PDA

View Full Version : Quick Kosminski question (say that 5 times fast)


Errata
07-19-2016, 03:59 PM
So we know that Aaron Kosminski was displaying severe behavioral anomalies roughly in the time frame of the murders. And I assume that there is no current theory being seriously entertained that he was faking these anomalies in order to further some master plan.

So if Kosminski were ill at the time of the murders, it could potentially give him a motive. If he were well, it would potentially give him the ability to carry out the murders. Now it's rarely so black and white, but it does prompt a question.

Is the current thinking that Kosminski was actively sick when he killed these women, or is the theory that he was not currently sick when he killed these women?

Because I imagine it changes what you look for in terms of what witnesses saw, what behaviors you expect, his ability to not get caught, etc.

I could argue for or against either way, but then I'm not a Kosminski person, and I would imagine those that are have more information than I do.

Scott Nelson
07-19-2016, 07:23 PM
Consider whether Aaron is the Kosminski suspect referred to by Macnaghten, Swanson and by extension, Anderson (maybe Sagar and Cox, as well).

If he was the one, he was probably coherent during 1888, and possibly until late 1889. A big plus to those who consider somebody like a psychopath who was in control of his senses to the extent that he could pull off street murders without much noise. But he could have been in the early stages of mental degeneration (like epilepsy, or some form of mental psychosis).

My personal feeling is that Macnaghten probably had it right when he said that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after the awful glut in Miller's Court. No, I don't think Aaron Kosminski was faking mental illness. But some other suspect (be he a Kosminski, or otherwise), possibly.

Abby Normal
07-19-2016, 07:56 PM
How many serial killers end up in mental institutions? Very rare I Beleive.
So I doubt the ripper did.

Kosminsky may have been sick in fall 1888, but having not "attempted work in years" probably hadn't the wherewithal or the appearance/behavior to attract a prostitute, let alone to have them bring him to a secluded place for sex.
Mary Kelly taking him back to her place? No way.

Damaso Marte
07-19-2016, 08:42 PM
Kosminski was still able to function in human society in 1889 during his court appearance. Assuming his decline was linear, I think we can say he was at least as presentable as any underemployed Whitechapel resident in 1988.

Elamarna
07-20-2016, 05:02 AM
Kosminski was still able to function in human society in 1889 during his court appearance. Assuming his decline was linear, I think we can say he was at least as presentable as any underemployed Whitechapel resident in 1988.

Hi

Agree 100%

One of the problems here are the often repeated statements such as he was showing signs of illness in 1888.

There is no evidence to back this up at all, in the sources. Indeed the lack of information is very restrictive in looking at AK

The comments about not working for years, are made several years after the C5 and should not be taken to say he was not working in 1888.

And again the comments about eating out of the gutter are a description from 1991, and cannot be realistically be applied to his behaviour or demeanour in 1888

None of the above however addresses the possibility that any illness he may have had could had be sporadic with periods of apparent normal behaviour.

Indeed his attendance and behaviour in court in late 89 do not indicate an individual who was obviously unwell.

And as Scott has pointed out there is indeed the possibility that AK is not the Kosminski


Regards


steve

Robert
07-20-2016, 05:22 AM
I think we can say he was at least as presentable as any underemployed Whitechapel resident in 1988.

And again the comments about eating out of the gutter are a description from 1991

Sounds like a remarkably tough old boy.

Paddy
07-20-2016, 05:56 AM
Having worked for many years in this field I know from experience that you can have a young man that has been protected all his youth when family could have known he was not qute thinking right. Not given the correct help when young can lead to problems in maturity. Mental health ie depression or mania can start to present when this person has to take on responsibility. Sometimes it can get worse under pressure. I have seen such rages that seem to present as fits. Its quite possible that Alcohol could have triggered rages in him.

The fact that Woolfe accompanied Aaron to court in 1889 shows slight weakness as he had to talk for Aaron. Also when his cousin Jacob Cohen accompanied him to Colney Hatch and said he was eating from the gutters I wondered if this was because Aaron was now not living with them and was going round Spitalfield Market picking up fruit left behind at the end of trading. I bet millions did and I feel this was quite a subjective statement, as Jacob appeared to have a very comfortable life. The family seemed quite successful so this could have been even more pressure on him.

People can be very charming and still be very ill and very manipulative its not black and white when there is a long term underlying mental or cognative problem. He would have got worse if the family could not cope and he had to go and live alone, also undermined if they still provided financially.

So yes I think he could easily have been Jack but there were others like him also.

Pat........

Wickerman
07-20-2016, 05:59 AM
I think we can say he was at least as presentable as any underemployed Whitechapel resident in 1988.

And again the comments about eating out of the gutter are a description from 1991

Sounds like a remarkably tough old boy.

Rumors that he died in lock-up were obviously false.
It looks like he outlived the asylum....

Mayerling
07-20-2016, 07:14 AM
Hi

Agree 100%

One of the problems here are the often repeated statements such as he was showing signs of illness in 1888.

