favoured one of them to such a degree that he cannot have ranked the other two as anything but sidekicks.

                The best,
                Fisherman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
                  Poor Abberline was completely out of the loop regarding Druitt, Kosminski (and Tumblety).

                  His 1903 comment about how the police would have announced their success to the public is exactly what Macnaghten had been doing for five years via cronies:

                  Major Arthur Griffiths. "Mysteries of Police and Crime", 1898:

                  'The outside public may think that the identity of that later miscreant, "Jack the Ripper," was never revealed. So far as actual knowledge goes, this is undoubtedly true. But the police, after the last murder, had brought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. ... The third person was of the same type, but the suspicion in his case was stronger, and there was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him. He was also a doctor in the prime of life, was believed to be insane or on the borderland of insanity, and he disappeared immediately after the last murder, that in Miller's Court, on the 9th November, 1888. On the last day of that year, seven weeks later, his body was found floating in the Thames, and was said to have been in the water a month. The theory in this case was that after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and committed suicide. ...'
                  Here´s what I see, Jonathan:

                  The police strongly suspected several persons (equates to not knowing, and - not least - to going on type instead of evidence. If they had been going on evidence, they would NOT have strongly suspected several persons).

                  Against the three mentioned men, the police held "very plausible and reasonable" suspicion (equates once again to going on treats of peronality instead of having any hard evidence at all. It is always plausible and reasonable to suspect that extremely violent homicidal maniacs - which is how they were described - will kill).

                  For the third man, the suspicion was stronger (equates to having no hard evidence).

                  There was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him (equates to not even having proof that they did, and IF they did, it would prove nothing anyway).

                  He was also a doctor in the prime of life (equates to presenting this as evidence that he had the anatomical and/or surgical experience some thought that the killer had. Of course, it was wrong - Druitt was not a doctor, he was a barrister).

                  ... he disappeared immediately after the last murder (equates to getting it all wrong in an attempt to sharpen the arguments against Druitt).

                  ... after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and committed suicide (equates to (understandably) not having understood how a serialist functions.

                  To me, this has never given away Druitt as the killer. It has instead given away how wrong the ones who suspected Druitt were.

                  The best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    I beg to differ I would say that the police didn't have any clues but many simply had their own opinions, which is clearly shown by the different documented opinions given by different police officials.

                    And of course not forgetting those officials who publicly stated that they didn't have a clue.
                    51 words, and it sums up everything admirably. Bravo, Trevor.

                    The best,
                    Fisherman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                      Define 'clue'.

                      I don't think we are in a position to dismiss Kosmiski, or many of the contemporary suspects, with ease, as we are not in command of the full details.

                      Clearly Kosminski was a suspect. Why, and to what degree is unclear.

                      Monty
                      You cant speculate as to what might have been known, when in fact nothing may have been known.

                      Suspects based on opinions have no evidential value and should not be regarded as suspects but simply persons of interest.

                      Clearly that term had not been invented in 1888 otherwise we may be looking at these so called suspects in a different light.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        It was Lawende.

                        Yours truly

                        Tom Wescott
                        Then how do you reconcile that with the Sadler identification? Or are you also an adherent to the idea that Anderson was having memory failure? Not likely, in my book. It was one of the most high profile cases of his career. I think he would remember if the Ripper had been positively ID'ed or not, nor do I suspect he was making it up.

                        Comment


                        • To Fisherman

                          What you misunderstand--which William Le Queux did get in 1899--is that Macnaghten is launching a propaganda offensive.

                          A very effective one.

                          e.g. The police were not clueless as we had three (count 'em--three!) major suspects, one of which was just like "Jekyll and Hyde" (Major Griffiths had specifically denied this two years earlier.)

                          To the discomfort of the better classes the pair of Russian swill are sidelined in favor of one of their own-- an English gentleman!

                          Why then didn't the police arrest the mad doctor?

                          Well, his "friends" only had a suspicion and so the cops arrived too late (Sims will amplify this element into cops who are too late by a few hours. In 1905 Guy Logan will go even further with his melodrama by having a posse of cops observe from the riverbank as the Macnaghten-figure wrestles with the Druitt-figure on a bridge over the Thames).

                          Behind all this deflective data is the truth that we can get a better handle on than Edwardians: Kosminski was harmless (as Old Etonian Macnaghten knew that masturbation did not send people into spasms of ultra-violence), Michael Ostrog the defiler of beloved Eton had been cleared by late 1894, and Druitt, a young barrister and not a middle-aged medico, was not not arrested due to a lack of evidence but the lack of a pulse.

                          His 1914 memoir is much closer to the truth, because it matches other primary sources:

                          'Although, as I shall endeavour to show in this chapter, 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.

