Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Wasn't Hutchinson used to try to ID Kosminski?

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

  • #16
    As far as Hutchinson is concerned, his sighting of Kelly with a man (or "supposed" sighting, if you like) would not have actually implicated the man in Kelly's murder - mainly because the time frame between the sighting and the murder would have been undetermined (at best), whereas the sighting by Lawende would have left much less doubt that he saw the murderer, given the short span of time which had elapsed between the event and the discovery of the body of Eddowes. On a side note, I'm inclined to side with Harry D about the ID maybe not being entirely on the level. This is a very complicated scenario for us to even come close to definitively deciphering the precise circumstances. And on another note, I have the very unpopular opinion that, despite The Complete History of Jack the Ripper being one of the best narratives ever written on the subject, it's author is wildly wrong in his assessment of "Kosminski", Anderson and the ID story. That argument is for another time and place though.
    Last edited by John Malcolm; 07-10-2020, 03:42 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
      As far as Hutchinson is concerned, his sighting of Kelly with a man (or "supposed" sighting, if you like) would not have actually implicated the man in Kelly's murder - mainly because the time frame between the sighting and the murder would have been undetermined (at best), whereas the sighting by Lawende would have left much less doubt that he saw the murderer, given the short span of time which had elapsed between the event and the discovery of the body of Eddowes. On a side note, I'm inclined to side with Harry D about the ID maybe not being entirely on the level. This is a very complicated scenario for us to even come close to definitively deciphering the precise circumstances. And on another note, I have the very unpopular opinion that, despite The Complete History of Jack the Ripper being one of the best narratives ever written on the subject, it's author is wildly wrong in his assessment of "Kosminski", Anderson and the ID story. That argument is for another time and place though. Also, anyone who doubts the ID as described by Anderson & Swanson ever actually took place, really needs to unclog their bowels before jumping on the anti-Anderson bandwagon.
      The problem with the ID "as described by Anderson & Swanson" is that the description is far too vague and indecisive to be of any real help. There is also the fact that it seems that MacNaghten was either kept in the dark about the information, or he knew that it very much allowed him to dump Kosminski and go find himself a "better" suspect. I am yet to see an explanation to this that does not tickle my laughing nerve, Im afraid.

      It is so often claimed that there is no way around the ID, and when somebody asks why, no answer is given. "Anderson was the one best suited to know" and all that. In many ways, I feel the ID has been a sack of concrete tied to the ancles of ripperology and depriving it of air as it sinks to the bottom of the murky waters involved. If you can help me out of that feeling, Id actually be grateful. It sounds tempting, with Sugden being completely wrong and all that. I do not exclude it in any way, but Id like to know how and why.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
        As far as Hutchinson is concerned, his sighting of Kelly with a man (or "supposed" sighting, if you like) would not have actually implicated the man in Kelly's murder - mainly because the time frame between the sighting and the murder would have been undetermined (at best), whereas the sighting by Lawende would have left much less doubt that he saw the murderer, given the short span of time which had elapsed between the event and the discovery of the body of Eddowes. On a side note, I'm inclined to side with Harry D about the ID maybe not being entirely on the level. This is a very complicated scenario for us to even come close to definitively deciphering the precise circumstances. And on another note, I have the very unpopular opinion that, despite The Complete History of Jack the Ripper being one of the best narratives ever written on the subject, it's author is wildly wrong in his assessment of "Kosminski", Anderson and the ID story. That argument is for another time and place though.

        Much appreciated John.

        I feel safe when you are around

        What a great writing style!


        The Baron

        Comment


        • #19
          While Im at it, I should perhaps add that I do not rule out in any way that some sort of identification was made, nor do I rule out that it involved Kosminski. What I do not believe, however, is that the identification was in any way decisive. It may well only have established a presence in the vicinity of a murder sport, as far as Im concerned.
          Once again, my thoughts turn to MacNaghten; he was aware of Kosminski, and he was under the impression that Kosminski was a better suspect than Thomas Cutbush. To me, that speaks of Mac having been informed about the efforts by his predecessor, Anderson. Once MacNaghten nevertheless opts for Druitt instead, that tells me that whatever that identification was all about, it was not something that could possibly have Kosminski hanged. The alternative is that MacNaghten was informed about Kosminskis existence, but now about the extent of the evidence.
          And how likely is that...?

          Add to this how Michael Ostrog was seemingly not anything like what he was described as in the memoranda, and it becomes clear that we are not exactly on terra firma listening to the bigwigs of the Met.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
            And on another note, I have the very unpopular opinion that, despite The Complete History of Jack the Ripper being one of the best narratives ever written on the subject, it's author is wildly wrong in his assessment of "Kosminski", Anderson and the ID story. That argument is for another time and place though.

