Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh, Dear Boss: The Lighter Side of John Malcolm

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

  • Oh, Dear Boss: The Lighter Side of John Malcolm

    This episode of 'Oh, Dear Boss' welcomes researcher and author John Malcolm to the show to discuss Aaron Kosminski's current place as the leading candidate for being Anderson's suspect and also as Jack the Ripper. Associated topics are also covered with panelists Jon Rees, Karl Coppack, Robert McLaughlin, Ally Ryder and Jonathan Menges.



    Available now to stream or download from the following link:

    http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=199

    Also in iTunes, Podcast Addict, PodBean, MixCloud and any other podcast app where in-depth discussions about Aaron Kosminski, the Crawford letter, and Robert Anderson's 'Polish Jew Theory' can be found.

    Thank you to John Malcolm for being on the show, in what I hope is the first of many appearances.

    And thank you all for listening!



    JM

  • #2
    Originally posted by jmenges View Post
    This episode of 'Oh, Dear Boss' welcomes researcher and author John Malcolm to the show to discuss Aaron Kosminski's current place as the leading candidate for being Anderson's suspect and also as Jack the Ripper. Associated topics are also covered with panelists Jon Rees, Karl Coppack, Robert McLaughlin, Ally Ryder and Jonathan Menges.



    Available now to stream or download from the following link:

    http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=199

    Also in iTunes, Podcast Addict, PodBean, MixCloud and any other podcast app where in-depth discussions about Aaron Kosminski, the Crawford letter, and Robert Anderson's 'Polish Jew Theory' can be found.

    Thank you to John Malcolm for being on the show, in what I hope is the first of many appearances.

    And thank you all for listening!



    JM

    Good work Guys, a very interesting an far reaching debate.



    Steve

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks, Steve.

      We aim to please.

      JM

      Comment


      • #4
        This has been debated before .Kosminski was not a suspect .The evidence against him were low standard .If that list/pronouncement happens today, with the supposed suspect possibly being mobbed and he then have to changed his name because of the stigma ,the police will be liable for damages/retraction.I have not but it's obvious enough, ask any lawyer.
        Anderson's suspect does not matter because in the first place he did not say the witness verbally/explicitly told him he recognized the suspect but won't testify because he was a fellow Jew which I think he would have explicitly mentioned because it would have made his statement "the suspect was positively identified" (if I remember right) or something similar definite/unassailable. Then case would have made a different turn. More likely it was a hunch/read based on the reaction of the witness.


        -
        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, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
        M. Pacana

        Comment


        • #5
          Nobody knows more about it than me.

          Comment


          • #6
            Fair do's Scott. You've written some great stuff over the years.

            Comment


            • #7
              I was paid 1p for every "um", so I made out like a bandit. Otherwise, I appreciate the polite indifference.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
                You've written some great stuff over the years.
                Um...Um..Um.. It's all made up.

                Why hasn't anybody considered the possibiity that Cohen or his family had simply anglicised their last name from Kosminski to "Cohen"?

                If that happened then there were two "Aaron Kosminskis" of the same age walking around the East End in 1888.

                Of course there are no workhouse or asylum casenotes that identify the former hairdresser, Aaron, or the former tailor, Aaron David, as a Ripper suspect. I wonder why that is.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Mark my words : when Scott kicks the bucket there will be found, among his papers, a dusty and yellowing document headed "Lifetime Achievement Award - Acceptance Speech." This tragically undelivered speech will break new ground.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    One thing I have to address: When talking about the witness/suspect confrontation, I proposed a scenario where the witness may have been familiar the suspect beyond the episode in Berner St. On second thought, this is a silly suggestion.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                      Then case would have made a different turn. More likely it was a hunch/read based on the reaction of the witness.

                      -
                      That's long been my interpretation. There was no actual identification, Anderson was just reading between the lines.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So when Anderson says "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him" (Blackwoods) and "unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"(LSOMOF) and Swanson "And after this identification which suspect knew", "after the suspect had been identified", and "sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified".
                        -they were both just making an assumption based on nothing but maybe the witnesses body language and then made these pretty definitive statements based on a hunch? I don't see it. To me that opinion is more of a 'hunch' than their statements.

                        JM

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                          So when Anderson says "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him" (Blackwoods) and "unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"(LSOMOF) and Swanson "And after this identification which suspect knew", "after the suspect had been identified", and "sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified".
                          -they were both just making an assumption based on nothing but maybe the witnesses body language and then made these pretty definitive statements based on a hunch? I don't see it. To me that opinion is more of a 'hunch' than their statements.

                          JM
                          Poetic license, Jonathan.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                            Poetic license, Jonathan.
                            To put it kindly.

                            It could be that the witness stated that Kosminski was the person he had seen, but when asked to swear to it, he got cold feet. That would tally with the recollections of the officials and others. What motivated the witness to demur (that the suspect was a fellow jew) to me is the part open to more doubt than that initially a positive ID was made.

                            JM

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                              That's long been my interpretation. There was no actual identification, Anderson was just reading between the lines.
                              This line of reasoning has long been the interpretation of many. Unfortunately it leads to unnecessarily marginalizing Anderson, which in turn encourages the dismissal of the "Polish Jew Theory". It's a convenient way to avoid the confusing details, and it clears the table for imaginary suspects to be served up. That's why the myths surrounding the ex-assistant commissioner should be dispelled. The weight of "evidence" against Anderson looks formidable from a distance, but up close it amounts to an army of laughing gas filled balloons. The man was a divisive character who was equally respected and despised. There are many people in this field who I respect and admire who look at everything Anderson said with suspicion, and rightly so. But it's not good enough reason to opt for what may appear to be the simplest explanation, that the man was just blowing smoke.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X