There is no evidence to back this up at all, in the sources. Indeed the lack of information is very restrictive in looking at AK

The comments about not working for years, are made several years after the C5 and should not be taken to say he was not working in 1888.

And again the comments about eating out of the gutter are a description from 1991, and cannot be realistically be applied to his behaviour or demeanour in 1888

None of the above however addresses the possibility that any illness he may have had could had be sporadic with periods of apparent normal behaviour.

Indeed his attendance and behaviour in court in late 89 do not indicate an individual who was obviously unwell.

And as Scott has pointed out there is indeed the possibility that AK is not the Kosminski


Regards


steve

Well put Steve. Although he may be the "Kosminski" on Macnaughten's memorandum we can't be sure. But even if we were the most recent discussion of that memorandum made it clear that Druitt was the one Macnaughten felt was the real Ripper, and when he mentioned the killer's mind gave way after the Kelly murder, Macnaughten is laying the groundwork to connect the collapse of the killer's mind more with Druitt's suicide in the Thames than with Kosminski or Osrog's mental instabilities.

Jeff

Errata
07-20-2016, 10:05 AM
I bring it up because I think that Kosminski specifically (as opposed to a generic mentally ill subject) displayed behaviors that would really make it difficult to get away with murder. Eating out of gutters etc. is really sort of unusual enough to be both noticeable and a very good clue that something is desperately wrong. Fairly benign as far as unusual behaviors go, but still something people would see and back away from. So his bad days had the potential to be very obviously bad days. If he is killing on his worst days, that requires a whole bunch of conditions to be met for him to get away with it, where if he is killing on one of his better days those obstacles aren't in play.

And Paddy is right. It is not as clear cut as I'm making it seem. Not just because of coping mechanisms and general inabilities, but also because delusion is not light a light switch. It's more like a dimmer. And we know Kosminski was capable of delusion, and on a scale of 1-5 it definitely got to a five at least once. But he could have been at a like a two, where the delusion is taking up about as much brain space as a song thats stuck in your head. Noticeable, but you can function around it. Then you have to guess how influential that delusion is and it gets messy, but generally doable. And it's neater for the purposes of simple discussion to break it down into ok and having a noticeable problem. Which has nothing to do with Kosminski's actual state of mental health, just his presentation.

Pierre
07-20-2016, 12:28 PM
Hi

Agree 100%

One of the problems here are the often repeated statements such as he was showing signs of illness in 1888.

There is no evidence to back this up at all, in the sources. Indeed the lack of information is very restrictive in looking at AK

The comments about not working for years, are made several years after the C5 and should not be taken to say he was not working in 1888.

And again the comments about eating out of the gutter are a description from 1991, and cannot be realistically be applied to his behaviour or demeanour in 1888

None of the above however addresses the possibility that any illness he may have had could had be sporadic with periods of apparent normal behaviour.

Indeed his attendance and behaviour in court in late 89 do not indicate an individual who was obviously unwell.

And as Scott has pointed out there is indeed the possibility that AK is not the Kosminski


Regards


steve

And, last but not least, nothing connects him to the murder sites.

Regards, Pierre

Scott Nelson
07-20-2016, 12:53 PM
Also consider the possibility that Jacob Cohen lied or exaggerated Aaron's delusions - eating out of gutters, hearing voices, etc. - just to have him out of the house and away from Jacob's sister, Betsy (married to Aaron's brother, Woolf), as Pat suggests above (where have you heard this before)?. Aaron may have been deemed mentally unstable enough for confinement in the asylum in February 1891, but that doesn't mean he exhibited any of signs of psychosis in 1888-89.

Bridewell
07-20-2016, 02:17 PM
Eating out of gutters etc. is really sort of unusual enough to be both noticeable and a very good clue that something is desperately wrong.

Eating food from the gutter may be (as Paddy suggests) less a sign that he was mentally ill than that he was starving. I doubt if he was the only one driven by poverty to such desperate measures.

The fact that Woolfe accompanied Aaron to court in 1889 shows slight weakness as he had to talk for Aaron.

This still happens today and may be an example of what is now known as a "McKenzie's Friend" - someone who assists another at court in a non-professional capacity. It doesn't necessarily mean that Aaron was showing signs of mental illness (although he may have been).

Wickerman
07-20-2016, 03:45 PM
Eating food from the gutter may be (as Paddy suggests) less a sign that he was mentally ill than that he was starving. I doubt if he was the only one driven by poverty to such desperate measures.


Given that this was the East End it surprises me that there was ever any food in the gutter.

GUT
07-20-2016, 03:50 PM
Given that this was the East End it surprises me that there was ever any food in the gutter.

Actually I suspect there be a lot around the markets.

Not what you and I'd be likely to eat. But what could pass as food if you were disturbed enough or hungry enough.

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 01:12 AM
And, last but not least, nothing connects him to the murder sites.

Regards, Pierre

Not 100% true Pierre

At one stage in his life he had lived next door to the Berner street site, but not at the time of the murder, but a connection (tenuous) none the less.

