Ripperologist 129: December 2012

[Michael W Richards]

Im interested in what this Mr Rowlands has to say as well Lynn....thanks for the tip Dave.

The argument that "suspected for one, suspected for all" isnt really supported by the known evidence Bridewell. Lets set the senior, non-medical officials opinions aside. What we are left with are the opinions of the men who were trained to examine corpses and to deliver an opinion on the manner and instruments used to kill the women. They also were responsible for categorizing the wounds inflicted....i.e. skillful, adept, clumsy, knowledgeable...etc.

Their cumulative results based on the examinations of the Canonicals? Their opinions differ. On the skill, the knife, the manner it was used, left or right handed, ....on much of the evidence,.. including the possible motivations for the murders based on the existing physical evidence.

There never was a single killer of the 5 by any contemporary, scientific, medical consensus....excluding Bonds thoughts. Since he saw only 1 of the 5 in death, he could easily have been mistaken. He also reverses his opinion when addressing Alice MacKenzie. There has always been a single killer of the 5 according to the non-medical opinion and a myriad of assumptions.

Although I believe that the evidence, what is left of it, reads today like it must have nearly 125 years ago, I dont believe there is evidence of any incompetence, a lack of effort, or a unsuitable brain trust on the part of the officials.

What influenced their thinking and doesnt, or shouldnt, influence ours?

The immediacy. The suddenness, the chaos, the frustration,.... the fear.

Its possible to experience 2, or more, distinctly unique weather patterns as if they were actually 1 larger pattern, when they are closely grouped and similar in basic structure.

I think that is what likely happened here.

All the best

[lynn cates]

book

Hello Dave. Thanks.

The titles of many ripper books sound similar, so I would have to think about that.

Book sounds interesting. Perhaps I should spend some money? (Blasphemy!--heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

You've not read "The Crimes of Jack the Ripper" then? I have to confess it's something I only just got hold of.

In the general account of the killings he's, in some places, just a tad superficial, but in his overall summing up he's a bit more detailed, and you might well be interested in his conclusions...

All the best

Dave

PS He's more Levy than Issenschmidt, but the principle he espouses reminds me of you!

[lynn cates]

Quien?

Hello Dave. Paul Rowlands?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Rippers one, two and three

Not if you subscribe to Paul Rowlands theory, which ain't that far from Lynn Cates' theory, which ain't that far from Michael Richards' theory, which ain't that far...oh never mind!

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

The implication is that if we can solve one murder then we have a suspect for all 5.

Surely if we solved one murder we would have a suspect for all 5? Not necessarily a known offender, but a man who would, of necessity, become suspect of the other murders in the same locality.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

I would suggest you read the article, Mike, because you may be mis-interpreting what both Martin and Rob were relating.

My comments were really to address only Robs comments Hunter, this bit in particular ..."Seems to me the more obvious next step would be to think is strengthens Kozminski as a potential Ripper suspect ."

The inference is that if Kosminski killed Stride it would be a reaffirmation of his viability for the Ripper crimes as a suspect. My point being if a case could be made for Kosminski as Strides killer that does not translate to his obvious candidacy for all 5 murders. The implication is that if we can solve one murder then we have a suspect for all 5. Not so.

Simply put, some of the Canonical may well be one-of's, Stride may be one of them.

Cheers Hunter

[Hunter]

I would suggest you read the article, Mike, because you may be mis-interpreting what both Martin and Rob were relating.

[Michael W Richards]

As he now seems to concede that Kozminski may have killed Stride, is the logical next step to dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim? Seems to me the more obvious next step would be to think is strengthens Kozminski as a potential Ripper suspect. But this is too simple... clearly people are too stubborn and prejudiced against Kozminski as a Ripper suspect to come to such a conclusion.

RH

Hi Rob,

The cliche above Rob is that if someone is probably the killer of ANY Canonical then automatically they must be considered culpable for the entire Group.

I havent read the article, but I know already that Stride is logically the least likely victim within the Canonical Group,.. for obvious reasons. And we know that Kozminski was merely suspected of the murders by Macnaughten.

This is still about 5 unsolved murders, as it always has been, not above 5 unsolved murders by one man. There is no hard evidence that supports that theory. Never was.

So exploring whether a man known by the police might have committed a single murder wthin the group is very valid exploration. Provided of course there is evidence that supports that idea as well.

All the best

[S.Brett]

Thanks!

So one can imagine:

The crazy Jew David Cohen (07/12/1888 Whitechapel Infirmary), and other crazy Jew/people, an example is the „Terror of the City of London Police“ Hyam Hyams (29/12/1888 Whitechapel Infirmary) were typically… mere chance… they had nothing to do with Jack the Ripper (presumably Aaron Kozminski)… am I correct…?

[robhouse]

Hello Rob!

What do you think about the David Cohen story?
Is it important?
Is there a link between Aaron Davis Cohen and Aaron Kozminski?

Were Aaron Davis Cohen and Aaron Kozminski one and the same person?

Is it possible that the police confused David Cohen with Aaron Davis Cohen (Kozminski) at least for a few hours?

Greetings S. Brett.

I have never thought Martin's theory was very plausible, because it is too convoluted... it requires way too much confusion on the part of the police, and I think the only way it is plausible is if you have n opinion of the MET and Scotland Yard as the Keystone Kops. Among other things, there has never been any support for the notion that Nathan Kaminsky and David Cohen were the same person. So no... I do not see much value in it, or in Martin's new theory, which is again quite convoluted. I dont think there is any connection between Aaron Cohen and Aaron Kozminski, and I don't think the police were confused on the identity of their suspect.

RH

[S.Brett]

Hello Rob!

What do you think about the David Cohen story?
Is it important?
Is there a link between Aaron Davis Cohen and Aaron Kozminski?

Were Aaron Davis Cohen and Aaron Kozminski one and the same person?

Is it possible that the police confused David Cohen with Aaron Davis Cohen (Kozminski) at least for a few hours?

Greetings S. Brett.

[robhouse]

Well, I still haven't seen much if any real discussion of Martin's piece. I have seen a few people say it's a good article, but I am not sure why.

Most of the ideas he presents are, in my opinion, pretty uninspired and insupportable. For example, I do not really understand why, all of a sudden, he seems to think Kozminski may have killed Stride, but not the others. It has been known for years that Kozminski lived in that neighborhood. Why all of a sudden does he think Kozminski killed Stide? And Stride only?

His position is that Kozminski couldn't have been the Ripper, largely because of what it says in his asylum record, and he claims that Paul Begg agreed with him on this point... although Paul Begg has stated recently he disagrees with this. As he now seems to concede that Kozminski may have killed Stride, is the logical next step to dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim? Seems to me the more obvious next step would be to think is strengthens Kozminski as a potential Ripper suspect. But this is too simple... clearly people are too stubborn and prejudiced against Kozminski as a Ripper suspect to come to such a conclusion.

RH

[lynn cates]

book

Hello Rob. Thanks. Statement in "Rip" looked stronger. And although I consider many ripper books a must read, an article is less expensive and more easily accessible.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

Martin stated as much in his book, did he not?

RH