            Sugden exonerates Kosminski as a suspect a few pages later, mainly because the surviving notes that paint Kosminski as an incoherent, unwashed lunatic eating out of the gutter don't jive with Anderson's portrait of a cunning homicidal maniac.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by tanta07 View Post


              Sugden exonerates Kosminski as a suspect a few pages later, mainly because the surviving notes that paint Kosminski as an incoherent, unwashed lunatic eating out of the gutter don't jive with Anderson's portrait of a cunning homicidal maniac.
              As with everything else involving the ripper, no one author provides all the information. For a convincing case on Kosminski read "Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect".

              Sudgen's book is excellent but far from exhaustive in the suspect department. I usually skip those chapters when I'm re-reading it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                While Im at it, I should perhaps add that I do not rule out in any way that some sort of identification was made, nor do I rule out that it involved Kosminski. What I do not believe, however, is that the identification was in any way decisive. It may well only have established a presence in the vicinity of a murder sport, as far as Im concerned.
                Once again, my thoughts turn to MacNaghten; he was aware of Kosminski, and he was under the impression that Kosminski was a better suspect than Thomas Cutbush. To me, that speaks of Mac having been informed about the efforts by his predecessor, Anderson. Once MacNaghten nevertheless opts for Druitt instead, that tells me that whatever that identification was all about, it was not something that could possibly have Kosminski hanged. The alternative is that MacNaghten was informed about Kosminskis existence, but now about the extent of the evidence.
                And how likely is that...?
                If the identification did happen according to Anderson, I think there was some inference on his part, particularly as to the witness's motives for not testifying. If the witness was unwilling to shop a fellow Jew, I don't believe he would've positively ID'ed the suspect in the first place.

                Comment


                • #23
                  ive seen quite a few people criticize sugden on the koz chapter. whats wrong with it? and what issues do you have with his assessment that lawende was the witness. he pretty much puts the nail in the coffin in that regard IMHO.

                  i know he "exhonerates" koz in the end, which i dont neccessarily agree with- i still think hes one of the better suspects, but other than his conclusion in this regard what does he get "wildly wrong"?


                  and yes this is germaine to the discussion in this thread.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    If the identification did happen according to Anderson, I think there was some inference on his part, particularly as to the witness's motives for not testifying. If the witness was unwilling to shop a fellow Jew, I don't believe he would've positively ID'ed the suspect in the first place.
                    hi harry d
                    well according to anderson the witness didnt fing out he was a jew until after he IDed him.
                    i think its obvious some kind ID took place somewhere, two police corroborate it with detail, and that lawende was the witness and koz the suspect.

                    lawende was probably like i think thats the guy but cant swear to it. and that ended it. over the years it grew in Andersons mind into something more definite than it was. it dosnt need to be any more complicated than that, and it probably wasnt.

                    the only mystery left is where the id took place and what first brought koz to the attention of the police. but to me that isnt even that big a mystery either nor that pertinant. probably a family member or doctor and it was probably the knife incident with his sister that was the catalyst.

                    so for me the only interesting mystery left in the koz ID story is where exactly did the ID take place?
                    Last edited by Abby Normal; 07-11-2020, 02:59 PM.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      the only mystery left is where the id took place and what first brought koz to the attention of the police.
                      It is not a mystery Abby, MacNaghten tells us that Kosminski

                      " had a great hatred of women specially of the prostitute class, and had strong homicidal tendencies"


                      Their detectives must have questioned and interviewed tens or hundreds of women and got these informations about Kosminski.



                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                        It is not a mystery Abby, MacNaghten tells us that Kosminski

                        " had a great hatred of women specially of the prostitute class, and had strong homicidal tendencies"


                        Their detectives must have questioned and interviewed tens or hundreds of women and got these informations about Kosminski.



                        The Baron
                        Hello Baron.

                        Hundreds of women would seem to be quite a stretch. And you have to wonder if he introduced himself by name saying "hi there, I'm Aaron Kosminski and I have a great hatred of women especially of the prostitute class." They were probably very short conversations.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          so for me the only interesting mystery left in the koz ID story is where exactly did the ID take place?
                          Not when and by whom?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Which detective would have read George Hutchinson's description of the blinged-up Astrakhan Man and thought to himself, blimey that's Aaron Kosminski, the Jew who refuses food from others because he is told to do so and eats out of the gutter for the same reason?
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              Which detective would have read George Hutchinson's description of the blinged-up Astrakhan Man and thought to himself, blimey that's Aaron Kosminski, the Jew who refuses food from others because he is told to do so and eats out of the gutter for the same reason?
                              Hi Simon
                              And we must not forget Macnaghten then eliminated Kosminski in the re write.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hi Trevor,

                                Spot on.

                                We must never allow logic to intrude upon our Ripperological ruminations.

                                Stay well.

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X