Motives for Druitt and Kosminski?

[martin wilson]

Hello all
Ravkah,
Between 1881 and 1906,approximately 100,000 east european jews came to London, most of them in the east end, this was to escape the reprisals against the jewish community living in the Pale of Settlement ghetto on the Polish-Russian border, which happened after the asassination of the Tsar,Alexander II by a terrorist group that included a jewish seamstress.
Given that Hasidism originated in eastern europe in the 18th century,it's reasonable to conclude that some of them were followers.
To some extent Hasidism was already here,the Polish jew Chaim Jacob Samuel Falk, freemason and Kabbalist arrived in 1742, and there are some lurid claims about his practices, particularly interesting to me is the claim that he could induce an orgasmic trance through respiration techniques, not for prurient reasons though I hasten to add.
Eastern european jews may not have assimilated into established synagogues but formed their own steibels,somewhat like the home church movement.
What is peculiar, and in spiritual terms the LVP was an especially peculiar time,particularly in the east end, is that any study of jewish mysticsm in that period always tends to lead back to the Golden Dawn, they published translations of the Kabbalah and other mystical texts predating 1888.
Where I am having problems is establishing a consistent line on the attitudes of Orthodox Judaism to Kabbalah study, one source considers it dangerous and that it should only be studied by married men over 40, another source says this is nonsense.
As Phil allowed this to be a speculative thread,obviously I am interested in why the Kabbalah was considered dangerous,and if so what effect it would have on an already disturbed mind.
All the best.

[Jonathan H]

To Simon Wood

An excellent question which I wondered right from the start of my 'case disguised' theorising, eg. what disguise...? And why disguise at all when you can just omit?

How can you be committed to protecting the Druitt family and at the same time blithely naming them in an official document -- as no less than the ur-source of the belief -- and showing an unofficial version with their names to cronies, both writers, one with a huge readership?!

Then I realsied that since Mac sincerely, if mistakenly, believed also in Montie's guilt, then it could leak again in Dorset.

It had once in 1891, why not again?

Why not leak with even more details to the point where the government of the day would have to query Scotland Yard as to what they knew about it?

Of course Scotland Yard knew nothing about it, just Macnaghten. And he really believed that this was Jack the Ripper! The saga was over.

Yet while Mac was a protecting a 'good' family, who was protecting his back and that of the Yard for that matter?

If the North Country Vicar is real and if he means Druitt, then Mac knew that time-bomb was going to go off in late 1898, or early 1899. In that the leak was definitely going to be a press statement, though veiled in semi-fictitious form.

Another Ripper embarrassment for the Yard.

So Mac had two pressures on him about this secret in th 1890's; that it would leak again in Dorset and that it was going to come out, somewhat, a few years down the track.

Then, unexpectedly, in 1894 'The Sun' and Inspector Race forced Mac's hand.

This Cutbush story might cause somebody in Dorset to speak to the press to say, no, the real Ripper was long deceased, and so on.

Therefore Mac decided to commit to the official record that Druitt was a suspect, but not a posthumous one from a private investigation in 1891.

Instead he redacted Druitt back into the 1888 investigation, a big lie, and that he was a minor hearsay suspect, another lie, about whom they were unsure if he was a doctor or not, or from a good family, another pair of lies, and who could not be arrested because the evidence was practically non-existent (another whopper: the real reason was that the suspect himself was long non-existent) and may have killed himself on the same night -- the final lie.

But he also was careful to make it clear. on the record, that the family were sure, and that he was sexual maniac in case the whole thing came spilling out.

He also added two geuinely minor suspects: Aaron Kosminski, a local madman sectioned long after the Kelly murder partly for threatening a female relation and turned into 'Kosminski' the ferocious masturbator sectioned in March 189, and Michael Ostrog, a very private and delicious act of revenge by Mac against this con man defiler of his beloved Eton.

Like Druitt theor details would be reshaped for the government and beyond it the public. They were there because somebody had to be, in order to say that Druitt was just one suspect among others about whom there was no hard evidence. Tumblety and Pizer were genuine minor embarrassments, but better to steer clear of them.

Also, in an incredibly daring bit of deceit, with Mac banking on short memories, he gave the false impression that the police knew at the time that Kelly was the last murder and thus the three madmen, Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog, broadly fit the theory of the 'awful glut' implosion. That no maniac could possibly survive to function normally after the Miller's Ct. Horror, and since the might-be-a-doctor killed himself maybe the same night he is the likeliest of these minor suspects, though not even the 'shadow of proof' was ever on offer.

Eg. not our fault we did not arrest Druitt if it turns out from other sources that he is the fiend after all. That he was not a doctor would be explained by poor memory (it was his father, uncle and cousin) by a police administrator much celebrated, though, for his razor-sharp powers of recall.

