Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Steve S]

And if there is information we don't know? Can't know? Wont know? Hell yes! That is important. That is exciting. That is a pretty wonderful thing to know about the source.

I can think of nothing more terrible than the idea that we know enough to stop being excited or interested in something just because it does not point directly to proof positive of any given suspect.

Pretty much my viewpoint...I recall one author writing he didn't understand why people researched the victims ancestry because it had no bearing on who the killer was......It's a huge subject with different facets for different people.......

[John Wheat]

What actual evidence is there against Kosminski? Because I can't find any.

[GUT]

So is everyone on the same page that Anderson's "poor Polish Jew" was conclusively Kosminski, and we can dismiss Fido's 'David Cohen' theory?

I think that is the present consensus

I think that there are people who have doubts about it being Aaron Kozminski

[Bridewell]

You are wrong, Harry is right what Anderson or Swanson later said about what happened outside of their presence is hearsay,

It would be if they were not actually present. Do we know that they weren't?

[Bridewell]

Incidentally I am eighty seven(87) years old today,16-11-1927)Cannot prove it here ,it is just a claim,partly hearsay, as I have no recollection of being born,and those others present have passed on.However, the large amount of documentation that exists,plus a few persons of long standing who can bear witness,and whose integrity is beyond reproach,leads me to the belief that I can justly claim that age, historically at least. Cheers.

You probably have a certificate to prove it though, Harry. Happy Birthday!

[Bridewell]

Historical records are only of use if they can be proven to be totally accurate and totally reliable.

Trevor, this simply cannot be right because it would mean that a document which was only partially accurate and partially reliable was worthless. The UK Census Records, for example, are only partially accurate but they remain an invaluable research tool.

[robhouse]

Article in the Jewish Forward on Kozminski. I was interviewed for this...

http://forward.com/articles/209121/jack-the-ripper-one-of-us-no-thanks/

Rob H

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, this simply cannot be right because it would mean that a document which was only partially accurate and partially reliable was worthless. The UK Census Records, for example, are only partially accurate but they remain an invaluable research tool.

In some cases they do, but not in others we may know where someone was living in the 1881 census but that doesn't mean that seven years later they were still at the same address.

[Trevor Marriott]

It would be if they were not actually present. Do we know that they weren't?

We dont but as has been suggested by others I think it is highly unlikely and the example I gave was simply a hypothetical one, but one, which is probably correct.

[PaulB]

In some cases they do, but not in others we may know where someone was living in the 1881 census but that doesn't mean that seven years later they were still at the same address.

Nobody in their right mind would expect the 1881 Census to tell us where somebody was living in 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nobody in their right mind would expect the 1881 Census to tell us where somebody was living in 1888.

Well you got that right, now perhaps you should pass it on to those who use old addresses of suspects to show they resided near to the murder scenes or that they had a long lost aunt who did.

[robhouse]

Well you got that right, now perhaps you should pass it on to those who use old addresses of suspects to show they resided near to the murder scenes or that they had a long lost aunt who did.

Who did this, may I ask?

[Phil Carter]

What actual evidence is there against Kosminski? Because I can't find any.

Hello John,

Nailed in one. There isn't any.


best regards


Phil

[PaulB]

Well you got that right, now perhaps you should pass it on to those who use old addresses of suspects to show they resided near to the murder scenes or that they had a long lost aunt who did.

If I find somebody doing that I will be pleased to do so on your behalf, Trevor. But that would be somebody misusing a source, a point you did not make.

You wrote, 'Historical records are only of use if they can be proven to be totally accurate and totally reliable.

Bridewell replied, 'Trevor, this simply cannot be right because it would mean that a document which was only partially accurate and partially reliable was worthless. The UK Census Records, for example, are only partially accurate but they remain an invaluable research tool.'

You wrote, 'In some cases they do, but not in others we may know where someone was living in the 1881 census but that doesn't mean that seven years later they were still at the same address.'

But Bridewell never mentioned anything about misusing sources. He was stating that even partially inaccurate source remain valuable research material, something you had indicated could not be the case. I would like to see you support your contention, not throw up something irrelevant.

[Harry D]

Given the pains the police went to in order to quell the threat of racist riots: destroying vital evidence, saying they'd caught Leather Apron when they hadn't, etc. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that if the Ripper, or rather the main suspect, turned out to be a Jew, they would've agreed to compromise and let him be carted off to asylum where he was no harm to anyone anymore, rather than go public with a Jewish suspect. Only after that when the killings had stopped and the panic had subsided, did Anderson feel at liberty to divulge the Ripper's real 'identity' and save face.