Steve

Pierre
07-21-2016, 01:58 AM
Not 100% true Pierre

At one stage in his life he had lived next door to the Berner street site, but not at the time of the murder, but a connection (tenuous) none the less.

Steve

Yes, 100 percent true, my dear Steve.

Living near to a murder site does not make anyone a killer.

It is an interesting matter of the concept of "connection", and the concept is of course extremely important within ripperology since people struggle to define the concept and use it in their "theories".

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = passing that site on the way to work, we can all see what "significance" it is rendered in the theory of Fisherman (not particularly discussing that theory now, but showing the function of the concept of "connection" for the theory").

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = living nearby, we could make hundreds, perhaps thousands altogether for the five sites, of "suspects" of those who lived nearby.

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = is having been seen by a witness (often no one knows who the person seen is, since he is only described in a source from the past) there are a lot - a lot! - of such sightings.

I will make myself clear in this case. My opinion (!) is that the first two definitions of the concepts are worth absolutely nothing and that the third definition can be useful if there are historical reasons to think so. But sightings are legio and differing so one has to analyse the sources, often in absurdum, hypothesizing and disproving and going back again postulating the same hypothesis and reject it again. One has to scrutinize the sources in detail and look for patterns.

I must say that I am impressed by your critical thinking and reasoning, Steve. It is much needed in this forum and it is certainly helping the case forward.

Best wishes, Pierre

Pierre
07-21-2016, 02:11 AM
[QUOTE]Eating food from the gutter may be (as Paddy suggests) less a sign that he was mentally ill than that he was starving. I doubt if he was the only one driven by poverty to such desperate measures.

But since it is an issue of a specific type of eating, i.e. a postulated serial killerīs eating - the hypothesis being that this Aaron was the Kosminsky and that this Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper - the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

The specific (idiographic) myth / idea / picture of Jack the Ripper as a dog was already well known in 1888 through the papers where he was described as such. An example is the Lord Mayor who called him "a mad dog".

Another picture is the one I published here in the forum in the thread about the "human tiger".

For Kosminsky, whoever he might have been and whereever he might have lived and whatever he might have done - since no source is giving his first name(s) the picture of the mad creature eating in the gutter is now applied.

And still there is nothing connecting this Aaron Kosminsky to the murders.

Regards, Pierre

David Orsam
07-21-2016, 03:27 AM
the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

Who, apart from you, has referred to Kosminsky as a dog? Why does eating food in the gutter equate to being a dog?

Might I suggest that the link between Kosminsky and a dog has been produced in your imagination due to a 'tendency' on your part because you believe in the idiographic myth of Jack the Ripper as a dog (or 'mad dog') due to the reported comment of the Lord Mayor. Hence you want to believe that Kosminsky was being pictured in 'the sources' as a dog when no-one was, in fact, doing this.

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 03:32 AM
Yes, 100 percent true, my dear Steve.

Living near to a murder site does not make anyone a killer.

It is an interesting matter of the concept of "connection", and the concept is of course extremely important within ripperology since people struggle to define the concept and use it in their "theories".

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = passing that site on the way to work, we can all see what "significance" it is rendered in the theory of Fisherman (not particularly discussing that theory now, but showing the function of the concept of "connection" for the theory").

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = living nearby, we could make hundreds, perhaps thousands altogether for the five sites, of "suspects" of those who lived nearby.

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = is having been seen by a witness (often no one knows who the person seen is, since he is only described in a source from the past) there are a lot - a lot! - of such sightings.

I will make myself clear in this case. My opinion (!) is that the first two definitions of the concepts are worth absolutely nothing and that the third definition can be useful if there are historical reasons to think so. But sightings are legio and differing so one has to analyse the sources, often in absurdum, hypothesizing and disproving and going back again postulating the same hypothesis and reject it again. One has to scrutinize the sources in detail and look for patterns.

I must say that I am impressed by your critical thinking and reasoning, Steve. It is much needed in this forum and it is certainly helping the case forward.

Best wishes, Pierre


Yes Pierre

The idea of "a connection" is used by many who push there own specific theory, and as you say living nearby or regularly passing a murder site is worthless on its own.

And while the connection pointed out with Berner street is in the same category, it is nevertheless the only example I am aware of where a "suspect" and lets be fair, for some senior officers Kosminski is at least portrayed as a suspect, actually had lived right next door to a murder site, not near, but next door.

However he was not living there at the time of the murders, and the information is a point of interest for those looking at Kosminski no more!

Steve

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 04:23 AM
[QUOTE=Bridewell;388491]



But since it is an issue of a specific type of eating, i.e. a postulated serial killerīs eating - the hypothesis being that this Aaron was the Kosminsky and that this Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper - the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

The specific (idiographic) myth / idea / picture of Jack the Ripper as a dog was already well known in 1888 through the papers where he was described as such. An example is the Lord Mayor who called him "a mad dog".

Another picture is the one I published here in the forum in the thread about the "human tiger".

