Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Cogidubnus]

That's always been at the back of my mind GUT...though interestingly there's that mention of a City Policeman as a witness...and this being the case I believe their Seaside Home was at Ramsgate...so a convalescent copper at either Hove or Ramsgate...

On reflection, could the "difficulty" be concerned with the Met taking a prisoner of theirs, to the City Police Seaside Home for a confrontation ID?

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

That's always been at the back of my mind GUT...though interestingly there's that mention of a City Policeman as a witness...and this being the case I believe their Seaside Home was at Ramsgate...so a convalescent copper at either Hove or Ramsgate...

On reflection, could the "difficulty" be concerned with the Met taking a prisoner of theirs, to the City Police Seaside Home for a confrontation ID?

All the best

Dave

Colney Hatch to Ramsgate is close to 100 miles. That's a long way to take Aaron Kosminski for an identification - unless the witness was bed-ridden and there was no alternative.

[Amanda]

Mmm...

To Amanda

But is an an assumption or theory or belief.

It has to be, because it assumes--perhaps correctly--the following primary source is wrong and inaccurate and empty:



Washington Post (Washington, D.C.)
4 June 1913

FATE OF JACK THE RIPPER
Retiring British Official Says Once Famous Criminal Committed Suicide
London Cable to the New York Tribune
The fact that "Jack the Ripper", the man who terrorized the East End of London by the murder of seven women during 1888, committed suicide, is now confirmed by Sir Melville Macnaughten, head of the criminal investigation department of Scotland Yard, who retired on Saturday after 24 years' service.

Sir Melville says:

"It is one of the greatest regrets of my life that "Jack the Ripper" committed suicide six months before I joined the Force.

That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea as to who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me."

Hi Jonathan,
No disrespect but can we really rely on a newspaper report that appeared 30 years AFTER 1888?
As with many other theories, discussions and memoirs, stories and recollections get changed with time.

Amanda

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

Colney Hatch to Ramsgate is close to 100 miles. That's a long way to take Aaron Kosminski for an identification - unless the witness was bed-ridden and there was no alternative.

IF that's where the prisoner was, (remember, on this occasion he was returned into the care of his brother, suggesting an earlier date rather than later), but even so, with a bed-ridden or otherwise fragile witness it might explain the "with difficulty" perhaps?

All the best

Dave

[Jonathan H]

A late primary source can be reliable.

Especially if it matches earlier primary sources saying exactly the same thing, as Macnaghten in 1913 and 1914 does, matched against the "West of England" MP sources of 1891 (and George Sims in the same year).

[harry]

Absence of proof is self desciptive.That there may have been proof is assumption that in itself requires proof.Then there is belief,but a belief is proof of nothing unless accompanied by some persuasive and reliable item of information or evidence.,and where is that evident in assessing either Druit or Kosminski as the Ripper..All very well to have a firm belief in the integrity and honesty of individuals,but in the absence of those individuals providing the necessary information,one should do it for them if a proper and realistic answer be claimed.

[Jonathan H]

To Harry

That's all completely wrong.

You are talking about an absolute solution, based on evidence to be weighed up in a courtroom (Lizzie Borden got off by the way).

That's long, long gone.

All that we can have is historical arguments based on what peope said at the time was the solution.

Can you live with a probable solution, whilst other less probable solutions must coexist with it? And it's all in the eye of the beholder?

I realize some here cannot. Fair enough--you will only settle for the Moon.

But to then dismiss a probable solution as hopelessly improbable because it is not absolute is total bollocks!

[Defective Detective]

I'll explain it in the simplest way I can:

If the Memorandum never existed - if no police official ever nominated Kosminski as Jack The Ripper - and some contemporary just happened to come across his details in the asylum records, he would be passed over without a second glance.

[Jonathan H]

Even with the memorandum--and the name "Kosminski"-- Martin Fido, in 1987, passed over Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's suspect when he stumbled upon him in the asylum records.

[harry]

I am not talking about absolute solution.What I expect before a person is labelled suspect,is some definite piece of evidence that links a person to a crime.Doesn't matter that the crime w as committed long ago,or whether it was committed yesterday,the basic rules apply.Claims need provenance.To claim either Kosminski or Druit was the ripper, based on historical arguement appears to me an unlikely method of reaching the truth,as one solution has to be wrong,You think Jonathan,I am talking bollocks.just stand back and consider how many probable solutions,using your method,has to be wrong also.

[Jonathan H]

As I wrote, you have to accept a provisional solution for an historical mystery, because the evidence is not, and cannot be available to us in any absolute sense.

You have the so-called 'rules' quite wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Actually Trevor made a good point with regard to the whole Seaside Home thing. Why take Kosminski to the witness when it would surely be easier to take the witness to wherever Kosminski was?

Trevor himself would argue, I think, that the incident never took place but if it did, it would suggest (to me anyway) that it would have been even more difficult to do things the other way round. Why would that be?

Hi Bridewell
Why at that location is anybodies guess but Both Swanson and Anderson remember the Seaside incident in some detail so we can be pretty sure it happened.

"with difficulty" of course probably refers to both the remoteness of the location, logistics, and getting approval from the doctors/institution.

My guess, is the police didn't say he was a suspect, but was a possible witness (which is kind of true) and he was needed at that location.

Perhaps it was to avoid the publicity of bringing him to a police station in the city and/or some technicality in getting the doctors approval that they did it at the Seaside home.

[Abby Normal]

Im not sure if this has been brought up before-but perhaps Kosminski was initially brought to the attention of the police by levy the witness that was with Lawende. Has it not been discovered that he was possibly Kosminiski's cousin or some such relation? And that he seemed to be reluctant?

Could Joseph Levy have also been the seaside witness and NOT Lawende?

[Fisherman]

Im not sure if this has been brought up before-but perhaps Kosminski was initially brought to the attention of the police by levy the witness that was with Lawende. Has it not been discovered that he was possibly Kosminiski's cousin or some such relation? And that he seemed to be reluctant?

Could Joseph Levy have also been the seaside witness and NOT Lawende?

But if Levy was very closely aquainted to Kosminski, then why bring him down to the Seaside Home at all? He would be certain without seeing Kosminski, wouldn´t he?
Plus, of course, why did he not come forward immediately if he had recognized Kosminski in Church Passage?
Why wait until he was asked?
Because he did not really want to identify Kosminski?
Then why did he do so anyway?

It does not pan out in my opinion.

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

Absence of proof is self desciptive.That there may have been proof is assumption that in itself requires proof.Then there is belief,but a belief is proof of nothing unless accompanied by some persuasive and reliable item of information or evidence.,and where is that evident in assessing either Druit or Kosminski as the Ripper..All very well to have a firm belief in the integrity and honesty of individuals,but in the absence of those individuals providing the necessary information,one should do it for them if a proper and realistic answer be claimed.

Harry
As said elsewhere, we often see the consequence, but don't see the action that caused the consequence , or don't see what motivated the action. In this case, we know Druitt and Kosminski were suspects (the consequence), but we don't know why. You won't ever get the proof/evidence/reason you want because it doesn't exist anymore.