Of course Mac was also trying to hold the line too against the exposure of Druitt, by not mentiong his age, not mentioning that he lived at Blackheath, not mentioning that he was from Dorset, that he was a country cricketer and part-time teacher, and by falsely implying that he might be a surgeon rather than a barrister.

In the Commons, if it came to it, H H Asquith would simply say that the police had much better suspects because nobody could have functioned after Kelly, among them a doctor who took his own life.

Thus affable Mac strained to 'keep everyone satisfied'.

If the whole thing came about about Druitt well the police could point to the 1894 Report that they were aware of him, aware of the family's belief, but there was nothing they could do to arrest him in 1888, and then he was deceased and beyond due process anyhow.

Mac also decided to quite falsely claim that Cutbush and Cutbush were related (the uncle practically becoming the poor madman's de-facto father) to provide the Liberals with a potentially scary-ugly libel element -- and a grubby, personal reason for Race's revelation to the tabloids.

But the Cutbush scandal fizzled. It was never sent.

Rather than destroy the Report Mac kept it on file in case it was needed, as the truth could emerge from Dorset, or even Bournemouth or London -- on any day. A completely unknown document until long after it had outlived its usefuleness and even its specific purpose and context -- unknown until 1966 and it has been misunderstood ever since.

By 1898 Mac was aware that the 'Kosminski' suspect, whom he had falsely claimed to Anderson (and perhaps Swanson) was safely dead (that's Druitt), was beginning to gain traction because of Anderson talking about him -- in public. Aaron Kosminski and his oblivious family were quite safe because they had both been rendered unrecognisable.

The Vicar's narrative was coming up and so Mac got in first.

He took out the Report and rewrote it with everybody sexed-up and with Druitt definitely a middle-aged doctor and the family now only suspicious and making allegations --whereas Mac had been pretty certain (by late 1894 Ostrog had been cleared of the murders but Mac kept him anyway because her served a fictional-polemical purpose). He then either read aloud it to Major Griffiths or showed it to him and lied that it was a definite 'Home Office Report', and so the 'West of England' MP tale of 1891 was secretly relaunched, but on Mac's terms, in 1898. In case it looked like a Tory fix, Mac also briefed Sims, the Liberal-Radical, and the latter quashed the Vicar quite rudely and effectively.

Macnaghten knew that the official report was bruried and that Griffiths and Sims would never reveal the name to the public (Dr D) and so Druitt and his family remained both revealed and yet slyly and safely disguised.

It worked a treat: 'substantial truth under fictitious form' as the Vicar characterised this strategem openly, while Mac did it covertly via literary cronies.

In 1913 to assuage the fears of the suviving Druitts the retiring Mac calimed to have destroyed all documentation naming their membe,r as they that he alone knew at the Yard. Another lie, of course, as Mac destroyed neither his sexed-up version nor the official one.

What Mac could not have forseen is that his ruse, largely abandoned in his own 1914 memoirs, would mislead and fool Ripper researchers into the 21st Century ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

A question.

If Macnaghten was so intent on protecting the reputation of this county-class family, why mention Druitt at all?

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

Well, I have a great deal of doubt about lumping Sir Robert Anderson, a pious, reclusive, egoistic sectarian, with the middle-class Littlechild (who was correct about Wilde being a homsexual masochist and Thaw being a vicious deviant and murderer) along with the affable, Old Etonian Sir Melville Macnaghten. The latter sort of declassed himself by becoming a Scotland Yard 'Sleuth' (true, they are all three Tories, Gentiles, and cops, but the differences arguably outweigh the similarities -- and in terms of class Mac far outranked the other two)

For one thing, Sir Melville had come from an institution which he adored and one which was inevitably rife with secret homosexuality, bisexuality and masturbation -- and heterosexuality, for those who could get it from the local barmaids.

Look how Mac writes about 'Kosminski' in his Report(s): he was driven into an imbecilic state by 'solitary vices' perhaps after what he had done to Kelly. That is a much less harsh description of masturbation than Anderson's 'unmentionable vices'.

The shaky conventional wisdom claims that Mac did not realise that Aaron Kosminski had only been sectioned long after he had joined the Force. He only accidentally backdated it to before he joined the police, to a time shortly after Kelly to possibly explain the cessation of the murders, eg. the Polish Jew's mind was turned to masturbatory mush by what he had done to that poor woman's remains.

Yet Mac knew that in the medical records of Kosminski the cause of his mania, which had been initially registered as unknown, was changed to 'self-abuse'.

He knew that tiny detail yet screwed up the obvious ones. Is that really likely?

