PDA

View Full Version : When did Aaron Koz come to Police attention?


Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 04:50 AM
It just been pointed out via PM that the Facebook page I'm posting on is 'closed'

So I will repeat a post using a theory originally put forward by Rob House with a photo of the marginalia that claims it was shortly before Andersons return after the double event:

When did Aaron Kozminski first come to the attension of the police?

Well a Anderson is clear and Sawanson underlines, while he was still abroad, and therefore shortly after the Double event.

Mr Kuer in 22 Batty street states “He is a ladies Tailour, working in for a west end house” this is a perfect match for Isac Kozminski “She explained the presence of the blood on the shirt by saying that it was owing to an accident that occurred two another man (other than the one who was in custody) who was living on the premises”

In a news Report Oct 20th Echo, Packer says when asked where the murderer lodged-for he had seen him several times that week “ In the Next Street” We now know that Aaron Kozminski indeed lived in the next street ie Provenance Street and that his other brother ran a Tailoring workshop in Greenfeild street. Isac appears to have been arrested on Saturday October 13th which seems to confirm a second arrest was made the following day as release was OCT 15th. So we can deduce from what Anderson says about blood Stains that Aaron Kozminski first comes to Police Attention on October 14th 1888.

At this time Swanson claims he was one of 80 or so suspects being considered. He appears to go into hiding which explains the stop or lul in the murder and a possible reason for Aaron to change his appearance… But where would Aaron Kozminski get a Silver Watch and Chain?

Batman
03-24-2015, 05:13 AM
Then it can't be the man Henry Cox started observing after MJK.

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 05:39 AM
Then it can't be the man Henry Cox started observing after MJK.

I'm not convinced as to the logic of that.

Clearly during October the police are following a large number of leads. From insane medical students to Wild indians, the police are busy.

So if Aaron was released and went into hiding, as is suggested then he is just one of many suspects. Cox says they didn't really get onto anything until after the Kelly murder, and it has to be wondered if its the description given by Hutchinson that Cox is referring too?

So i'd say this date (14th Oct) matches fairly well the accounts given by both Cox and Sagar

Yours Jeff

mklhawley
03-24-2015, 06:51 AM
Isn't this saying the house to house search was when he was abroad? Are you merely assuming their 'conclusion' was also at that time? Doesn't Anderson need to be around to make a conclusion, or did he make the conclusion while abroad?

Sincerely,

Mike

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 07:00 AM
Isn't this saying the house to house search was when he was abroad? Aren't you assuming their 'conclusion' was also at that time? Doesn't Anderson need to be around to make a conclusion, or did he make the conclusion while abroad?

Sincerely,

Mike

Anderson wrote the LSOMOL around 1909 so he is remembering what happened. He claims he was abroad while the House to House search revealed 'a blood stained secret'.. I'm suggesting this is a direct reference to Rob House Batty Street lodger theory that Mrs Kuars neighbour told police about a bloody shirt left by a lodger, Rob breaks down the various accounts to reveal that the true story was that of a German speaking Tailor…Yiddish being a type of german.

This is the start of the sequence of events that lead to Aaron Kozminski entering a Private Asylum in Surrey in March 1889..

I believe the ID can be narrowed to a brief window of just a few months and can be traced to a Private Asylum covelesent Home, not the Police Seaside home in Hove, which has never made any sense, particularly to Martin Fido who recently emailed me such..

Yours Jeff

Abby Normal
03-24-2015, 07:16 AM
Anderson wrote the LSOMOL around 1909 so he is remembering what happened. He claims he was abroad while the House to House search revealed 'a blood stained secret'.. I'm suggesting this is a direct reference to Rob House Batty Street lodger theory that Mrs Kuars neighbour told police about a bloody shirt left by a lodger, Rob breaks down the various accounts to reveal that the true story was that of a German speaking Tailor…Yiddish being a type of german.

This is the start of the sequence of events that lead to Aaron Kozminski entering a Private Asylum in Surrey in March 1889..

I believe the ID can be narrowed to a brief window of just a few months and can be traced to a Private Asylum covelesent Home, not the Police Seaside home in Hove, which has never made any sense, particularly to Martin Fido who recently emailed me such..

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
If Kozminsky comes to the police attention through the house to house search that involved a blood stained clue on Oct 14-then why no mention of his name for so long after? And why would the apparent ID also take so long?

Batman
03-24-2015, 07:16 AM
What Henry Cox reported was that he started following the man after the murder of MJK.

Unless you can show continuity that makes your Eddowes suspect a different person.

Cox doesn't suggest the man was followed before.

Batman
03-24-2015, 07:26 AM
I read your answer again and I have another question. Is Kozminski Hutchinson's suspect?

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 07:34 AM
Hi Jeff
If Kozminsky comes to the police attention through the house to house search that involved a blood stained clue on Oct 14-then why no mention of his name for so long after? And why would the apparent ID also take so long?

Presumably a file was created on Kozminski which has since disappeared.

This was the file MacNaughten referenced in 1894. And Griffiths comments on in 1895.

However the simple solution to why the Murders stop in March 1889. (Also when Woolfe moves to Yalford Street as he has to tighten his belt) Is that the family put Aaron away not the police.

