Packer and Schwartz

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

I am sorry to see that the last gasp of the Polish Jewish suspect has been reduced to this -- a street map.

From the dizzying heights of last year's DNA slam dunk, to the desperation of ... he lived nearby.

[Jeff Leahy]

You see what I mean: on the other site it was claimed that if Anderson really had confused home secretaries that was a fatal blow for the Kosminski theory.
.

At least what I don't do is make ridiculous claims like 'macnauhten knew what happened to Kozminski' When is you actually care to read what he says in the memoranda its clear he doesn't have a clue after March 1889.

But then thats typical of someone who states there opinions as facts, I couldn't but help a smile of amusement at your criticisms of Anderson, pees in a pod

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Then IF the original records could be found (first committal), your case would be greatly furthered (of course, you already know this).
Cheers.
LC

Of course putting all the pieces of the jig-saw together is the ultimate goal, but as you know you can't predict research..

I tend to look at the suspect as a whole.. Its the nature of my dyslexia

Check out this map... It has nothing to do with what Anderson says or what MacNAughten thought its simple Geography that demonstrates why Kozminski is a credible suspect

Balance that against Druit.. A man who lives in Black Heath and travels to his lodgings via Canon Street station and was playing cricket the morning Annie Chapman was murdered..

The simple geography suggests if Druit were Jack, then given what we know about serial killers we'd expect a wider spread of kills...

If Kozminski was the ripper then apart from Stride he met all his victims within a matter of yards

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

No worries.

You see what I mean: on the other site it was claimed that if Anderson really had confused home secretaries that was a fatal blow for the Kosminski theory.

These were not my words, but another's.Once they were proven wrong then, completely predictably, the goal posts were moved again.

Notice how the other sources I mentioned, which he gets utterly wrong, like Cox and Sagar are left out of his response.

What the 1908 interview with Anderson shows is not only that he does not recall anything accurate about the Whitechapel murders, but also what a mean-spirited, self-serving, insufferable old buzzard he really was.

[Jeff Leahy]

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

Unfortunately Lynn there was only one Lust serial killer at work mutilating bodies..Which in my opinion includes MacKenzie but not Mylett or Coles but possibly Farmer?

I guess the big problem therefore is always Stride..given the timings , the locations and the man seen in Church passage and with a woman in Aldgate

I think we can conclude Double event

Yours jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Indeed. But Anderson was out of town for most of the slayings.

[/QUOTE]

Yes just in time to be made aware of the Batty Street Bloody shirt mid October 1888

1. he was LIASING whilst others investigated

Yes he would have seen all the reports and been aware of the main lines of enquiry.

2. he may or may not be giving his considered opinion about Kosminski.
Cheers.
LC

Kozminski was the suspect

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"But I do think these communities would be aware of people amongst them who seemed a little 'odd'."

Very well. But my point was that--as you have pointed out many times--we do NOT know when his episodes began. If no episode, perhaps no behaviour. And if no behaviour . . . ?

Cheers.
LC

As I said schizophreniacs often show signs of anti social behaviour in there teens, but full blown psychotic episodes typically early twenties

I was just referencing the nature of local gossip..everyone knowing each others business in the local shop

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

No apology, no concession.
]

Thats because your theory contains as many holes as a colander...

As I've demonstrated Anderson clearly had no clue of the Rippers ID in August 1889 but had clearly formed his theory by 1892. Long before MacNAughten wrote his memoranda

Hadcourt WAS the Home Secretary but earlier pre-1888, so this is clearly a simple error on Anderson's part..

We simply don't require a complex conspiracy theory to explain MacNaughten reason to cover up of Druit..

As I've demonstrated on several occasions it is clear from the MacNAughten Memoranda that he did not have a clue what happened to Kozminski after March 1889...

This is clear as he clearly states and knows that Ostrog is alive where as for Kozminski he simply places in brackets (I believe he still is) in other words he is uncertain what happens to him..

Mac continues to give greater detail from the Kozminski file over later years to a curious Sims.

The only real mystery is why everyone believed that Kozminski died presumably after or around his transfer to Leavesdon in 1894.

This is indeed curious as Abberline states this in 1903, and Swanson clearly believes this to be the case. of course we now know that Anderson kept in contact with the head of Colney Hatch and would almost certain be kept informed, so either Anderson deliberately created the story that Kozminsi was dead to protect the family from potential repercussions (Bear in mind from a point of view this is the case once someone reaches 'Burn Out ' dead to the world)

or and this is curious: There was a clerical error of some kind. I say this because once Kozminski reach Leavesdon the records up to 1910 suddenly disappear.. Only the last few years of Kozminski's life are actually recorded, was there just a simple ****-up?

Which ever you choose to believe what can be said is NacMAughten didn't even join the force until well after the whole affair was done and dusted and Kozminski was in a Private Asylum in Surrey...And MacANughten didn't have a clue that he was again back on the streets in December 1889.

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Jonathan. Thanks. Much appreciated.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

bingo

Hello Jeff.

"Strangely we know there were other serial killers in the area in a comparatively short space of time, whether or not Chapman and Cream were Jack the Ripper they were still serial killers..."

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello (again) Karsten.

"We do not know how many murderers were on the loose. Maybe, there was another serial killer (Torso murders) and if the Ripper killed the C5 only, there were still the murderers of Smith, Tabram, Mackenzie and Coles."

NOW you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

converse

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

"Some of them are known to be "crazy" before and after an episode. "Crazy" in terms of their illness but it does not imply that they are "normal" between their episodes."

True. But neither does it imply the converse.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

records

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

"What we know from these two interviews, is that Anderson failed to catch his man in August 1889... but had caught and solved the mystery by 1892.

So something happened between these dates to change his mind, and bang slap in the middle Kozminski enters the asylum for a second time in Feb 1891."

Then IF the original records could be found (first committal), your case would be greatly furthered (of course, you already know this).

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Swanson

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"The problem is that MacNaughten didn't even join the force until well after Kozminski was placed in an Asylum (March 1889)."

Indeed. But Anderson was out of town for most of the slayings.

"And you seem to be forgetting that Swanson was the man in over all responsibility for the investigation... and probably the best and most reliable copper on the force."

A great copper; however:

1. he was LIASING whilst others investigated

2. he may or may not be giving his considered opinion about Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

behaviour

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"But I do think these communities would be aware of people amongst them who seemed a little 'odd'."

Very well. But my point was that--as you have pointed out many times--we do NOT know when his episodes began. If no episode, perhaps no behaviour. And if no behaviour . . . ?

Cheers.
LC