For Kosminsky, whoever he might have been and whereever he might have lived and whatever he might have done - since no source is giving his first name(s) the picture of the mad creature eating in the gutter is now applied.

And still there is nothing connecting this Aaron Kosminsky to the murders.

Regards, Pierre




Other that is Pierre than 3 senior police officers naming him as a suspect or in the case of Macnaghten as a potential suspect.


One assumes there was some reasoning for this, and some information( possible evidence of some sort) which is no longer available lead them to this line of thinking, of course that does not make him the killer.

However it is probably fair to say that in 1888/89/90/91 there was something which linked him, however it need not have been strong or conclusive.


Steve

Pierre
07-21-2016, 05:45 AM
[QUOTE]Who, apart from you, has referred to Kosminsky as a dog? Why does eating food in the gutter equate to being a dog?

If Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a mad dog, Kosminsky was a mad dog. Dogs are found in the gutter. Search the British Newspaper Archives for "in the gutter" for 1880-1910 for example and you find dogs together with that expression.

Might I suggest that the link between Kosminsky and a dog has been produced in your imagination due to a 'tendency' on your part because you believe in the idiographic myth of Jack the Ripper as a dog (or 'mad dog') due to the reported comment of the Lord Mayor.

No, you are wrong. I do not "believe in" what the newspapers wrote about what Lord Mayor said. What sort of a very strange suggestion is that?

Pierre
07-21-2016, 05:49 AM
[QUOTE=Pierre;388523]

[QUOTE]Other that is Pierre than 3 senior police officers naming him as a suspect or in the case of Macnaghten as a potential suspect.
But no Aaron was mentioned in the sources.

One assumes there was some reasoning for this, and some information( possible evidence of some sort) which is no longer available lead them to this line of thinking, of course that does not make him the killer.

Right.

However it is probably fair to say that in 1888/89/90/91 there was something which linked him, however it need not have been strong or conclusive.

What linked him was being Jewish, poor and put into an asylum. That is THE ideal type for Jack the Ripper. And it is an illusion hiding other pieces of evidence and making people look into the wrong historical sources.

Regards, Pierre

MsWeatherwax
07-21-2016, 06:09 AM
[QUOTE=Elamarna;388538][QUOTE=Pierre;388523]

What linked him was being Jewish, poor and put into an asylum. That is THE ideal type for Jack the Ripper. And it is an illusion hiding other pieces of evidence and making people look into the wrong historical sources.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre.

What do you say to the possibility that vast amounts of files and other evidence have gone missing through pilfering and two World Wars?

Given that your research is *extremely* source based, I don't understand how you can progress to a logical conclusion given the enormous amount of information that is said to be missing.

Truthfully, regardless of how competent they are, nobody in the 21st Century can adequately research all of the sources relating to The Whitechapel Murders because frankly, many of them don't exist any more. You can't say with certainty that being poor, Jewish and institutionalised was what "linked" AK, because you have no evidence that is the truth. It's supposition, and it's a biased supposition at that.

For the record, I am neither for or against AK (or anyone else, for that matter) as a suspect.

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 06:45 AM
But no Aaron was mentioned in the sources.




Agreed and that is why the possibility that they meant another person must always be considered.





What linked him was being Jewish, poor and put into an asylum. That is THE ideal type for Jack the Ripper. And it is an illusion hiding other pieces of evidence and making people look into the wrong historical sources.




Pierre,

That is an assumption you make, has to links and connections.

We do not have the documents, which almost certainly existed to know what the links were? or if they were strong or weak?

Unfortunately sometime back you decided that certain people were only named or suspected because they were Jewish, not that they were suspects or persons of interest whom happened to be Jewish.

Please allow me to point out that you have developed a bias in this area , you may not be aware of it, but it is there.
This is that you seem to rule out persons because they are Jewish, saying that the perceived anti-Jewish slant of the police was the only reason these persons were suspect.
This may or may not be the case and each occurrence needs to be looked at individually.
Jacob levy is such a case where you appear to rule out because you assume he is looked at because and only because he is a Jewish butcher, which are to me not the major reasons for looking at him. However that goes off topic, but i use it purely to demonstrate.

I am sure if you take a step back and look at the situation analytically you we see that this is happening, a failing we can all fall into.

The fact remains that someone refered to as "kosminski" was looked at by senior officers at the time and some of them believed he was a highly possible id for the killer.

They could well be wrong.
However to name an individual by 3 separate persons there must have been more than just race as a link, or else why not name say Levy whom seems a more likely fit than the Kosminski we know about?


respectfully

Steve

David Orsam
07-21-2016, 07:56 AM
If Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a mad dog, Kosminsky was a mad dog.

But that's meaningless logic, firstly because Jack the Ripper was called lots of things, only a "mad dog" by the Lord Mayor (reportedly), and secondly because you can insert any name in there, Tumblety, Druitt, Sadler, Lechmere and they are all mad dogs. Why is Kosminsky the only mad dog?

To be clear. I'm suggesting that you are the only person in the world linking Kosminsky to a dog.