Just as he supposedly does not know that Druitt was a young barrister but does know that among his things found on his soggy corpse was found a season rail pass -- and that his brother had been frantically trying to find him after he vanished. But he supposedly honestly forgot his chief suspect's correct age, his correct vocation(s) and the correct timing of his suicide -- which he changed in his memoirs anyhow?

And all this forgetting only accidentally yet very fortutiouslyhid Druitt's identity from the press, from researchers, from his cricket club, from his grown-up pupils, and from the respectable circles in which the surviving family members moved.

The luck of Constabale Magoo ...

Mac knew that Ostrog was just a melancholic thief as he stole valuables from Eton on the day he was there as an old scholar. He knew that the Russian con man only pretended to be a doctor. Furtehrmore, he knew, like everybody else, that in late 1894 Ostrog was banged-up in France at the time of the murders. Yet Mac went ahead and showed Griffiths and Sims (or verbally communicated its contents) his 'Home Office Report' which named Ostrog as a dangerous homicidal lunatic and a possible suspect for 'Jack'.

As for John Henry Lonsdale that is just speculation. There are no sources which suggest that Montie confided anything to him. He is just so convenient a peg because he was a barrister and a priest, he was down the road from Druitt's legal chambers, he was known to the clerical cousin Charles, and he had a parish in Dorset, and is an Old Etonian like Farquharson and Macnaghten.

But he is not at Druitt's funeral (he was apparently on his honeymoon).

What might have happened, instead, is the following:

A friend of William's discovered that Montie was missing from his legal chmabers for over a week and alerted the brother on the 11th. He came to London and went to the school on the 13th (misreported as the 30th) and then may have checked out his cricket club or other haunts. By then he had the note explaining that he was contemplating suicide and so he knew that his troubled brother might be deceased, or holed up somewhere -- possibly abroad -- considering taking his own life.

It is at this point that a priest came forward and told William Druitt the wholly unexpected and shattering news that his AWOL brother had confessed to him that he was, of all things, the Whitechapel fiend. The shock of that ghastly revelation is hard to imagine, and surely William rejected it as simply evidence of an unbalanced mind and not of a maniacal sibling.

And yet he was convinced -- he believed.

This priest might have been cousin Charles, the future vicar. He later had a Dorset parish called Whitchurch and the other Vicar's tale of 1899 weirdly changes Whitechapel to 'Whitechurch'. Also Mac does not suggest anybody outside the family 'believed' (though obviously Farquharson did even after Coles' murder and Sadler's arrest -- the MP was still 'adamant').

The source of distress in the family was that Montie had told the priest that he wanted the truth to come out in ten years and Charles -- if the priest was Charles -- was going to honour that promise.

This is what Mac learned in 1891 after it leaked in Dorset on the local, Tory grapevine: the story was coming out in 1898/9 no matter what, though veiled via 'substantial truth in fictitious form'. This gave the upper class smoothie the idea to get in first with his own self-serving, semi-fictional version, and so on.

In his veiled memoirs the murderer's 'own people' notice that he is 'absented' and this is [apparently] incriminating, for they knew he probabaly had a 'diseased body' too. How did they know that? Because he told them?

[lynn cates]

regularity

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. Permit me to welcome you to the boards.

I think we agree, then. I think many suspects were not sexually regular--and that made them suspects.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Excellent Chris. Thanks much. Yes, the Hassidic Jews must be to whom I'm referring......I see them daily in my current neighborhood....

They are probably just Orthodox.
Anyway, what you have stated basically confirms my thesis that we can't lump Jewish reverence into a single bucket. I think we must be careful when basing our suppositions on strict Jewish practice....[/QUOTE]
I don't know if this is true in the UK, but it was very true in the US. Established Jewish families in the 1880s tended to be Sephardic Jews, who had different practices and traditions from Ashkenazic Jews, which is what the newcomers were. Also, the newcomers were Yiddish-speakers, while Sephardic Jews spoke Ladino, although families who had been in the US, and I suspect the UK as well, did not speak Ladino.

Something I have always wondered was what England's official policy on the entry of Jews was during the early Renaissance.

England was no longer Catholic in 1555, and was under the rule of Queen Elizabeth I. When Pope Paul IV established the Jewish ghettos for Catholic Europe, England would be a logical place to go, if one could get in. However, any introduction to The Merchant of Venice I have read stated that Shakespeare had probably never met a Jew, and that England have evicted its Jews at some previous time.

At any rate, Jews who headed for England in 1555, if there were any would have tended to come from Spain, France and Italy, and be Sephardic Jews.

So I would suspect that established families in 1888 in Britain would probably be Sephardic, and as unhappy, perhaps even less happy about the vast influx of Yiddish-speakers from Eastern Europe, as the general public was.

