Since I said I would answer your last post yesterday, I am doing so now. However, I will not take it point by point, since I have no wish to create a 560 page opus...
There are many matters where I think you misunderstand what I am saying, and you reply accordingly. But I will not be part of quibbling away over them, since that has happened too many times in the past.
I have isolated a few quotes that I will comment on, and that is going to be that. If you feel hard done by for your effort, or if you have any wish to have me answering some of the points you made and that I leave unanswered, then say so. In the past, many a poster who made innumerable points have exclaimed "Fish cannot answer that!" or "So you didnīt dare to answer that", so Iīm kind of hoping that you wonīt resort to that tactic.
Here are my quotes:
"Richardson clearly shows that Phillips suggestion is incorrect, it's not an attack on Phillips, he simply lacked the knowledge to make an accurate estimation. it didnt exist in 1888 ... Therefore unless we have other reasons to doubt the testimony of Richardson, we should accept the body was not there at 4.30."
Problem: Richardson does not even show that Phillips was incorrect if he told the truth - and we cannot know that he did. In another thread, I posted sketches of how the body could actually have been hidden from sight to Richardson even if it was there, something that R J Palmer was kind enough to confirm after having made a small experiment of his own. Plus, of course, the fact that Richardson is on record as having claimed different things on different occasions when it comes to where he was, is an "other reason" to be very doubtful about his testimony. Ergo, we must NOT accept that the body was not there at 4.30. And I remain totally unconvinced that Phillips could have made the kind of mistake that is suggested - not that he could not be wrong about the TOD to a degree, but he could reasonably not be wrong on it to the kind of degree that is suggested!
Thats the point, I do not need to fit him to such a tight time line, as is imposed by Lechmere's hours of work.
If he is the man spoken of by Cox and Sagar, then night time excusions seem to have been often.
To treat a total lack of information as a treasure trove of possibilities is not something that will bring Kosminski on par with Lechmere in terms of viability as a suspect. It would be to say that any person that is in any way connected to a crime scene is a less likely candidate to be the killer than one who is not. That is not how proper investigation work is carried out.
Likewise, we know quite well that Lechmere would have had an isolated reason to pass the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street murder sites in the early mornings. Pointing out that Kosminski is a better bid since he may have had ANY reason to be there at ANY time does not float my boat. Sorry, but there you are.
The problem with the Cox and Sagar material is of course that your sentence about their activities starts with an "If".
To use the negative arguments you use time after time, there is nothing to say Kosminski is not there in Bucks Row at around 3.40.
MY "negative argument" is that since we KNOW that Lechmere trekked to work via Bucks Row and the area inbetween Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street in the early morning hours, that means that he fits the bill, broadly speaking, for all the murder sites, not only the one we know he was at. Much as we canīt tell for sure that he did his trek on every murder morning, logic dictates that this is the likely thing.
YOUR "negative argument" is that even though we DONT know that Kosminski was in the area on the murder nights, we cannot exclude the possibility that he was.
Lechmere is viable, he lived in the area.
He found the body of Nichols,and gave a name at the inquest that was not that he was baptised with. However it was one he had the legal right to use, and which he may or may not have been know by at work ... The very same applies to Kosminski.
No, "the very same" does not apply to Kosminski other than in the weakest of meanings - they both COULD have killed the Ripper victims. As in "it canīt be proven that they did not". But that distinction is a worthless and blurring one. The two are in fact not the very same at all, with Lechmere having been confirmed as having ties to the murder areas, all of them, and having a reason to pass by or visit them, all of them, and being up and about in the early morning hours. Plus he was found alone in Bucks Row, standing near the body of Polly Nichols.
Kosminski is not even confirmed to have been in London on the murder days, he had no reason to traverse the murder areas in the early morning hours and he was not found at any of the sites, let alone standing in solitude close by a freshly killed victim.
He DOES fall woefully short of Lechmere once we look at the details. The one instance where he has the upper hand is that somebody named Kosminski was named as a suspect in Swansons copy of Andersons autobiography, but no sooner did Anderson leave his office than his follower on the post named ANOTHER man as HIS prime suspect. While OTHER police bigwigs disagreed with both men.
That, however, ensured that a man named Kosminski has been inextricably linked to the Ripper saga, and he will remain there. But Aaron Kosminski does not play the role of an investigationwise strong card, since no investigation has turned up any connection to the case at all on his behalf.
One man was there, the other may have been. One man had reason to walk the killing fields, the other may have had. One man had reason to be a nocturnal guest in the area, the other may have had. One man has been tied to one of the murder sites in person, meaning that it is a proven thing that he was at the site at the approximate time the victim was killed, the other may have been at all or any of the murder sites at all or any of the times when the victims were killed. Just like Mr Muffin of Heneage Street, old Tom Twicklethumb of Norwhich and Diddles the cat may have been. Supposedly making them as viable as Lechmere and "the very same" as him?
Kosminski, like Lechmere is viable, he does not fall short at all.
In just about every respect, he actually does. That does not mean he is not viable, but it does mean that there is really nothing at all to connect him to the crimes but for Andersons scribblings.
Thank you for the reply, needless to say i disagree with most of your views.
However I am in the process of moving into a new flat, plus finishing book, so it may be tomorrow before I give the propper and deserved response.