David Orsam
07-21-2016, 08:00 AM
Dogs are found in the gutter. Search the British Newspaper Archives for "in the gutter" for 1880-1910 for example and you find dogs together with that expression.

Lots of things are found in the gutter though Pierre. Rats for example. I have no idea what newspaper reports you have found that links dogs to gutters but I note that haven't posted a single example.

In any case, the issue is Kosminsky eating food in the gutter. Why is that dog like behaviour any more than rats or other vermin?

David Orsam
07-21-2016, 08:02 AM
No, you are wrong. I do not "believe in" what the newspapers wrote about what Lord Mayor said. What sort of a very strange suggestion is that?

It's not a 'strange' suggestion at all because you are the only person in the world who seems to be comparing Kosminsky to a mad dog.

So I'm suggesting that it is you who has been influenced by the Lord Mayer's use of the phrase 'mad dog' and you are seeing mad dogs which don't actually exist.

Robert
07-21-2016, 08:15 AM
I suppose it's possible that Kosminski had some bread in the midday sun.....

Bridewell
07-21-2016, 09:53 AM
What linked him was being Jewish, poor and put into an asylum.

I doubt very much if that was the link. He was hardly unique in being a poor Jew who was put into an asylum. Why him? Why not one of the others?

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 10:28 AM
I doubt very much if that was the link. He was hardly unique in being a poor Jew who was put into an asylum. Why him? Why not one of the others?

Hi Bridewell

my point exactly, you put it much more concise.

Steve

Pierre
07-21-2016, 12:30 PM
[QUOTE=Pierre;388550][QUOTE=Elamarna;388538]

Hi Pierre.

What do you say to the possibility that vast amounts of files and other evidence have gone missing through pilfering and two World Wars?

Given that your research is *extremely* source based, I don't understand how you can progress to a logical conclusion given the enormous amount of information that is said to be missing.

Truthfully, regardless of how competent they are, nobody in the 21st Century can adequately research all of the sources relating to The Whitechapel Murders because frankly, many of them don't exist any more. You can't say with certainty that being poor, Jewish and institutionalised was what "linked" AK, because you have no evidence that is the truth. It's supposition, and it's a biased supposition at that.

For the record, I am neither for or against AK (or anyone else, for that matter) as a suspect.

Missing material can not be used as sources.

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 12:46 PM
[QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;388552][QUOTE=Pierre;388550]

Missing material can not be used as sources.

Pierre,

Firstly you still have not got the quote function under control have you, however that is not important.

I do not believe anyone is trying to use non existent sources as "sources" as such. Frankly such would be ridiculous.

However it is highly probably that information did exist which was not just:
he is poor and Jewish.

And one can suggest that such information is what the Police officers were basing their ideas on.

Seriously if you were looking to lay blame on a Jewish person, just because of race/religion, then Kosminski would not be an obvious choice.

regards

Steve

Pierre
07-21-2016, 01:01 PM
Agreed and that is why the possibility that they meant another person must always be considered.

Pierre,

That is an assumption you make, has to links and connections.

We do not have the documents, which almost certainly existed to know what the links were? or if they were strong or weak?

Unfortunately sometime back you decided that certain people were only named or suspected because they were Jewish, not that they were suspects or persons of interest whom happened to be Jewish.

Please allow me to point out that you have developed a bias in this area , you may not be aware of it, but it is there.
This is that you seem to rule out persons because they are Jewish, saying that the perceived anti-Jewish slant of the police was the only reason these persons were suspect.
This may or may not be the case and each occurrence needs to be looked at individually.
Jacob levy is such a case where you appear to rule out because you assume he is looked at because and only because he is a Jewish butcher, which are to me not the major reasons for looking at him. However that goes off topic, but i use it purely to demonstrate.

I am sure if you take a step back and look at the situation analytically you we see that this is happening, a failing we can all fall into.

The fact remains that someone refered to as "kosminski" was looked at by senior officers at the time and some of them believed he was a highly possible id for the killer.

They could well be wrong.
However to name an individual by 3 separate persons there must have been more than just race as a link, or else why not name say Levy whom seems a more likely fit than the Kosminski we know about?

respectfully

Steve

Hi Steve,

I do not have such a bias. History has it. 16 percent of the suspects on this site are described as jewish. The jewish population in England in the 1880s was not even 1 percent.

Best wishes, Pierre

John G
07-21-2016, 01:18 PM
Hi Steve,

I do not have such a bias. History has it. 16 percent of the suspects on this site are described as jewish. The jewish population in England in the 1880s was not even 1 percent.

Best wishes, Pierre

"16% of the suspects on this site are described as Jewish." How is that reliable, or even relevant, source material in determining whether the police had an inherent bias towards Jewish suspects? For instance, assessing what percentage of police suspects were Jewish would be a far more academic approach.

And the ratio of Jews in Whitechapel was much higher than 1%.

I'm sorry Pierre but you really must learn to be discerning when discussing source material.