That would explain why the ID takes place and a convalescent Home belonging to a private asylum. Possibly Holloway or Bethlam.

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 07:36 AM
I read your answer again and I have another question. Is Kozminski Hutchinson's suspect?

I don't think it can be ruled out. If Aaron was questioned on the 14thOct he went to ground for some time explaining the delay in the murders. He may have deliberately changed his appearance following Schwartz and Lawendes descriptions.

In Robs book he lists a burglary at Woolfes house where a Watch and chain are hidden under his bed…at the police station the watch is described as Silver…quite a rich prize for poor Eastend Tailors, as would Isacs income of £40 a week described on the following page..

Yours Jeff

Batman
03-24-2015, 08:17 AM
Hutchinsons man is age 34-35.

Kozminski was 23.

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 08:26 AM
Hutchinsons man is age 34-35.

Kozminski was 23.

Its a problem. There are many. Schwartz and Lawendes man is closer to 28. Although the height might fit.

That said and somewhere I have a description of Jewish Eastend Taylors going on a march ending in Berner street around March 1889. They are all described as appearing old before their time. This is a stressful environment.

We also have the description of Shabbey Gentiel given by Mrs Long. Descriptions are notoriously poor. Make of them what you will. Are they all describing the same man?

Yours Jeff

Bridewell
03-24-2015, 09:32 AM
Its a problem. There are many. Schwartz and Lawendes man is closer to 28. Although the height might fit.

That said and somewhere I have a description of Jewish Eastend Taylors going on a march ending in Berner street around March 1889. They are all described as appearing old before their time. This is a stressful environment.

We also have the description of Shabbey Gentiel given by Mrs Long. Descriptions are notoriously poor. Make of them what you will. Are they all describing the same man?

Yours Jeff

Another problem is that, while Schwartz and Lawende describe a Gentile, Mrs Long and Hutchinson describe a Jew/foreigner. For them all to have been the same man - and Kosminski - the latter would need to appear Jewish to a Gentile and Gentile to a Jew. Would clothing alone suffice to achieve that end? More to the point, would Kosminski be sufficiently lucid to carry out the deception?

John G
03-24-2015, 09:36 AM
I don't think it can be ruled out. If Aaron was questioned on the 14thOct he went to ground for some time explaining the delay in the murders. He may have deliberately changed his appearance following Schwartz and Lawendes descriptions.

In Robs book he lists a burglary at Woolfes house where a Watch and chain are hidden under his bed…at the police station the watch is described as Silver…quite a rich prize for poor Eastend Tailors, as would Isacs income of £40 a week described on the following page..

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

£40 a week! Was he a member of the aristocracy? That would have been an enormous income for the period. To put things into perspective a highly paid clerk working for a stockbroking firm would earn less than £5 per week in 1890: see http://www.academia.edu/3710075/Work_income_and_stability_The_late_Victorian_and_E dwardian_London_male_clerk_revisited By further comparison in 1891 the average annual salary of a surgeon was £475.47, and a barrister £1342.60:

Could it perhaps be £40 per year?

Abby Normal
03-24-2015, 09:47 AM
Presumably a file was created on Kozminski which has since disappeared.

This was the file MacNaughten referenced in 1894. And Griffiths comments on in 1895.

However the simple solution to why the Murders stop in March 1889. (Also when Woolfe moves to Yalford Street as he has to tighten his belt) Is that the family put Aaron away not the police.

That would explain why the ID takes place and a convalescent Home belonging to a private asylum. Possibly Holloway or Bethlam.

Yours Jeff

Thanks Jeff
Regardless of a missing file, which I guess could explain why no mention of his name in the record until many years, then why would the ID still take so long to perform (years?) from Oct 88, when they have his name and a clue?

When are you proposing the ID took place and whats your general timeline re all the events surrounding Kosminski-including his stints in the workhouse and asylum, possible surveillance by Cox, ID mentioned by Anderson/swanson, etc.?

Just let me preface this by saying that I have read Robs book and seen your doc(both which are excellent) and think that Kosminski is one of a handful of suspects that I find viable.

If you could provide a quick thumbnail timeline on your take of the events surrounding Kosminski it would be very interesting and much appreciated!!!

John G
03-24-2015, 10:14 AM
Hi Jeff,

Sorry I forgot to include the refernce for respective Victorian salaries, i.e. surgeon, barrister:http://www.wirksworth.org.uk/A04VALUE.htm#1710

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 11:13 AM
Another problem is that, while Schwartz and Lawende describe a Gentile, Mrs Long and Hutchinson describe a Jew/foreigner. For them all to have been the same man - and Kosminski - the latter would need to appear Jewish to a Gentile and Gentile to a Jew. Would clothing alone suffice to achieve that end? More to the point, would Kosminski be sufficiently lucid to carry out the deception?

I don't think it possible to tell whether someone is Jewish or gentile simply by looking at them… its more probable that we are dealing with Hutchinsons and Mrs Longs personal prejudice.

Aaron Kozmisnki was polish, his DNA is more probably of Polish decent.

