Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I think Major Smith of the City Police was aware of the ID and probably sanctioned it, but reluctantly. He interviewed the witness before the ID "parade" to see if any meaningful result would transpire, but the witness told Smith he wouldn't be able to recognize the suspect again. Smith, under pressure from the MET, let it happen anyway.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
      All the dirty business of Shawlgate aside, is Aaron Kosminski still the most compelling Ripper suspect based on all the known facts of the case?
      Maybrick HAS to be number One in the suspect list but I think Kosminski should be in the top 10 most likely

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fanatic View Post

        Maybrick HAS to be number One in the suspect list but I think Kosminski should be in the top 10 most likely
        Well... Kosminski lived in the area. He had mental health issues and had been aggressive towards his sister. That's about it really.

        Maybrick was ... Well, without the diary, nothing at all. Every bit of the "stacks" of evidence comes from the diary.

        Kosminski is an unlikely candidate, but he is at least a candidate.
        Thems the Vagaries.....

        Comment


        • I just can't see a 23 yr old being responsible for these murders. Kozminski was just too young.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • When was Kosminski the best suspect in the first place?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

              Well... Kosminski lived in the area. He had mental health issues and had been aggressive towards his sister. That's about it really.

              Maybrick was ... Well, without the diary, nothing at all. Every bit of the "stacks" of evidence comes from the diary.

              Kosminski is an unlikely candidate, but he is at least a candidate.
              hi al
              well he is the only suspect that has a shred of evidence against him, the possible positive id, so theres that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                I just can't see a 23 yr old being responsible for these murders. Kozminski was just too young.
                Is this based on him being 23 and somehow a 23 year old couldn't have done this, or witness sightings which suggest an older man?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  The marginlia s flawed, as is the content

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  When I looked at it a long while back, my hunch was/is that there is something not quite right with the marginalia, and so I didn't take it for granted.

                  Has there been any further developments in assessing the marginalia, in particular has anything come to light that reasonably diminishes its credibility?

                  Comment


                  • I was always intrigued by a line from Anderson which went something like: "I am tempted to disclose the identity.........but no public good would come from it".

                    Public good would have been derived from disclosing the name, given it would have demonstrated the police were/are capable of tracking down murderers which of course is more than useful to the public.

                    I wonder why: 'no public good from come it' meant it wasn't a good idea to disclose the identity of the murderer.

                    Comment


                    • I felt House put forth a good argument for Kosminski being the prime suspect. But since I've been following these forums the past few years; any doubt I had has increased.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
                        I was always intrigued by a line from Anderson which went something like: "I am tempted to disclose the identity.........but no public good would come from it".

                        Public good would have been derived from disclosing the name, given it would have demonstrated the police were/are capable of tracking down murderers which of course is more than useful to the public.

                        I wonder why: 'no public good from come it' meant it wasn't a good idea to disclose the identity of the murderer.
                        My interpretation was that he believed violating police ethics by naming a suspect based on moral evidence was not worth it - although he was fairly certain.
                        Last edited by Filby; 08-09-2022, 07:01 AM. Reason: errors

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Filby View Post

                          My interpretation was that he believed violating police ethics by naming a suspect based on moral evidence was not worth it - although he was fairly certain.
                          That's a reasonable interpretation. I wouldn't disclose the identity of a man who hadn't been put before a court of law either.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                            When was Kosminski the best suspect in the first place?
                            I must admit, when I wrote it at the time I knew it was a loaded question And Kosminski is not my preferred suspect (if I had one).

                            However, he is a named suspect who official sources tell us was positively identified but escaped justice on a technicality.

                            We can question the validity of those claims and Kosminski's suitability, but we can't say this about any other suspect.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Filby View Post

                              My interpretation was that he believed violating police ethics by naming a suspect based on moral evidence was not worth it - although he was fairly certain.
                              While I think that is a reasonable interpretation, I'm not convinced it is the answer.

                              Anderson was quite happy to disclose that the murderer was 'a low class Polish Jew'.

                              I think that is bad manners and certainly not in the public interest given that no one had been convicted. We didn't have the same issues with anti-Semitism that they did in continental Europe, but we did have a very small minority capable of getting a mob together underpinned by racial prejudice, e.g. Mosley and associates. It wouldn't be in the interests of public harmony to declare the murderer was a 'low class Polish Jew' (assuming Anderson had in mind 'the public interest' when making his claim).

                              So, it is not clear to me why Anderson didn't go the whole hog and disclose the name. 'Not being in the public interest' doesn't stack up at this juncture.

                              On the police ethics point, I think it would be violating police ethics to disclose 'a low class Polish Jew' when no such man had his day in a court of law.

                              Comment


                              • Only Mary Ann Cox got a good look at the suspect,with Blotchy.
                                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                                M. Pacana

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X