Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

Sit down ... I agree totally.

Ha! I notice now that you agreed about the status of Kosminski and not about Lechmere automatically being a suspect. My, do I get carried away at times!!

... but of course, you are welcome to agree to this too - since it is patently and obviously true.

Then again, maybe I should not get greedy?

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Ha! I notice now that you agreed about the status of Kosminski and not about Lechmere automatically being a suspect. My, do I get carried away at times!!

... but of course, you are welcome to agree to this too - since it is patently and obviously true.

Then again, maybe I should not get greedy?

The best,
Fisherman

Best not Fisherman.

Cross has the same problem as every other suspect, there is so much material missing we are left with nothing but speculation.

IF and you will note it's a big if, I could accept that the police didn't make even the most basic inquiries into not only the man who found a body but also a witness at the inquest you would have an argument, I just find that proposition too hard to swallow.

[PaulB]

No, you are not - it all makes eminent sense. This thread should be called "Is Kosminski still a suspect?", and that question answers itself: Yes.

Whether he is a good, bad, half-arsed, exquisite, ridiculous or top suspect is not something we can establish until we know the full reasons for the suspicions against him.

The best,
Fisherman

Precisely. However, how the police or individual policemen viewed him is different from hos we view him.

That Anderson and Swanson said he was Jack the Ripper make him top dog suspect for us to research. Why? Because Anderson was in a position to know the evidence against every serious suspect and he evidently dismissed all of them except Kosminski. If we knew why he favoured Kosminski we might be able to say he was talking through his bottom and move on to the next candidate. But we don't know why (though Jonathan might argue that we do), so we can't.

[PaulB]

You did not deal with any of the specifics I raised, which are one example after another of either a crumbling memory of he was never properly briefed (or was misled).

These have been raised by others, such as the late Phillip Sudgen (full transparency: Sudgen thought Macnaghten a virtually discredited primary source too).

The 'Sailor's Home' theory of suspect confusion--or suspect substitution--between Tom Sadler and Aaron Kosminski (or "Kosminski") isn't mine. It is the theory of Evans and Rumbelow from 2006.

"Unacceptable" is strong language.

That Macnaghten can be shown to know that "Kosminski"was alive whilst Anderson arguably thought he was deceased, and the latter was wrong and the former was correct, is not "tweaking".

It's a fact. It is not my fault nobody noticed it before.

Or is it?

You want to see "unacceptable" revisionism, check this out:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...murder-mystery

Jonathan,
I explained in some detail why the suspect and witness both being Jews was important to Anderson. I also explained in some detail why it is doubtful that Anderson would have been confused over who Jack the Ripper was, no matter how poor his memory was about minor particulars. These do not support the argument that Anderson was confused about the identity and ethnicity of the suspect.

As for Sugden, it's a sorry state of affairs that rather than face the problems presented by Anderson and Kosminski head on, he dodged the issue and invented geriatric wishful thinking for Anderson on the basis of a passing remark by H.L. Adam and then had to reluctantly make the same excuse for Swanson on the basis of nothing at all..

That there are differences between Macnaghten and Anderson, including the one you mention, was noticed before, but no reasonable explanation was offered. It's a fact, I didn't include it as 'tweaking'. 'Tweaking', or violating the source, is blatantly changing what a source says, as in trying to make the witness and suspect a Jew and a Gentile when the source makes it clear that they were both Jews.

That's not to say you can't correct a source, but you have to have a lot of very good reasons before doing so. Nothing approaching a very good reason has been offered in this case.

Sorry,

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks!

After that, I am fine with people reasoning that this must mean that the police cleared him back then, but there are several objections that can be raised against such a thing:

There is - of course - the fact that they seemingly did not delve deep enough into the man to find out his true name.

There is the fact that he was allowed to leave the murder site unsearched.

There is the fact that the police may have been put to sleep by his double appearances with them, seemingly coming forward by his own free will.

... and thereīs of course the objection that this is not a Lechmere thread, so Iīll leave it for now. But I am glad to hear that common sense can still be found out here every once in a while.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Crossing (!) posts!

So on the basis of you illogical reasoning everyone who finds a body is to be regarded as a suspect ? Lets look at some similar examples

Annie's Chapman body was discovered a little before 6.00am by John Davis, a carman who lived on the third floor of No.29 with his family. After alerting James Green, James Kent and Henry Holland in Hanbury Street, Davis went to Commercial Street Police Station before returning to No.29.

Killer or not, suspect or not ?

John Reeves left his lodgings in the George Yard Buildings at 4:45 AM. By this time the light was improving inside the stairwell. Reeves also noticed the body on the first floor landing but he was also aware that it was lying in a pool of blood. Reeves went off to find a policeman.

Killer or not suspect or not ?

12:50 A.M.: PC Andrews returns to Castle Alley on his regular beat, about twenty-seven minutes having passed since he left the area. This time, however, he discovers the body of a woman lying on the pavement, her head angled toward the curb and her feet toward the wall. Blood flowed from two stabs in the left side of her neck and her skirts had been lifted, revealing blood across her abdomen, which had been mutilated.

P.C. Andrews heard someone approaching the alley soon after, and ordered the man (Lewis Jacobs) to stay with the body while he went to fetch help.