Pierre
07-21-2016, 01:23 PM
"16% of the suspects on this site are described as Jewish." How is that reliable, or even relevant, source material in determining whether the police had an inherent bias towards Jewish suspects? For instance, what percentage of police suspects were Jewish?

And the ratio of Jews in Whitechapel was much higher than 1%.

I'm sorry Pierre but you really must learn to be discerning when discussing source material.

16 percent of the "suspects" on this site. Not even 1 percent in England in the 1880s. Embarrassing.

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 01:41 PM
Hi Steve,

I do not have such a bias. History has it. 16 percent of the suspects on this site are described as jewish. The jewish population in England in the 1880s was not even 1 percent.

Best wishes, Pierre

Pierre

We are not talking about murders in England as a whole are we?
How does that compare to the population in Whitechapel in 1888?

So 84% of suspects are not described as Jewish, yet you feel that being Jewish was a reason to be suspected, that is not born out by those figures is it?

The failure you have, is that you do not see that these suspects as you refer to them, this 16% may be named not because they are Jewish, that is incidental, but because they may be violent, may live in the area, may have acted suspiciously or even been report by family members.

Yes there are comments by some witnesses, such as Long and Hutchinson which indicate a Jewish person, and yes that may show a bias of that individual towards members of that group, or it may be an accurate report, While there may be a tendency in some reports to anti-Semitic comments, that does not mean every report is false or inaccurate.

However such descriptions by a witness does not make an individual a suspect unless they are specifically identified by that witness.


To rule out a solution because you feel that such a solution echoes or reinforces what you consider to be a bias, is not scientific.

If such a bias did exist, and it may do, it means that you have to be very careful in analyzing the cases of individuals. However you do not appear to do this.

Instead you seem to suggest:

1.) There is a bias in history. 16% of suspects are described as of a particular race/religion, this is wrong

2.) Therefore the solution to the killer cannot be a person of that race, because to name someone of that race is bias in itself.

Result is that you exclude for the wrong reasons, and never look in depth at the cases, be that Kosminski or someone else.

Pierre your failure to see and acknowledge your own bias is a great failing for any scientist.
Such a tendency in any research is bound to bring the whole of the research by that individual into question, which is always a shame.

Regards

Steve

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 01:52 PM
16 percent of the "suspects" on this site. Not even 1 percent in England in the 1880s. Embarrassing.

Pierre

What is embarrassing is that you are not addressing the issues being raised with you.

To say that the Jewish population of England was less than one percent ( sources please by the way, which I am sure you understand as a good historian) in 1888 and to compare that to 16% of "suspects" on this site does not automatically transfer across to the area of Whitechapel as you well know..

To see if if that figure is bias, one need to compare it to the Jewish population of Whitechapel, which of course as someone interested in statistics you will know you must do.

You are excluding persons from the list of possible killers because of race that is embarrassing research.

Please argue against kosminski if you want, but base that argument on sources and accurate information not bias opinion, something you often say others do.


Steve

Pierre
07-21-2016, 02:06 PM
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Pierre

We are not talking about murders in England as a whole are we?
How does that compare to the population in Whitechapel in 1888?

The theories about the suspects are not created in Whitechapel. That is the point. There is an overrepresentation of Jewish suspects. The easiest way of making the problem visible to you might be to state that Prins Albert Victor did not live in Whitechapel. Nor did some of the other suspects. So it is not a matter of counting percent of princes or Jews in Whitechapel.

So 84% of suspects are not described as Jewish, yet you feel that being Jewish was a reason to be suspected, that is not born out by those figures is it?

You must compare the figure 16 percent to the fact that there was not even 1 percent Jews in England. They are overrepresented as a group in ripperology. That is due to the anti-Semitism of the 1880s.

The failure you have, is that you do not see that these suspects as you refer to them, this 16% may be named not because they are Jewish, that is incidental, but because they may be violent, may live in the area, may have acted suspiciously or even been report by family members.

If you think that a specific group of people is incidentally overrepresented in this case you should read some history about other accusations against Jews in history. They are not incidental. Every witness who is accusing a Jew in the past knows that it is a Jew he is accusing. We know this since the witness statements make this clear.

Yes there are comments by some witnesses, such as Long and Hutchinson which indicate a Jewish person, and yes that may show a bias of that individual towards members of that group, or it may be an accurate report, While there may be a tendency in some reports to anti-Semitic comments, that does not mean every report is false or inaccurate.

There you go.

However such descriptions by a witness does not make an individual a suspect unless they are specifically identified by that witness.

That is the problem. It is likely that some people would never have been thought of in this case if they had not been Jewish. And here we sit with old anti-Semitism instead of solving a real problem. Garbage in, garbage out. For me as an historian this is not a question about speaking for different groups of people, it is a matter of throwing away old garbage. It is blocking the view.

To rule out a solution because you feel that such a solution echoes or reinforces what you consider to be a bias, is not scientific.

I do not rule out anything.

If such a bias did exist, and it may do, it means that you have to be very careful in analyzing the cases of individuals. However you do not appear to do this.