                          At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn, and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated, were by the same maniac's hand. Indeed, I remember three cases - two in 1888, and one early in 1891, which the Press ascribed to the so-called Jack the Ripper, to whom, at one time or another, some fourteen murders were attributed-some before, and some after, his veritable reign of terror in 1888. ...

                          The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms, as will be shown later on in other cases. Sexual murders are the most difficult of all for police to bring home to the perpetrators, for motives there are none ; only a lust for blood, and in many cases a hatred of woman as woman. Not infrequently the maniac possesses a diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel murderer ...

                          ... I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings. I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.'

                          There is mixture here of candour and deceit, of fact and fiction. e.g. Warren did not resign over the Whitechapel murders whilst Druitt really was a lodger. Despite the hyperbole about the Ripper being omnipotent against the forces of the state, candour arguably wins out.

                          Furthermore Macnaghten's evocative description of [the un-named] Druitt as "Protean"; as a killer virtually undetectable because he could deploy multiple faces--barrister, teacher, cricketer--with slippery ease is spot on.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                            We may not be in command of the full details but the primary reasons for suspecting Kosminski are known...

                            This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

                            The primary reason for suspicion was that he was insane and a masturbator. Hmmm. What arŕe we to make of that...
                            Then there is the bit about hating women. I have always suspected that was a reference to homosexuality.
                            Strong homicidal tendencies? If true this is not given reference in Aaron Kosminski's medical records indeed it is explicitly contradicted.
                            removed to a Lunatic Asylum not long after what Macnaghten thought as the last murder - although Aaron Kosminski wasn't.

                            And of course Macnaghten was inclined to exonerate him anyway.
                            Given the primary reason for suspicion I think we can say that we are in a better position to evaluate his guilt that the late Victorian police with all their prejudices and misconceptions - when their case was very clearly not primarily based on any criminal evidence or crime scene information.
                            This is an assumption, not ascertained fact.

                            There has been no laying down of an official reason why Kosminski was a suspect, merely explainations given in person. There may or may not be some truth in what has been stated, however as we have no authoritative clarification, what has been stated before should be noted, but not assumed.

                            Monty
                            Last edited by Monty; 11-05-2014, 05:39 AM.
                            Monty

                            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              You cant speculate as to what might have been known, when in fact nothing may have been known.

                              Suspects based on opinions have no evidential value and should not be regarded as suspects but simply persons of interest.

                              Clearly that term had not been invented in 1888 otherwise we may be looking at these so called suspects in a different light.
                              Well yes, however theres a flip side to that coin. Again, we are not party to the full facts, therefore we are building conclusions upon incomplete foundations.

                              Kosminski is named as a suspect by two contemporary constables, and alluded to by another. Im sure they are fully aware of the label of 'suspect', and had valid enough reason as to why.

                              Whether you like it not, Kosminski was clearly a suspect. Doesnt make him a killer mind.

                              Monty
                              Monty

                              https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                                Well yes, however theres a flip side to that coin. Again, we are not party to the full facts, therefore we are building conclusions upon incomplete foundations.

                                Kosminski is named as a suspect by two contemporary constables, and alluded to by another. Im sure they are fully aware of the label of 'suspect', and had valid enough reason as to why.

                                Whether you like it not, Kosminski was clearly a suspect. Doesnt make him a killer mind.

                                Monty
                                No the ones who are building facts are those who suggest that the police had enough evidence to make that person a suspect and that evidence was never disclosed.

                                Clearly we know there was no other hidden evidence otherwise it would have been disclosed in some way shape or form over the ensuing years, and the statements made by the police officials corroborates that.

                                We give the police in 1888 to much credit. Sure they did the best they could but their means of crime detection was based on three principles

                                Catching someone in the act
                                Having enough witnesses who saw the crime being committed
                                Having a suspect who would make a full confession

                                Now take a look at examples of their mindset in 1888.

                                Trying to link John Pizer to the murder of Chapman simply because they found a leather apron near the body and someone suggested Pizer was known as leather apron, and worked with long sharp knives in the leather trade.

                                Believing that by taking a photograph of a victims eyes it would show the last image that the victim saw.

                                Some suggesting using blood hounds at a crime scene when half of London had walked over the scene.

                                You can now see where the opinions came from about suspects i.e.

                                Aaron Kosminski a man living in Whitechapel who threatens his sister with a knife.

                                George Chapman a resident of Whitechapel a barber using cuthroat razors

                                there are many more.

                                So you can see how easy it would have been for these officials to have looked on some of these as suspects.

                                Now in modern times researchers have gone into a feeding frenzy with some of these names mentioned, and in some case elevating some to prime suspect status, and now they wont accept that the status of suspects they talk and write about is poorly deserved.

                                http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-...revor+marriott

                                http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ripper-A-Cen...revor+marriott
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 11-05-2014, 06:11 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X