On how lucid Aaron was, its clear that he was thought well enough to be released from the work House after four days in July 1890. Schizophrenia is a cyclical illness that typifies periods of recovery and Psychotic episodes…So its quite possible for sufferers to be highly functional during the early stages and attacks.

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 11:18 AM
Hello Jeff,

£40 a week! Was he a member of the aristocracy? That would have been an enormous income for the period. To put things into perspective a highly paid clerk working for a stockbroking firm would earn less than £5 per week in 1890: see http://www.academia.edu/3710075/Work_income_and_stability_The_late_Victorian_and_E dwardian_London_male_clerk_revisited By further comparison in 1891 the average annual salary of a surgeon was £475.47, and a barrister £1342.60:

Could it perhaps be £40 per year?

I can only give you what it says on Page 38 of prime suspect.

"In Busiest season (May June July) he can make £40 a week"

I agree this is a vast sum of money. Woolf also possessed a Silver Pocket watch and Chain… Which beggars the question why he moved from Provenance St to a poor house in Yalford St in March 1889..

The same time I believe Aaron entered a Private Asylum.. Were cutbacks made to cover the cost?

Yours jeff

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 11:25 AM
Thanks Jeff
Regardless of a missing file, which I guess could explain why no mention of his name in the record until many years, then why would the ID still take so long to perform (years?) from Oct 88, when they have his name and a clue?

When are you proposing the ID took place and whats your general timeline re all the events surrounding Kosminski-including his stints in the workhouse and asylum, possible surveillance by Cox, ID mentioned by Anderson/swanson, etc.?

Just let me preface this by saying that I have read Robs book and seen your doc(both which are excellent) and think that Kosminski is one of a handful of suspects that I find viable.

If you could provide a quick thumbnail timeline on your take of the events surrounding Kosminski it would be very interesting and much appreciated!!!

Yes Robs book is excellent.. I believe his Batty Street Lodger theory is correct. It certain matches what Anderson says about the 'Blood Stains in Secret'

I will expand later in the week on when and how I believe the ID happened. I think Rob makes a mistake believing that Griffiths expands on Anderson in 1895… I don't think Griffiths or MacNaughten knew anything about the ID discussed by Anderson and Swanson…not a bean. Griffiths was only aware that Anderson had a be in his bonnet about not getting a conviction and 'moral certainty'. Anderson's story is thus pure simple and direct.. Its the same story he tells in 1892, long before the Memoranda.

My theory will hopefully explain why MAcNaughten favoured Druit, why Abberline Chapman and why the various policeman's accounts are what they are.

Yours Jeff

Ben
03-24-2015, 11:32 AM
I would respectfully submit that casting Kosminski in the role of Hutchinson's Astrakhan man would not be an advantage to any theory exploring Kosminski's potential culpability as ripper. I can explain why, but the result will be a full-on Hutchinson thread, and I'm sure we don't want one of those here!

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 11:37 AM
I would respectfully submit that casting Kosminski in the role of Hutchinson's Astrakhan man would not be an advantage to any theory exploring Kosminski's potential culpability as ripper. I can explain why, but the result will be a full-on Hutchinson thread, and I'm sure we don't want one of those here!

I will try and stear clear, as I will of Packer. They are only really of interest in wider context.

Besides there's a lot of Cox and Sagar to get through

Yours Jeff

Wickerman
03-24-2015, 01:51 PM
I read your answer again and I have another question. Is Kozminski Hutchinson's suspect?
Ok I see you got the age difference. The only other point of interest is, when age estimates were given by witnesses (usually of the victims) they typically underestimated the age, not overestimated.

Abby Normal
03-24-2015, 02:08 PM
Hutchinsons man is age 34-35.

Kozminski was 23.

age is hard to nail-especially if your trying to describe someone not of your background.

But then again, I don't see how Koz could be Aman-an Affluent, smooth talking individual.

Maybe Chapman as Aman, I could see, except for no accent.

But then again I don't really see Aman (via Hutch)at all.

Jeff Leahy
03-24-2015, 02:28 PM
Ok I see you got the age difference. The only other point of interest is, when age estimates were given by witnesses (usually of the victims) they typically underestimated the age, not overestimated.

Witness testimonies can vary. Each individual observing will have different critia…

So its not worth getting bogged down with…

Of the suspects witnessed at the Kelly murder scene…Hutchinsons suspect, if he wasn't making it up, best fits Koz…

That said it aint a great fit, from what we know..but we know very little

Yours Jeff

Wickerman
03-24-2015, 03:48 PM
Of the suspects witnessed at the Kelly murder scene…Hutchinsons suspect, if he wasn't making it up, best fits Koz…


Hi Jeff.
Is there a physical description of Kozminski?

Then another question might be, how many descriptions do you have of other people in order to make a comparison with that given by Hutchinson?

Do you mind if I take a guess at both answers?
No, and none?
:)

Abby Normal
03-24-2015, 05:13 PM
Witness testimonies can vary. Each individual observing will have different critia…

So its not worth getting bogged down with…

Of the suspects witnessed at the Kelly murder scene…Hutchinsons suspect, if he wasn't making it up, best fits Koz…

That said it aint a great fit, from what we know..but we know very little

Yours Jeff

Hi jeff
Do we know if koz would be speaking with an accent in fall of 88? How long had he been in England by that time?

