Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 34 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (7 posts)
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - (6 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121  
Old 05-12-2015, 08:34 AM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But the reality is that we can only comment on the facts we do know about and those facts do not make sense. This is a fault of yours whereby you keep wanting to refer to something that might have been, or something that might have been written to negate the reality of the facts that are known. Based on that every event in history could be viewed differently.

It still doesn't add up for the family to have taken him. And there is nothing anywhere to suggest that Kosminski was ever ensconced in any other establishment other that the two we know about.

After all would the family want to co operate with the police in an event which may have resulted in their relative being hanged ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Trevor,
I suppose if you restricted yourself to pontificating about things you understand, you wouldn't have much to pontificate about, but it is tiresome having to correct your nonsense over and over.

One of the most basic but important responsibilities a historian has is to put the facts into context. In this case the 'fact' is that an informed and intelligent source in a position to know states that the suspect was sent to the seaside home and was there identified by an eye witness. That, Trevor, is what you call 'the reality of the facts'. To you that doesn't make sense, but you weren't there and you have no idea of what circumstances, perhaps extraordinary circumstances, made it necessary for them to do what they did. However, Swanson, a senior policemen, was there and there is every reason to believe was well versed in proper police procedure, was there and he tells us what happened. So, you can argue your nonsense from a position of utter ignorance, or you can accept what the source tells us and try to explain why things happened in the way our informed and intelligent source tells us they did.

Now, if you look back and actually bother to read the exchanges with a view to actually understanding them, you will notice that Harry asked who would have taken the suspect to the seaside home if the police didn't do it. I replied with the perfectly reasonable conjecture that an obvious first choice would be his family.
You will observe that I do not 'keep wanting' to suggest might have beens, I am simply answering a question with a conjecture. I can do nothing else. Nobody can. And Harry must know that. It is a given.

But if you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot so often, please keep making a fool of yourself. At least you are keeping us amused.

Now, if you don't think it adds up for the family to have taken him, state why. As many good reasons as you can muster.

Would the family have wanted to cooperate with the police when doing so could have resulted in their family member being hanged? Probably not, but how did they know that this was an option? Did they believe their family member was Jack the Ripper? Did they know he had been seen? Did they know the police intended to confront him with the witness? Did they know the witness would positively identify him? Did they feel they had much of an alternative but to do what the police wanted? Were they intimidated or threatened?

You are speculating that the family wouldn't have taken their relative to the seaside home, but there are numerous reasons why they might have done so.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 05-12-2015, 08:52 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
There would be a prosecution file created by the police, and passed on to their solicitors, who would review the evidence and decide if the case is sound enough to go to court. They make that call.

If a charge is withdrawn, there would be an entry in the withrawn charges book. However, he may not have been charged at all.

Monty
Hi Monty
Thanks. Yes, to me it seems, if Anderson is to be taken at his word, that it was a fact they had their man, then he would have at least charged kosminski, and as you pointed out, let the Prosecutor make the call to proceed.
__________________
"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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 05-12-2015, 09:17 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I doubt the ID by itself would have been regarded as anything like sufficient, particularly if Lawende was the witness.
I agree. Lawende had publicly stated that he doubted whether he would know the man again.

And even if he had been sure, and had cooperated with the police, the identification would have fallen short of proving the man he had identified was the murderer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 05-12-2015, 09:24 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
Trevor,
I suppose if you restricted yourself to pontificating about things you understand, you wouldn't have much to pontificate about, but it is tiresome having to correct your nonsense over and over.

One of the most basic but important responsibilities a historian has is to put the facts into context. In this case the 'fact' is that an informed and intelligent source in a position to know states that the suspect was sent to the seaside home and was there identified by an eye witness. That, Trevor, is what you call 'the reality of the facts'. To you that doesn't make sense, but you weren't there and you have no idea of what circumstances, perhaps extraordinary circumstances, made it necessary for them to do what they did. However, Swanson, a senior policemen, was there and there is every reason to believe was well versed in proper police procedure, was there and he tells us what happened. So, you can argue your nonsense from a position of utter ignorance, or you can accept what the source tells us and try to explain why things happened in the way our informed and intelligent source tells us they did.

Now, if you look back and actually bother to read the exchanges with a view to actually understanding them, you will notice that Harry asked who would have taken the suspect to the seaside home if the police didn't do it. I replied with the perfectly reasonable conjecture that an obvious first choice would be his family.
You will observe that I do not 'keep wanting' to suggest might have beens, I am simply answering a question with a conjecture. I can do nothing else. Nobody can. And Harry must know that. It is a given.

But if you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot so often, please keep making a fool of yourself. At least you are keeping us amused.

Now, if you don't think it adds up for the family to have taken him, state why. As many good reasons as you can muster.

Would the family have wanted to cooperate with the police when doing so could have resulted in their family member being hanged? Probably not, but how did they know that this was an option? Did they believe their family member was Jack the Ripper? Did they know he had been seen? Did they know the police intended to confront him with the witness? Did they know the witness would positively identify him? Did they feel they had much of an alternative but to do what the police wanted? Were they intimidated or threatened?

