Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[The Baron]

I don't believe Schwartz could so easily have recognised BS-man as a Jew, or that would have been in his statement.
He was clearly describing a gentile.

What are you even talking about??!

and who suggested that the witness knew the suspect was a jew before the identification took place?


You are writing just for the hell of it, smoke and mirrors.. nothing more, you have nothing



The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

Ostrog is better!



The Baron

Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

Who from your list of witnesses above is the one who had ever had a good view of the murderer?!

If no one, then why bringing them here?!

The witness spoken of, had a good view of the murderer and he unhesitatingly identified the suspect

For a start Baron it’s a very well known fact, and just as relevant today, that witnesses can be mistaken. We might also ask, if the killer was definitely identified why wasn’t it announced? Why didn’t Anderson name him? All we have is Swanson. Kosminski was of the lowest class at the time. A man incarcerated in an asylum and who died in an asylum. Why did no one at anytime later simply announce him as the killer? Why did Swanson keep quiet on the subject for the rest of his life? Was this nobody so worthy of protection that the Police were happy to continue being the men that couldn’t catch the ripper?

There are questions to answer on every suspect. Kosminski is a valid suspect. He might have been the ripper.

As none of us know who the murderer actually was then how can we say for certain who saw him? This is the problem. You keep stating your opinions as if they are proven facts when anyone can see that they aren’t. No one else is doing that. None of us are saying that Druitt was definitely guilty only that there is a possibility and because he was named by a very senior police officer that he has to be considered seriously. Of course MacNaghten might have felt that the evidence against Druitt at the time was strong but he might still not have been the ripper but any suggestion that he simply plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air just because he died after the Kelly murder doesn’t hold water. He could have chosen any number of random people who would have appeared to have been a more likely suspect because of their history. But he didn’t. He named Druitt. Why?

Because he felt that he had good reason to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Or are we going down that road where we claim age is hard to determine at night?
It certainly is, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Stride were estimated to look younger than their real age due to their bodies being found by people who didn't know them - unlike Kelly.
So at night the recorded evidence appears to suggest people look younger in poor light. Which means our middle-aged suspect was likely older than he looked, not 10 years younger

Ill echo Wick’s question. Please post a reference to where the victims were said to look younger than they were. I’ve certainly seen it written that they looked older than their actual ages due to drink and their harsh lifestyles but not younger. I’m guessing that you’re simply making this up. I’m also guessing that you won’t answer this question.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Comparing orange to apple and women to men

I wonder if there are any scientists who can confirm this theory?

Baron reckons that light reacts differently on men than it does on women?

You heard it here folks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The witness spoken of, had a good view of the murderer and he unhesitatingly identified the suspect

Name the witness and provide evidence for the claim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know who the witness was, Schwarz or someone else.. One thing I know as stated by Sir Anderson, a witness that had a good view of the murderer, and Swanson built his notes upon this too, so it has been corroborated.

Even you cannot tell, if some of the men I know are in their 23 or 30..

That is a sure thing.



The Baron

That’s your idea of a sure thing is it?

Why didn’t Anderson name him?

Why didn’t Swanson name him (apart from the Marginalia?)

Schwartz suspect used an anti-Semitic insult which doesn’t fit the Jewish Kosminski.

Like Druitt Kosminski had no real history of violence.

I still accept Kosminski as a suspect though. If only you could be unbiased too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What are you even talking about??!

and who suggested that the witness knew the suspect was a jew before the identification took place?


You are writing just for the hell of it, smoke and mirrors.. nothing more, you have nothing



The Baron

Schwartz BS Man wasn’t Jewish. Kosminski was.

How is that an ‘identification?’

[The Baron]

Ill echo Wick’s question. Please post a reference to where the victims were said to look younger than they were. I’ve certainly seen it written that they looked older than their actual ages due to drink and their harsh lifestyles but not younger. I’m guessing that you’re simply making this up. I’m also guessing that you won’t answer this question.

Actually it is Weckerman who said this and suggested that the women looked younger than they were, not me.



Now you will go back and withdraw your post...

Gotcha!

May I suggest you try to read and understand before you rush post ?! I am sure I asked you this many times..



The Baron

[The Baron]

I'm guessing that you're simply making this up.

You mean Wickerman is simply making this up?!



Apology would be wise.



The Baron

[The Baron]

And Kosminski is the best suspect in the case, he is the only person in history that we have a direct evidence against, the seaside identification.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually it is Weckerman who said this and suggested that the women looked younger than they were, not me.



Now you will go back and withdraw your post...

Gotcha!

May I suggest you try to read and understand before you rush post ?! I am sure I asked you this many times..



The Baron

. Gotcha!

You really are pathetic aren’t you?

There is a huge difference between you and me and it’s your complete lack of integrity. Whenever I make an error I admit them and hold my hands up. Everyone makes mistakes. Which I do now - I was mistaken on that point (although it would have been easier to differentiate if you could use the quote function properly.) But when you make one (and you make them in every post) you don’t acknowledge them.

I won’t forget in a previous thread when you and Fishy wouldn’t accept that most people didn’t own watches and clocks at that time. You never apologised about being wrong about that piece of childishness no matter how many times it was mentioned.

The problem is that your posts are such unmitigated balderdash that it’s hard to read them without shaking your head and laughing so it’s easy to miss one piece of nonsense amid the flood of nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Kosminski is the best suspect in the case, he is the only person in history that we have a direct evidence against, the seaside identification.



The Baron

Which is your opinion.

Not a fact.

These however, are facts…..

The location of the Seaside Identification hasn’t even been identified.
The witness hasn’t been identified.
Anderson never mentioned Kosminski.
We know that witnesses can be mistakes.

Kosminski is in the top tier of suspects but an identification which we have no evidence for is not direct evidence. Saying ‘I don’t think that Druitt was the ripper is fine,’ but anyone who says “Druitt definitely wasn’t the ripper” is an idiot.

[The Baron]

You really are pathetic aren't you?

There is a huge difference between you and me and it's your complete lack of integrity. Whenever I make an error I admit them and hold my hands up. Everyone makes mistakes. Which I do now - I was mistaken on that point (although it would have been easier to differentiate if you could use the quote function properly.) But when you make one (and you make them in every post) you don't acknowledge them.

I won't forget in a previous thread when you and Fishy wouldn't accept that most people didn't own watches and clocks at that time. You never apologised about being wrong about that piece of childishness no matter how many times it was mentioned.

The problem is that your posts are such unmitigated balderdash that it's hard to read them without shaking your head and laughing so it's easy to miss one piece of nonsense amid the flood of nonsense.

-Don't run away, you are not finished here just yet, tell me, do you still believe the women looked older than they were, or you will choose to be guided again from a fellow Druittis and change your belief exactly to the contrary, that the women looked younger than they were?!


Besides, you claim that in a previous thread I didn't accept that most people didn't own watches, could you show me or anyone a post or a quote where I said that?

Or you are making this up ?!

Gotcha again!

Read and learn, is my advice to you.



The Baron

[The Baron]

What is obvious,when considering the number of persons who have been named as suspects,is that we need a means of defining what 'Suspect' means. Especially so,when writing of the Whitechapel killings,and the fact that police investigating those killings,held a view that there were no suspects.

Agree Harry, even Macnaghten has been introduced as a ripper suspect!

Although I grant you he would make a better suspect than Druitt or Maybrick for example.

But we need to use the word 'Suspect' more wisely I would say.



The Baron