Wickerman
03-24-2015, 05:39 PM
Koz was 16 when he arrived in England, about 1881?

GUT
03-24-2015, 05:42 PM
Koz was 16 when he arrived in England, about 1881?

So probably still had a pretty good accent in 1888.

Batman
03-24-2015, 07:18 PM
The thing about the metal collapse hypothesis is that these killers don't stop when their mind mentally deteriorates, they just mess up and get caught like Dahmer. I don't think it overrides their compulsiveness to murder strangers.

----

Schwartz was described as a strong jewish appearance so I suppose there is some way to determine so.

drstrange169
03-24-2015, 07:59 PM
Hello Jeff,

"... Anderson is clear and Sawanson underlines, while he was still abroad, and therefore shortly after the Double event."

But Swanson's report in the police files shows the house to house search referred to did not included properties south of Commercial Road, e.g Batty and Providence Streets.

Also after those searches both Warren, "... these have no tangible result..." and Anderson, " ... without our having the slightest clue of any kind..." claimed no information was found that was of any use.

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 01:37 AM
Hello Jeff,

"... Anderson is clear and Sawanson underlines, while he was still abroad, and therefore shortly after the Double event."

But Swanson's report in the police files shows the house to house search referred to did not included properties south of Commercial Road, e.g Batty and Providence Streets.

Also after those searches both Warren, "... these have no tangible result..." and Anderson, " ... without our having the slightest clue of any kind..." claimed no information was found that was of any use.

Hi Dr

I'm trying to combine what Anderson said with Rob House Batty Street theory.

Anderson says he was away when the House to House turn up 'blood stains'

On Page 129 Prime Suspect: " It is important to note the the article was based primarily on information gathered from Neighbours, not the landlady herself. The landlady was described as very reticent in speaking to reporters and did not say much . apart from corroborating the fact that 'a detective and two police officers had been in the house ever since her information was given."

Given the proximity of 22 Batty St to Dutfeild Yard its reasonable that police soon picked up on what was being said on the street in the area. And clearly Detectives were talking directly to Mrs Keur.

Swanson might not have had a clue of any kind. But it might be argued 'He would say that wouldn't he' The police were having lots of trouble with press men interfering and compromising the police leads… Schwartz Mrs Mortimer and Paker were never called at the inquest.. Swanson also said some 80 suspects were being looked into, including Medical Students, lunatics and Wild Indians…. This was the early stages of an investigation.

Yours Jeff

Batman
03-25-2015, 03:54 AM
Swanson might not have had a clue of any kind. But it might be argued 'He would say that wouldn't he' The police were having lots of trouble with press men interfering and compromising the police leads… Schwartz Mrs Mortimer and Paker were never called at the inquest.. Swanson also said some 80 suspects were being looked into, including Medical Students, lunatics and Wild Indians…. This was the early stages of an investigation.

Yours Jeff

Cox was a CID officer. That makes him city police.
Cox did a post-MJK investigation watching someone who has not been identified.

The speculation goes like this...

The City Police and the Met both watched the same man at different times and didn't collaborate together on it.

Did the city police go into met grounds and the met police go into city ground, without telling each other. Likely they did, but told each other well in advance. If they did, then they collaborated. If not, then we would have a clash of forces over the matter, no?

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 04:34 AM
Cox was a CID officer. That makes him city police.
Cox did a post-MJK investigation watching someone who has not been identified.

The speculation goes like this...

The City Police and the Met both watched the same man at different times and didn't collaborate together on it.

Did the city police go into met grounds and the met police go into city ground, without telling each other. Likely they did, but told each other well in advance. If they did, then they collaborated. If not, then we would have a clash of forces over the matter, no?

Well we know the City and MET did do meetings. However its quite possible that they came across the same man at different times for different reasons.

I'm simply saying that the MET came across Kozminski on the 14th Oct following the 'Blood Stained Shirt' incident.

Also there's the possibility that a City Policeman witnessed a man leaving Mitre Sq and thus they had there own means of enquiry.

My understanding is that they worked together..

I do however believe that Sir Robert Anderson had a be in his bonnet about police powers… It was this that drove him to speak out, when everyone else kept quiet. Andersons sense of duty rather than the charge usually laid at his door of boastfulness or Fairy Tales… And this opinion was supported by Swanson: SUCH WAS EVERY CASE OF MURDER WHERE THE MURDERER wAS NOT CHARGED BECAUSE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OBTAINABLE.


I attach a photo not previously released from the Definitive Story of Swanson's own words..

Yours Jeff

Batman
03-25-2015, 05:07 AM
The post humorous journalist story about White's alleged encounter I think needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. There is too much wrong about the story to conclude a city PC witnessed anything. However Swanson does allude to a city PC witness... but then he would have to be Jewish PC because he refused to testify against a fellow Jew. I have yet to see someone make sense of that without dropping the PC or Jewish part. Coexistence seems a problem.

The translation of the margin looks pretty much the sort of thing one would expect Swanson to say. He stayed neutral on the issue of suspects I think and for good reason. He was man about the evidence even if he did as much ground work as Abberline.