Now does this ring a bell? Pc Andrews killer or not, suspect or not

You see this whole Cross suggestion would appear to be based on the fact that he gave a false name. Which is not quite correct as the "false" name he gave was a name he had been using previous and had genuine reasons for using that name, and the name not intended to deceive or mislead anyone by its use.

And the crucial question you cannot seem to answer is "Why didn't he run when he heard footsteps approaching?"

[GUT]

G'day Trevor

You see this whole Cross suggestion would appear to be based on the fact that he gave a false name. Which is not quite correct as the "false" name he gave was a name he had been using previous and had genuine reasons for using that name, and the name not intended to deceive or mislead anyone by its use.

Whilst I suspect it's true is there actually any proof that he used the name previously?

[pinkmoon]

If cross was the ripper then why did he hang round after the Nichols murder instead of legging it of like he did on all the other murders.

[PaulB]

But this is the point, we know that a lot of the police records were destroyed clearly some of the ripper records were included in the destruction. However as I stated previous why should it be assumed that important ripper documentation was destroyed. When they may not have anything of importance in the first place to destroy.

Because it is improbable that senior policemen would have said that someone was Jack the Ripper without good reason. That good reason isn't in the files, therefore it is very reasonable to assume that it no longer exists.

Why is this a proposition you find difficult to comprehend?

The general facts point to that being the case.
As I also stated the facts surrounding this case and the police opinions clearly suggest that they didn't have anything.

So senior policemen actually do state that someone was Jack the Ripper without any evidence to support them?

It all gets back to how researchers interpret the term suspect and many are interpreting it in the wrong context here.

I think they are using 'suspect' in the same way as people usually use it, then and now, as someone upon whom suspicion has fallen. How do you think they are using it.

Having worked in murder incident rooms over many years I have seen first hand the information gathering process and how it is assessed and evaluated.

Good for you.

But of course suspects wont be dropped or eliminated from this simply because that term, which keeps being thrown up "well they must have know something and we don't know what that was" keeps getting thrown up despite the weight of evidence to negate that, and evidence to show that they didn't know anything

Gobbledygook.

Time for a change ?

Change? That's inevitable, except from a vending machine (as they say), but it will come from research, lots of research.

[Trevor Marriott]

G'day Trevor

Whilst I suspect it's true is there actually any proof that he used the name previously?

From what I have been told it is suggested that Cross was born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1858 and it is reported that his mother married a Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took and used his surname thereafter.

[GUT]

From what I have been told it is suggested that Cross was born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1858 and it is reported that his mother married a Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took and used his surname thereafter.

The only document I've seen was a census record when he was just a tyke, about 11 I think. I'd love to actually see proof that he used that name. But again I believe that he probably did but cannot beleive that the police didn't visit his place of work and/or his home.

[Jonathan H]

Anderson claims a Liberal Home Sec. put him under pressure about the Whitechapel murders.

We correct that partisan howler, don't we?

Plus I don't agree with Sudgen's explanation of double geriatric musings.

Nor with the consensus that Anderson is holding anything back, except for one thing: that the suspect was deceased--which he wasn't.

You say this was noticed before (that Mac knew "Kosminski" was alive). Do you know what secondary source says that?

You're going to despise my book Paul, as it's one long, unacceptable twerkathon.

[Trevor Marriott]

The only document I've seen was a census record when he was just a tyke, about 11 I think. I'd love to actually see proof that he used that name. But again I believe that he probably did but cannot beleive that the police didn't visit his place of work and/or his home.

Well if Cross wasn't Lechmere, and was the killer, and wanted to give a false name, how uncanny is it that he just happened to pick the name Lechmere out of all the false names he could have picked?

Well they probably did but were happy with what they found so something like that may never have been recorded.

On another note we have been talking about the police, what they knew and what they did, and the conclusions they arrived at. Now I for one don't subscribe to the idea that the police are the police and that what they said and did must must be accepted without question.

I have just come across another mistake made by Swanson of marginalia fame ! in his report date Oct 19th 1888 in which he states that the body of Nicholls was found by two men on their way to work.

[Fisherman]

Best not Fisherman.

Cross has the same problem as every other suspect, there is so much material missing we are left with nothing but speculation.

IF and you will note it's a big if, I could accept that the police didn't make even the most basic inquiries into not only the man who found a body but also a witness at the inquest you would have an argument, I just find that proposition too hard to swallow.

Make the leap: Theorize that the police did not look into him thoroughly. Then look at the rest of the evidence and see what happens.

False name. Lying to Mizen. Paul never heard him. The wounds were covered. His working routes ant times tally with the killings.

So if you dare to take the leap - where does that leave you?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I am sure they made basic inquiries, such as asking him many times about the events. I am a lot less sure that they checked his identity. The fact is, we all MUST be, since they got the wrong name. If they HAD checked his identity, they would have gotten the right name. Plus we cannot dismiss him on account of a police protocol that we cannot produce. That would be outright silly.

[Fisherman]

Precisely. However, how the police or individual policemen viewed him is different from hos we view him.

That Anderson and Swanson said he was Jack the Ripper make him top dog suspect for us to research.

Yes, he must be researched. But that is not the same as accepting that we should regard him in any way graded as a suspect.

The need to research him must be regarded as high.

His grading as a suspect cannot be established.

It therefore applies that the title of the thread is useless. We donīt know if he ever was the best suspect (other than according to Andersons claims), and we canīt tell his suspect status now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Double posting