Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Jonathan H]

Trevor

Thetre is no evdince whatsoeevr that Montague Druitt was a homosexual.

It is a modern theory treated as fact.

I agree with you that the police, or factions thereof, intiially believed that Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles were Ripper victims.

Druitt died too early, and for that matter Aaron Kosminski was sectioned too late and too early.

[Monty]

Yes but I was bored for two minutes

Yeah, but I bet you're regretting it now.

Monty

[David Andersen]

(2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. 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 circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

Well if Macnaghten made him a 'Strong Suspect' then I don't think anyone here can say he is not a suspect. Especially when we don't know what the 'many circumstances' connected with him were.

Rob

'Made him a strong suspect' is quite different from 'makes him a strong suspect' dont you think? This strongly suggests that Mac is indicating that he had considered Kosminski, at some time, as a suspect, but did not at the time of writing his memo.

[harry]

As Trevor writes,it is not what the senior police at the time,and later ,says,it is the lack of evidence that prove their claims..There lies the problem.What evidence is there against Kosminki , what information even,that can place him at a seaside home,or at any murder location.There should be some.He was sent or taken.By whom?He was identified.By whom?.In what manner?Of doing what ,or being where?Of killing who?

[Hatchett]

By the same measure there is no evidence at all against Druit.

[Jonathan H]

To Hatchett

Macnaghten does not characterize it as "evidence" against Druitt in his memoir.

How could he?

The suspect was long deceased.

Yet "certain facts" came to his attention "some years after" which meant that he could arrive at a "conclusion"; "in all probability" (meaning it could never be a solution tested in court) this had been the murderer.

If the police chief can be shown to be reliable source then this is likely the solution--isn't it? But it can't be absolute, now or then.

If they were ambiguous "facts" Macnaghten could have reassured the Druitts that they were quiteb wrong--for one thing McKenzie and Coles were killed by the same fiend so ... they could all relax.

[Rob Clack]

'Made him a strong suspect' is quite different from 'makes him a strong suspect' dont you think? This strongly suggests that Mac is indicating that he had considered Kosminski, at some time, as a suspect, but did not at the time of writing his memo.

Yes it does David. Taken together with what Macnaghten also says about Druitt there was no evidence against either of them. They were both suspects.

Rob

[Jonathan H]

To Rob Clack

You are very sure, aren't you, that you know more about Montague Druitt than Melville Macnaghten did?

You are so certain that there was no evidence against him--at all.

[Rob Clack]

To Rob Clack

You are very sure, aren't you, that you know more about Montague Druitt than Melville Macnaghten did?

You are so certain that there was no evidence against him--at all.

Yes pretty much. Unless you want to call hearsay evidence.

[Fisherman]

Here´s a number of statements and reflections from this thread, that I´d like to comment on. I will leave some other comments uncommented on, since they really deserve no comment.

Unless we know for certain what brought Kosminski to the attention of the police then we have to keep an open mind.

A wise enough reflection - judge when you have the facts, not before. I am all for it. The problem, however, is that many of those who suggest an open mind in this fashion, then move on to say that Kosminski must be regarded as a very good or even a prime suspect.
How is that keeping an open mind?
Kosminski belongs to the picture, since Anderson promoted him as a suspect. As long as we have that promotion, Kosminski cannot be taken off the list without hard evidence that tells us that we must do so.
But categorizing him as a good, main or prime suspect without knowing why Anderson pointed to him, is to do history no favour at all.

What in this do we know to be "crap"?

Nothing much in Kosminski´s case. I think the suggestion that Kosminski was a homicidal maniac with a hatred for women, specifically prostitutes, IS crap. But I don´t know it, and I cannot provide the evidence to prove me right in this specific case.
There are things we know are crap, like for instance the notion that Kosminski died soon after his incarceration - but it only works if we consider Aaron Kosminski as THE Kosminski. If he was, then that point, for example, is crap.
If he was not, the point may be spot on - but if THAT applies, then the accusations against Aaron are crap.
So there IS crap involved on some levels.

I wouldn't classify Kosminski as a prime suspect, one of the main suspects yes, as I would with Druitt.

He is one of the suspects that must be considered, that´s all. He cannot per se be a main suspect, a strong suspect or a prime suspect. That all lies with the evidence - which we don´t have. We are taught a useful lesson by the Ostrog example: they could be very, very wrong at the top. And that lesson must be weighed in before we get it into our heads that we are able to make a viable weighing of a suspects status with no evidence at all to guide us.