The thing is, could the MET have really put away JtR without the City police knowing about it, if said suspect was under their surveillance?

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 05:35 AM
The post humorous journalist story about White's alleged encounter I think needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. There is too much wrong about the story to conclude a city PC witnessed anything. However Swanson does allude to a city PC witness... but then he would have to be Jewish PC because he refused to testify against a fellow Jew. I have yet to see someone make sense of that without dropping the PC or Jewish part. Coexistence seems a problem.

It makes perfect sense if there was a City PC witness connected to the case up to March 1889. And the Jewish witness ID takes place in June 1890.

The translation of the margin looks pretty much the sort of thing one would expect Swanson to say. He stayed neutral on the issue of suspects I think and for good reason. He was man about the evidence even if he did as much ground work as Abberline.

The thing is, could the MET have really put away JtR without the City police knowing about it, if said suspect was under their surveillance?

If he was on their surveylence up to March 1889 when the suspect was placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey, it surely makes perfect sense?

Yours Jeff

AdamNeilWood
03-25-2015, 05:55 AM
However Swanson does allude to a city PC witness... but then he would have to be Jewish PC because he refused to testify against a fellow Jew.

Hi Batman,

Where does Swanson say anything about a City PC witness?

Best wishes
Adam

Batman
03-25-2015, 06:24 AM
Macnaghten :) opppss

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 06:48 AM
Macnaghten :) opppss

Ah!! but so does Griffiths in 1895

"But the police after, the last murder, had bought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very pausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them, the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who having afterwards developed homocidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murder by the one person who got a glimpse of him- the police constable in Mitre Court."

This is clearly what is said in the Abberconway version of MacNaughtens Memoranda and suggests that MacNaughten NOT Anderson was the source for this..

Griffiths doesn't know anything about a Seaside Home ID by a fellow Jew…not a jot because MacNaughten only saw the file dated up to March 1889.

Once you understand that everything slips neatly into place, MacNaughten claiming Druitt and Abberiline who moves in March 1889 claiming Chapman

Indeed Anderson is still saying the same up until November 1889 so the ID took place after this…I suggest June 1890 when there is disagreement between him and Monroe.

Yours Jeff

pinkmoon
03-25-2015, 09:00 AM
Ah!! but so does Griffiths in 1895

"But the police after, the last murder, had bought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very pausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them, the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who having afterwards developed homocidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murder by the one person who got a glimpse of him- the police constable in Mitre Court."

This is clearly what is said in the Abberconway version of MacNaughtens Memoranda and suggests that MacNaughten NOT Anderson was the source for this..

Griffiths doesn't know anything about a Seaside Home ID by a fellow Jew…not a jot because MacNaughten only saw the file dated up to March 1889.

Once you understand that everything slips neatly into place, MacNaughten claiming Druitt and Abberiline who moves in March 1889 claiming Chapman

Indeed Anderson is still saying the same up until November 1889 so the ID took place after this…I suggest June 1890 when there is disagreement between him and Monroe.

Yours Jeff

the old argument again and its quite a simple one if Kosminski was such a good suspect why did sir Melville choose Druitt over him.

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 09:14 AM
the old argument again and its quite a simple one if Kosminski was such a good suspect why did sir Melville choose Druitt over him.

Hi pinkmoon

The simple answer to that is based on the information in front of him..and given the private info he was probably correct to do so. The file he had only contained information up to March 1889.

So nothing but circumstantial evidence existed on Kozminski. Even as late as November 1889 Anderson was saying the exact same thing…

The ID happens in June 1890. And that is kept quiet by Anderson and Monroe and the file not updated…

Kozminski went in and out of the Asylum on several occasion (A private Asylum in Surrey) before Feb 1891

So MacNaughten didn't know about the ID, thus he plums for Druitt

Yours Jeff

pinkmoon
03-25-2015, 09:19 AM
Surely if Kosminski was successfully identified by a witness then it would have to be accepted across the police forces that they had their man plain and simple.

Abby Normal
03-25-2015, 09:23 AM
Koz was 16 when he arrived in England, about 1881?

Thanks Wick
which means he would have had an accent.
None of the witnesses describe a man who had an accent.

Which means Kosminiski probably wasn't the ripper.

Abby Normal
03-25-2015, 09:27 AM
Hi pinkmoon

The simple answer to that is based on the information in front of him..and given the private info he was probably correct to do so. The file he had only contained information up to March 1889.

So nothing but circumstantial evidence existed on Kozminski. Even as late as November 1889 Anderson was saying the exact same thing…

The ID happens in June 1890. And that is kept quiet by Anderson and Monroe and the file not updated…

Kozminski went in and out of the Asylum on several occasion (A private Asylum in Surrey) before Feb 1891

So MacNaughten didn't know about the ID, thus he plums for Druitt

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
If the search revealed Kosminski, his name and a bloody clue in Oct 1988 and the ID took place in June 1890, again I ask-Why did it take so long-over a year!!! to set up an ID?

Trevor Marriott
03-25-2015, 09:38 AM
Thanks Wick
which means he would have had an accent.
None of the witnesses describe a man who had an accent.