Instead you seem to suggest:

1.) There is a bias in history. 16% of suspects are described as of a particular race/religion, this is wrong

On the suspect site. Yes. That is right. How come they are there? What do you think is the history behind it? And while we are at it, what is the prince doing there?

2.) Therefore the solution to the killer cannot be a person of that race, because to name someone of that race is bias in itself.

Sure it can. But there is no evidence.

Result is that you exclude for the wrong reasons, and never look in depth at the cases, be that Kosminski or someone else.

There is no depth to look into. Aaron is not mentioned. Aaron Kosminsky had nothing connecting him to any of the murder sites. For me it is easy. No connection to any one of the murder sites, no killer. A connection to one murder site, perhaps a killer, depending on the quality of the sources. A connection to more than one murder site, perhaps a serial killer, depending on the quality of the sources. Connections to several of the murder sites and rather good to very good quality, perhaps a serial killer. All those connections, a motive, explanatory sources, time periods explained - a serial killer.

Aaron had nothing of all that.

Pierre your failure to see and acknowledge your own bias is a great failing for any scientist.
Such a tendency in any research is bound to bring the whole of the research by that individual into question, which is always a shame.

I can manage my bias, Steve. I know I have it. That is why I am waiting.

Best wishes, Pierre

Bridewell
07-21-2016, 02:07 PM
Hi Steve,

I do not have such a bias. History has it. 16 percent of the suspects on this site are described as Jewish. The Jewish population in England in the 1880s was not even 1 percent.

Best wishes, Pierre

1%? Not in the East End it wasn't. Closer to 40%.

Bridewell
07-21-2016, 02:10 PM
16 percent of the "suspects" on this site. Not even 1 percent in England in the 1880s. Embarrassing.

Not embarrassing at all. As per my last post. The Jews made up something like 40% of the Whitechapel population. The 1% figure you quote for the whole of England is irrelevant. The murders were confined to the East End of London.

Bridewell
07-21-2016, 02:11 PM
There is an over-representation of Jewish suspects.

No there isn't.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/census/pandp/places/spit.htm

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QXtECgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=jewish+percentage+in+whitechapel+in+1881+census&source=bl&ots=yFUWzLJoya&sig=xEATfBGmVLtC8N-8Cis5xmlIeW0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvpJrjvoXOAhWFsxQKHYkhCXsQ6AEIMjAC#v=on epage&q=jewish%20percentage%20in%20whitechapel%20in%2018 81%20census&f=false

Pierre, for someone who claims to be an historian, you have a very hazy grasp of 19th century pogroms and their effect.

Scott Nelson
07-21-2016, 02:24 PM
Well, this thread started off good (thanks Errata), but then went south in a hurry. Lets get back to Aaron's mental condition and the possible reasons for suspecting him.

Bridewell
07-21-2016, 02:36 PM
Well, this thread started off good (thanks Errata), but then went south in a hurry. Lets get back to Aaron's mental condition and the possible reasons for suspecting him.
Apologies for my part in that, Scott. I just couldn't let the 1% figure pass unchallenged.

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 03:03 PM
You must compare the figure 16 percent to the fact that there was not even 1 percent in England. They are overrepresented as a group.



No Pierre the Jewish population is and was concentrated in certain areas. Therefore you must look at the figure of 16% and see where most of those were living to see if they are overrepresented.

I believe most of these 16% were living or working in the area of Whitechapel.
It seems clear therefore that the major criteria for suspects on this site is that the killer was local, not that they were Jewish.

Therefore how does 16% compare to the 1888 Jewish population in Whitechapel, Is it over or under represented if the belief is that the killer was local.
But you know all of this I find your attitude on this total incomprehensible.



If you think that a specific group of people is incidentally overrepresented in this case you should read some history about other accusations against Jews in history. They are not incidental. Every witness who is accusing a Jew in the past knows that it is a Jew he is accusing. We know this since the witness statements make this clear.




That is a misrepresentation of what I said Pierre, the witness statements do not as far as i am aware name an individual.
Persons were suspected not because they were Jews. they were suspected for other reasons, and they just happened to be Jewish.
Actually I think I know a fair bit about the history of Jewish people, my paternal grand mother being of that religion, so please do not attempt to lecture me on this.






There you go.




There I go what?
Yes there are reports which say the person seen was of Jewish appearance, what ever that means.
Some of those reports may be bias, no one argues that, but it is an enormous jump to say all reports which mention a Jewish person are bias.

Where is the evidence that all such reports are untrue?


That is the problem. It is likely that some people would never have been thought of in this case if they had not been Jewish. And he we sit with old anti-Semitism instead of solving a real problem. For me as an historian this is not a question about speaking for different groups of people, it is a matter of throwing away old garbage. It is blocking the view.





Who in particular would not have been suspected if he were not Jewish?
Please back this up with evidence ? not opinion.



I do not rule out anything.



Yes you do, you rule out persons not on evidence but because of your bias.
To say you do not is disingenuous.
.