Why not simply accept that these things are wrong and move on?

Because we do not know that they are wrong, just as we do not know that they are right either.

I think it is foolish to dismiss them out of hand.

It would not only be foolish, but also totally destructive. We may list reasons for why we do or do not believe that these men are good suspects, since that status can and should be discussed. Their status as suspects is not up for discussion, however.

Since it is at times implied that I am dismissing Kosminski and Druitt out of hand, this will go to show my sentiments about them. I have seen precious little to tell me that they are good suspects, but I have seen even less to tell me that they should not be suspects at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Thetre is no evdince whatsoeevr that Montague Druitt was a homosexual.

It is a modern theory treated as fact.

I agree with you that the police, or factions thereof, intiially believed that Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles were Ripper victims.

Druitt died too early, and for that matter Aaron Kosminski was sectioned too late and too early.

So how can anyone safely believe what has been said and written by any of these officers without any corroboration.

Where does the real truth lie? Well it lies with the likes of Major Smith and James Monro who were at the top of the tree. If there was any evidence other than these assortments of un corroborated historical opinions given by MM and Anderson then they would have known, and we would have known. So those facts show that whatever these other officers thought they knew was nothing more than an uncorroborated theories or opinions.

Can you provide any evidence which shows he wasn't a homosexual?

Can you show that the reason for his dismissal wasn't as a result of impropriety with the boys?

Can you show any evidence to show the reason for his suicide

Now Jonathan please answer the questions in a simple way. We don't need to hear your "own" thoughts based on what MM may have thought or said or any others for that matter.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes it does David. Taken together with what Macnaghten also says about Druitt there was no evidence against either of them. They were both suspects.

Rob

Hi Rob

How can a person become a suspect without anything to connect them to the crime. Surely just a person of interest would suffice. But I accept that wasn't a term used in 1888. But it is now, and when we look at the lack of evidence there is now against these perhaps we should consider downgrading them to persons of interest.

What a thought just imagine how it would change ripperology !

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob

How can a person become a suspect without anything to connect them to the crime. Surely just a person of interest would suffice. But I accept that wasn't a term used in 1888. But it is now, and when we look at the lack of evidence there is now against these perhaps we should consider downgrading them to persons of interest.

What a thought just imagine how it would change ripperology !

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Hi Trevor,

As I said. We don't know what brought Druitt and Kosminski to the police. We can guess all we like but we don't know the exact details. And probably never shall. And just because we don't know doesn't mean we should discard them. Macnaghten, Swanson and all the other police officials were there. We weren't and I would rather find out what they thought and there reasonings over some of the theories we get today.

Rob

[PaulB]

But this thread is all about the best suspect, isn't prime suspect the same?

Rob, I am not singling you out specifically in this reply. but what you have stated above is typical of researchers who wont accept that what has been written does not stand up to close scrutiny and prop their beliefs up by continually saying exactly what you have said that any errors they made which we have now identified were unintentional, or by saying we simply we didn't know what they knew, as to why they said what they said.

Why not simply accept that these things are wrong and move on?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Trevor
Okay, so Rob says he doesn't think Macnaghten knew where Ostrog was in 1888 until after he'd written the marginalia.

You reply by saying that Rob is making excuses for Macnaghten. Macnaghten, you say, doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. He was wrong, you say. Accept it and move on, you say.

Whose close scrutiny are you refering to?

If it's your close scruitiny, do you have any evidence that Ostrog's whereabouts in 1888 were known to Macnaghten when he wrote his memorandum?

Or is this "close scrutiny" just your wishful thinking?

[PaulB]

Hi Rob

How can a person become a suspect without anything to connect them to the crime. Surely just a person of interest would suffice. But I accept that wasn't a term used in 1888. But it is now, and when we look at the lack of evidence there is now against these perhaps we should consider downgrading them to persons of interest.

What a thought just imagine how it would change ripperology !

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

"When we look at the lack of evidence there is now against these people we should consider downgrading them to persons of interest."

Really? Why? Just because we lack the evidence today, doesn't mean they lacked it back then. Why do you presume that they did?

Very often when we look at the past we see the consequence of an action, but sometime we don't see the action, or, when we do, we don't know the reasons for it. But we don't deny the consequence just because we don't know what caused it it. But that is what you are repeatedly doing. We know that some people were believed to have been Jack the Ripper (the consequence), but we don't know why (the action). You try to use our ignorance to deny the consequence.

That doesn't work. It doesn't work for policemen. It doesn't work for historians. It doesn't work for anyone.