Which means Kosminiski probably wasn't the ripper.

But how do you know the men seen by the various witnesses were in fact the killer ? As I keep saying the witness testimony was never tested.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 09:46 AM
Surely if Kosminski was successfully identified by a witness then it would have to be accepted across the police forces that they had their man plain and simple.

Ah..but the story told by Swanson is quiet clear…the ID went wrong, the witness refused to testify..

The suspect had originally been placed out of harms way in a private asylum but by there nature they only allowed for short term stays. Koz was back out and the family were having trouble. They also feared a backlash against their community if it was revealed the suspect was a Jew.

Hence Monroes Political Hot potato.

The aim at best was to get the Supect in Broadmoor and a police tick.

However the fallout might have created riots so a deal was struck. Keep it quiet.. Put the suspect where he can't get out. We know Anderson was in contact with the head of Colney hatch..

Monroe wanted it kept quiet… Anderson had a bee in his bonnet about police procedures, which he felt inadequate..Hence how his story develops from 1892..

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 09:51 AM
Hi Jeff
If the search revealed Kosminski, his name and a bloody clue in Oct 1988 and the ID took place in June 1890, again I ask-Why did it take so long-over a year!!! to set up an ID?

`Because the case went cold in March 1889…end of survey lance, suspect placed in an asylum out of harms way…

It was the family who had the problem when they couldn't keep him in any longer…

So one day Anderson gets a knock on his door, and a letter of introduction from the Earl of Crawford…

Please Sir, I think my brother might be the whitechapel Murderer and we are in fear of our lives should he kill again"

Anderson talks to Swanson 'You know anything about a Kozminski?' Swanson says 'well actually sir we did have a suspect by that name'

Anderson makes a deal with the family but the ID goes wrong and the compromise is Colney Hatch.

I'm saying we are looking at two completely separate events…Martin Fido was right all along..March 1889.

Yours Jeff

John G
03-25-2015, 10:07 AM
But how do you know the men seen by the various witnesses were in fact the killer ? As I keep saying the witness testimony was never tested.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't consider any witness testimony to be particularly reliable. Take Lawende, for example. Here's a witness who was apparently paying so little attention that he was widely reported as saying that he wouldn't recognize the suspect again. Strange then that, despite the appalling lighting conditions and his apparent lack of interest, he was able to estimate both his height and age. Additionally, he recalled further details about his complexion and moustache. He was also able to describe his clothing, the colour of his cap and the fact that he had a handkerchief, even noticing that it was red in colour and knotted! I mean, for a casual observer who wasn't paying too much attention he seemed to remember an awful lot- one might say almost as much as George Hutchinson, who at least claimed to have the assistance of a lamp.

And then we have Harry Harris' statement, quoted in the Evening News, that he only saw the back of the man and that Levy and Lawende saw no more than he did. Interestingly Levy, who attended the same interview, is reported as remaining silent, refusing to disclose anything.

Now I find Harris' statement extraordinary, considering that it is surely inconceivable that the three friends hadn't discussed matters between them prior to this time. And might Levy's silence indicate that perhaps the whole story may have been a fabrication, or at least exaggerated, and he was having regrets, fearful of getting caught out, whilst Harris was attempting to dig them out of a very big hole?

Of course, ultimately even Lawende, despite all the attention the police lavished on him as their prime witness, wouldn't be stupid enough to give testimony against someone he had probably never seen, always supposing he saw anyone at all.

Trevor Marriott
03-25-2015, 10:22 AM
I don't consider any witness testimony to be particularly reliable. Take Lawende, for example. Here's a witness who was apparently paying so little attention that he was widely reported as saying that he wouldn't recognize the suspect again. Strange then that, despite the appalling lighting conditions and his apparent lack of interest, he was able to estimate both his height and age. Additionally, he recalled further details about his complexion and moustache. He was also able to describe his clothing, the colour of his cap and the fact that he had a handkerchief, even noticing that it was red in colour and knotted! I mean, for a casual observer who wasn't paying too much attention he seemed to remember an awful lot- one might say almost as much as George Hutchinson, who at least claimed to have the assistance of a lamp.

And then we have Harry Harris' statement, quoted in the Evening News, that he only saw the back of the man and that Levy and Lawende saw no more than he did. Interestingly Levy, who attended the same interview, is reported as remaining silent, refusing to disclose anything.

Now I find Harris' statement extraordinary, considering that it is surely inconceivable that the three friends hadn't discussed matters between them prior to this time. And might Levy's silence indicate that perhaps the whole story may have been a fabrication, or at least exaggerated, and he was having regrets, fearful of getting caught out, whilst Harris was attempting to dig them out of a very big hole?

In major cases witnesses at times tend to be too helpful !! they get their 15 minutes of glory with the press

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor Marriott
03-25-2015, 10:33 AM
`Because the case went cold in March 1889…end of survey lance, suspect placed in an asylum out of harms way…

It was the family who had the problem when they couldn't keep him in any longer…

So one day Anderson gets a knock on his door, and a letter of introduction from the Earl of Crawford…

Please Sir, I think my brother might be the whitechapel Murderer and we are in fear of our lives should he kill again"

Anderson talks to Swanson 'You know anything about a Kozminski?' Swanson says 'well actually sir we did have a suspect by that name'

Anderson makes a deal with the family but the ID goes wrong and the compromise is Colney Hatch.