On the suspect site. Yes. That is right. How come they are there? What do you think is the history behind it? And while we are at it, what is the prince doing there?



Individuals are there because people have suspected them, often with little or no evidence.
That applies to the 16% of Jewish suspects and equally to the 84% of non Jewish suspects.

The prince is there because someone believed he was a suspect.

The majority of those on that list are very poor suspects, I actually do not like to call them such, much of the research to name many of them was faulty and poorly done.
However they are there and most people will see how ridiculously weak some of the arguments are.




Sure it can. But there is no evidence.



Actually there is, but it does not fit your ideal so you disregard it.




There is no depth to look into. Aaron is not mentioned. Aaron Kosminsky had nothing connecting him to any of the murder sites. For me it is easy. No connection to any one of the murder sites, no killer. A connection to one murder site, perhaps a killer, depending on the quality of the sources. A connection to more than one murder site, perhaps a serial killer, depending on the quality of the sources. Connections to several of the murder sites and rather good to very good quality, perhaps a serial killer. All those connections, a motive, explanatory sources, time periods explained - a serial killer.


That is your opinion, given the lack of forensic science i really wonder what you expect as a link.

And who says there must be a surviving link to a site?

Of course you are entitled too that opinion.

However I wonder how much time have you spent looking at Kosminski, it need not be Aaron, to come up with these conclusions?

How much research have you read?

Come on there is not much, have you read anything not on this site?




I can manage my bias, Steve. I know I have it. That is why I am waiting.



Unfortunately my friend it is clear that you cannot, you demonstrate this time and time again.
Has I said to you before, you cannot see the wood for the trees.


Best wishes,

Steve

Elamarna
07-21-2016, 03:05 PM
Well, this thread started off good (thanks Errata), but then went south in a hurry. Lets get back to Aaron's mental condition and the possible reasons for suspecting him.

hi Scott

yes, I admit its easy to get drawn off track, but it did start out good I agree.

just like Bridewell my apologies too.

steve

Mayerling
07-21-2016, 04:19 PM
Hi Steve,

I do not have such a bias. History has it. 16 percent of the suspects on this site are described as jewish. The jewish population in England in the 1880s was not even 1 percent.

Best wishes, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Although I am Jewish, and hate to think of the possibility of it, a Jew in the East End is far from being an unlikely candidate for being the Ripper. And most of them were far from the middle class in income. Perhaps not all paupers, but some of them were. Even Anderson, in his comments, tried to emphasize it was not a better class Jewish person, like a Rothschild or Sassoon or a Disraeli type. The emphasis on poor (in the 19th Century mind set) suggested some type of mental block to failing to improve one's lifestyle or family situation. It was rather considered a type of moral failure, so that it could be seen as a breeding ground for insidieously evil behavior like that of the Ripper's toward prostitutes he slew.

It is stereotyping - definitely. But this type concentrated on the Jews because the East End was full of Jews. In some other cities of the time other minorities would have been knocked. In Liverpool (for decades) the Irish were similarly looked at as a criminal spawning class in it's lower sectors in the city.

Jeff

MsWeatherwax
07-22-2016, 01:05 AM
[QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;388552][QUOTE=Pierre;388550]

Missing material can not be used as sources.

My feelings exactly, Pierre.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that AK was a suspect because he was poor, Jewish and had mental health issues. There is so much missing material that none of us can know (probably ever) the reasoning behind the Police suspicions.

Spitalfields and the East End have a massive history of Jewish immigration - those two areas in particular were very well known as Jewish neighbourhoods in the 1800's. You do not have to be a statistician to know that there is likely to be a skewed number of Jewish suspects in an area where there was a huge Jewish population.

Edit: That is not to say that there wasn't massive antisemitism at that time - there certainly was.

Wickerman
07-22-2016, 05:10 AM
Well, this thread started off good (thanks Errata), but then went south in a hurry. Lets get back to Aaron's mental condition and the possible reasons for suspecting him.

If I recall from previous similar discussions, we have no clue what his mental condition was in 1888, and he was far too young to match any suspect descriptions.

Have we advanced any further from this?

Abby Normal
07-22-2016, 07:58 AM
And, last but not least, nothing connects him to the murder sites.

Regards, Pierre

except the only direct evidence in the whole case against any suspect- positive ID of being with a murder victim shortly before her death.

Joshua Rogan
07-22-2016, 09:30 AM
Pierre is spot on, there is a clear suspect bias displayed on this site. By my calculations, around 1% of the suspects are princes, and yet barely 0.0000178% of the population as a whole can be described as such. Therefore they are massively overrepresented as suspects. How embarrassing anti-royalist.

Abby Normal
07-22-2016, 12:40 PM
Pierre is spot on, there is a clear suspect bias displayed on this site. By my calculations, around 1% of the suspects are princes, and yet barely 0.0000178% of the population as a whole can be described as such. Therefore they are massively overrepresented as suspects. How embarrassing anti-royalist.

LOL. now that's funny.