You are speculating that the family wouldn't have taken their relative to the seaside home, but there are numerous reasons why they might have done so.
You just dont understand the reality of life do you ?

Would you have taken a relative given the same circumstances knowing that the outcome may be a hanging?

If the police came knocking at your door with such a request would you not want to find out more about it and not just go along for the ride, and when you found out more about it would you then agree. No you wouldn't nor would anyone else. So stop hypothesizing with ridiculous scenarios.

www.trevormariott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 05-12-2015, 09:27 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
I agree. Lawende had publicly stated that he doubted whether he would know the man again.

And even if he had been sure, and had cooperated with the police, the identification would have fallen short of proving the man he had identified was the murderer.
Hi Chris
I agree too. Which means it also falls short that it was definitely ascertained fact, according to Anderson, that they got the ripper and therefor Anderson greatly exaggerated when he used those words? no?
__________________
"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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 05-12-2015, 09:33 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
I agree. Lawende had publicly stated that he doubted whether he would know the man again.

And even if he had been sure, and had cooperated with the police, the identification would have fallen short of proving the man he had identified was the murderer.
Hello Chris,

Thanks for the reply. What do you think of Stewart Evans' hypothesis concerning the reasoning underpinning Anderson's opinion of Kosminski as prime suspect? He suggests that, in addition to the witness ID, Kosminski's name would have been on the list of local individuals who were deemed to have the ability to remove blood stains in secret: this was as a result of the police's house-to-house inquiries in October, 1888.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 05-12-2015, 09:34 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi Chris
I agree too. Which means it also falls short that it was definitely ascertained fact, according to Anderson, that they got the ripper and therefor Anderson greatly exaggerated when he used those words? no?
Yes - I don't think there are many people, if any, who take Anderson's claim at face value.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 05-12-2015, 09:35 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You just dont understand the reality of life do you ?

Would you have taken a relative given the same circumstances knowing that the outcome may be a hanging?

If the police came knocking at your door with such a request would you not want to find out more about it and not just go along for the ride, and when you found out more about it would you then agree. No you wouldn't nor would anyone else. So stop hypothesizing with ridiculous scenarios.

www.trevormariott.co.uk
Trevor
Those are not ridiculous scenarios-theyre actually good questions.

How the heck do we know what the family thought at the time?

Maybe they felt they had a moral obligation to work with the police, if they though he was the ripper?
Maybe they were the ones who originally brought him to the polices attention when he threatened his sister with a knife?
Maybe he scared the **** out of them and they wanted him gone?
Maybe the police were pressuring them to assist in the ID?
Maybe they did not know that an ID was going to take place?
Etc.
Etc.

There is any number of reasons the family could have worked with the police.
__________________
"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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 05-12-2015, 09:45 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Thanks for the reply. What do you think of Stewart Evans' hypothesis concerning the reasoning underpinning Anderson's opinion of Kosminski as prime suspect? He suggests that, in addition to the witness ID, Kosminski's name would have been on the list of local individuals who were deemed to have the ability to remove blood stains in secret: this was as a result of the police's house-to-house inquiries in October, 1888.
I don't agree with that. I think the sense (such as it is) of Anderson's argument is that:
(1) during the house-to-house inquiry the police had eliminated all the men who lived alone and could therefore get rid of blood stains in secret,
(2) therefore the killer was being protected by the people he lived with,
(3) only low-class Jews would shield a killer, so the killer must have been a low-class Jew.

The homes of Aaron Kozminski's siblings lay outside the area covered by the house-to-house inquiry.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 05-12-2015, 09:48 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,405
Default

Hi Paul,

To spare you the bother of further patronising Trevor, let us put a few facts about the marginalia into context.

If you read Charles Sandell's 15th April 1981 letter and subsequent unpublished report sent to the News of the World you will find that it is riddled with errors. The date of publication of TLSOMOL is five years too early and Donald Swanson was not in possession of a copy signed by SRA. But most noticeable about Sandell's reporting of the marginalia is the absence of the name Kosminski. He is not mentioned once. The closing line—surely the consummate historical clincher "Kosminski was the suspect"—is conspicuous by its absence.

It was to make its first appearance in 1987 when the story was successfully sold to the Daily Telegraph.

Jim Swanson had to tell Charles Sandell that in referring to 'the suspect' his grandfather meant Kosminski. This is fascinating, for earlier in the article Jim Swanson was reported as saying that after his grandfather "had retired in 1903 he did reveal to members of the family that he knew the true identity of Jack the Ripper, but wild horses would not drag the name out of him . . . He thought he would take the name to the grave with him."

So in 1981 how, in the absence of "Kosminski was the suspect" on the endpaper of TLSOMOL, did Jim Swanson know to whom his grandfather was referring?

Regards,

Simon

Last edited by Simon Wood : 05-12-2015 at 09:55 AM. Reason: spolling mistook
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.