I'm saying we are looking at two completely separate events…Martin Fido was right all along..March 1889.

Yours Jeff

Jeff

Do you believe in fairy tales ? :laugh4:

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Abby Normal
03-25-2015, 02:15 PM
`Because the case went cold in March 1889…end of survey lance, suspect placed in an asylum out of harms way…

It was the family who had the problem when they couldn't keep him in any longer…

So one day Anderson gets a knock on his door, and a letter of introduction from the Earl of Crawford…

Please Sir, I think my brother might be the whitechapel Murderer and we are in fear of our lives should he kill again"

Anderson talks to Swanson 'You know anything about a Kozminski?' Swanson says 'well actually sir we did have a suspect by that name'

Anderson makes a deal with the family but the ID goes wrong and the compromise is Colney Hatch.

I'm saying we are looking at two completely separate events…Martin Fido was right all along..March 1889.

Yours Jeff

Hi jeff
Forgive me I'm a novice. Who is the earl of Crawford? He is kosminskis brother?

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 02:41 PM
Jeff

Do you believe in fairy tales ? :laugh4:

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your fairy Tale quote relates to Monroe and Monroe appears to have known of Andersons intentions in private.. Its as daft as Winston Churchhills 'boastful' comments…

As an ancestor of Charles Stewart Parnell I can assure you Anderson was correct, he was framed by the then British government and thats what these quotes refer too..

Anderson would 'not have lied for person Kudos' as Begg claims you can challenge that statement, but you need to do so by the same critia from which it was reasoned.

And some how I imagine pigs will fly before you do:laugh4:

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 02:46 PM
Hi jeff
Forgive me I'm a novice. Who is the earl of Crawford? He is kosminskis brother?

The Earl of Crawford, Lord Lindsey wrote a letter of introduction to Anderson from an unknown woman who was 'Nearly' related to a man whom she believed was the Whitechappel Murder.

The letter is undated. It is the only surviving letter about the JtR murders in a large amount of Anderson correspondence.

I believe it was written around June 1890

Yours Jeff

pinkmoon
03-25-2015, 02:53 PM
There is a chance that Kosminski was our killer there is also a chance that a lot of other weird characters who frequented the east end might have been our killer I think we can all agree on that.Now I know there are some ex police officers on here so I think they will agree with what im saying IF KOSMINSKI WAS IDENTIFIED BY SOMEONE AS OUR KILLER IT WOULD BE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE IF SOMEOE REFUSED TO IDENTIFY HIM IN CASE HE WAS HUNG THEN WE WOULD ALSO KNOW.Attempts were made to identify Thomas Sadler as our killer so this fact alone tells us that there was no real suspect for these murders I think with Kosminski as with all of the so called suspects it was a case of when you have no suspect anything must look good to ask us to believe that Kosminski was jtr and was forgotten about and left alone in an asylum for years it's just too far fetched.I'm not sticking the boot in on anyone on this thread and I will be the first to conceded that my favourite suspect Druitt was in all probability not jtr but he is my choice out of a bad bunch who has as much chance as Kosminski of been jtr.

Scott Nelson
03-25-2015, 04:02 PM
Jeff, are you sure you've got the right Kosminski?

Jeff Leahy
03-25-2015, 10:20 PM
Jeff, are you sure you've got the right Kosminski?

I've given this a lot of thought. Clearly there are a number of well respected ripperologists who have argued it wasn't Aaron. This would still fit with Anderson telling the truth as Fido reasons. It has to be considered and I would taken onboard any new contenders.

I believe my new 'double event' theory however deals with the various problems.

My conclusion is that it is at least possible that Aaron Kozminski could fit the profile of a lust serial killer, have been functional in 1888 and deteriorated to the extent of appearing relatively harmless in 1891 (Although I think we should be cautious of saying how harmless given his early admission notes)

Do I think it possible that Anderson and Monroe kept the ID quiet?

Yes, if the story had of come out at the time I am of little doubt that there would have been repercussions against the family and community Aaron was in…and that a political decision was taken by Monroe and Anderson to keep it quiet..

As Anderson said, No benefit could have come by revealing the name.

MacNaughten was never informed of the ID, and thus made his comments based on the file dated up to March 1889. Which is why he favours Druitt

Yours Jeff

Chris
03-26-2015, 01:56 AM
Anderson says he was away when the House to House turn up 'blood stains'

Anderson doesn't say the house-to-house search turned up blood stains.

He just says they investigated every man who was in a position to get rid of blood stains in secret.

John G
03-26-2015, 02:19 AM
I've given this a lot of thought. Clearly there are a number of well respected ripperologists who have argued it wasn't Aaron. This would still fit with Anderson telling the truth as Fido reasons. It has to be considered and I would taken onboard any new contenders.

I believe my new 'double event' theory however deals with the various problems.

My conclusion is that it is at least possible that Aaron Kozminski could fit the profile of a lust serial killer, have been functional in 1888 and deteriorated to the extent of appearing relatively harmless in 1891 (Although I think we should be cautious of saying how harmless given his early admission notes)

Do I think it possible that Anderson and Monroe kept the ID quiet?

Yes, if the story had of come out at the time I am of little doubt that there would have been repercussions against the family and community Aaron was in…and that a political decision was taken by Monroe and Anderson to keep it quiet..

As Anderson said, No benefit could have come by revealing the name.

MacNaughten was never informed of the ID, and thus made his comments based on the file dated up to March 1889. Which is why he favours Druitt

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

If JtR was a lust killer would you consider both Tabram and Smith as possible early victims? Of course, Smith claims to have been attacked by a gang but Westcott (2013) has questioned this and even Begg (2004) said he wouldn't rule her out completely. Dew was also of the opinion that she was a JtR victim. Interestingly Smith and Tabram were attacked within 100 yards of each other and both on Bank Holidays.

Do we know where Kosminski may have been residing at the time of these earlier attacks?

Jeff Leahy
03-26-2015, 02:59 AM
Hello Jeff,

If JtR was a lust killer would you consider both Tabram and Smith as possible early victims? Of course, Smith claims to have been attacked by a gang but Westcott (2013) has questioned this and even Begg (2004) said he wouldn't rule her out completely. Dew was also of the opinion that she was a JtR victim. Interestingly Smith and Tabram were attacked within 100 yards of each other and both on Bank Holidays.

Do we know where Kosminski may have been residing at the time of these earlier attacks?

Hi John, we are drifting off the central thrust here, and largely just coming down to my personal opinion.

But yes I think the attacks start very early, and very different to the later completed signature… Certainly Annie Millwood fits an early experiment. Emma Smith in the heart of the kill zone.

There are also two lesser known 'failed' attacks that might be connected

I note that Anderson doesn't include McKenzie… and thats a problem for me… I think she was but It means that Aaron was back out only months after March 1889 as this attack was in July..

As late as November Anderson was still claiming the police didn't know who it was, so no ID at this point.

Yours Jeff

The Cenci
04-01-2015, 07:15 AM
I find it interesting that Abberline dismissed him and, presumably, he'd met him.

Jeff Leahy
04-02-2015, 01:50 AM
I find it interesting that Abberline dismissed him and, presumably, he'd met him.

The answer to that is we don't know?

What we do know is that MacNaughten says Kozminski was placed in an asylum in March 1889 and that Abberline was transferred shortly afterwards.

And that no proof had been connected to Kozminski at this time , so presumably the suggested ID happened at a later time.

As late as November 1889 Anderson was still saying they didn't know who Jack the Ripper was, so I think it can be safely reasoned that the Kozminski ID had not happened by then..

At some point in 1890 there was some sort of disagreement between Anderson and Monroe (Monroe resigned over pensions) and it might be that the ID happened around this time?

Kozminski was placed at the work house July 1890. But was released after four days possibly because they did NOT think him insane after observation.

What we know is he enter Colney Hatch on the 4th Feb 1891

So the ID happened between Nov 1889 and Jan 1891

Abberline would not have been involved in this ID so only would have known about Kozminski up to MArch 1889, hence why he later pumps for Chapman.

Yours jeff

The Cenci
04-05-2015, 05:12 PM
If the ID happened between those dates, why was the operation reduced in early 1890?

(Not sure where I read that but have done recently)

Jeff Leahy
04-07-2015, 05:44 AM
If the ID happened between those dates, why was the operation reduced in early 1890?

(Not sure where I read that but have done recently)

Hi Cenci

I don't know how much of my new theory you have taken on board, but at its most simple it suggests Two completely unrelated events (Apart from the Suspect) taking place to explain the various differences in police accounts.

This means that Aaron came to Police attention far earlier than previously assumed. October 24th 1888 (Batty Street blood staines). And Aaron being hidden by wider family and relatives in a private asylum possibly as early as December 1888. In January Febuary and MArch he is back on the street and followed by Cox (Berner Street) and Sagar (Butchers Row).

MacNaughten says He is placed in an Asylum in March 1889. A Private asylum in Surrey.

As the patient was placed there by his family not the police, they could have him come and go. But at this time with the 'Suspect' caged in an asylum the police survey lance is dropped, no proof can be found, and Kozminski becomes an almost ran suspect, as described by MacNaughten , Ried, Abberline etc.

Two years later we have a separate event, a nearly related member of Kozminski's family have a private meeting with Anderson via the Earl of Crawford.

Anderson ask Swanson is there a suspect called Koz, he says that there is a suspect and is asked to investigate the Berner street murder as thats where the Supects family Lived/Live.

Only Anderson, Swanson and Monroe no about this ID, which goes wrong, so suspect placed in Colney Hatch not Broadmoore.

The reason its done in secret is to stop riots in the Eastend, as Monro says 'Hot Potatoe'

Brushed under the carpet. But Anderson is cross about criticism of police failure and the following years starts to hint that the Indentity of JtR is known to police..

When MacNaughhten write his memo in 1894 he only knows what happened up to MArch 1889 and thus has NO idea what happened to the suspect they watched

Simple but solves all the various problems

Yours Jeff