[RivkahChaya]

"I mean, do not the Orthodox were curly sideburns, hats and beards always....?"

To set you right, you are thinking of the Hassidic Jews who are more ritualistic in terms of dress and practices than other Orthodox Jews.

Sorry, but I must correct this. While I don't know much specifically about life in London as a Jew at any time, I do know a lot about the immigrant Jewish population of New York around JTR's time, which was similar in background to the London population, and I know a lot about the history of Jews in the US since, and the different divisions in Judaism.

Hasidism is in no way a synonym for Orthodox Judaism. There are many different kinds of Orthodox Judaism, and Hasidism is a movement in Judaism that began in the late 1700s. When there were liberal movements away from Orthodox Judaism about 100 years later, they all came from the main body of Judaism, none from Hasidism, so Hasidism has remained a form of Orthodox Judaism, but regular Orthodox Jews in general consider it a sect, and don't like it when you refer to all of Orthodoxy as Hasidic.

There are a few different varieties of Orthodox Judaism, while we are at it, although this mainly applies to the US. There's Modern Orthodoxy, and Haredism. The Haredi are sometimes called Ultra-Orthodox, but they object to being called that, on the grounds that they have not somehow become more of anything, or that their level of observance is different from that of their great-grandparents (or whatever the last generation in Europe was).

Hasidism is a little odd, in my personal opinion, as it embraces different kinds of mysticism, and if you are going to find anything strange in Judaism in the modern world, like people who believe that illness can be cause by possession, you will find it in an Hasidic community. The Hasidim are the people who, if you have a house fire, or your plumbing breaks down, will ask if you have checked you mezzuzah scrolls (the little parchments in containers on your doors); maybe one has becomes corrupt, and that has brought misfortune on you. No other Orthodox Jew would suggests that HaShem operates on that sort of petty level.

While I'm at it, Hasidism is where you will find the Lubavitch, the Jews who venerate this one particular rabbi, who for a long time many thought would be the messiah. Clearly he wasn't, but they still think he was somehow wiser than other rabbis, including the Baal Shem Tov, who founded Hasidism, and they have photos on him on the mantle, the way Catholics have pictures of saints. Very creepy.

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

I have little doubt that in Mac's mind--to say nothing of Sir Robert and Littlechild's--ANY sexual irregularity indicated sexual insanity....

Cheers.
LC

I guess that sums up what I was going for. Maybe no one suspected Druitt of being homosexual, but there was a time when being gay made you a suspect in all sorts of things. Maybe this was not yet true in 1888. I do know that some of the very bad books on read on JTR, when I first read about the case when I was in jr. high school (about 12 year old) suggested that gay men were more likely to commit these sort of crimes in general, and I even remember one suggesting that JTR's quick getaways indicated he had a partner, so possibly it was a pair of male lovers. (No, I don't remember the title, but it was a paperback, and was about several unsolved cases.)

But I also read suggestions that Zodiac, Son of Sam (before he was caught), The Green River Killer (again, before he was caught), and the Black Dahlia killer were all likely to be gay. This was all when the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental illness used by the American Psychiatric Institute still described homosexuality, all by itself, as a mental illness. Ordinary homosexuality was removed in 1973, but the DSM retained "ego-dystonic homosexuality" until 1986.

It really wasn't until Jeffrey Dahmer (final "big" arrest in 1991), I think, that everyone sort of woke up, and said, "Oh, that's what happens when a serial killer is actually gay."

[martin wilson]

The Berner street socialists are interesting, not so much for their politics but for the rejection of their religion in order to become a member, Rivkachayas point about religious rebellion may be relevant here as part of a religious narrative, from rebellion to rejection.
however,just to stir the pot, I can bring back in Mary Kelly and add Martha Tabram based on the phases of the moon rather than a lunar cycle.
Tabram First day of the new moon.
Nicholls Second day of the moons last quarter.
Chapman Second day of the new moon.
Stride/Eddowes Second day of the moons last quarter.
Kelly Fourth day of the new moon.

It's awful tempting to suspect an occult motive based on this, but my opinion is that this is misleading, I think that they represent opportunity as the killer would have been out and about on those nights.
There is of course a society whose meetings are held according to the phases of the moon,the freemasons,there is a source somewhere on casebook putting Charles Warren at the Quautor Coronati lodge on November 9th.
My opinion however is that it is nothing to do with orthodox freemasonry,but a society founded by 3 freemasons (the 3 Juwes? I dont think so but I will post it here for consideration) i.e the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,founded in March 1888.
Thats off thread though and I'm still plodding through what I arrogantly call research,which mostly consists of clicking on every link websites provide.
All the best.

[lynn cates]

religion on Berner st

Hello Greg.

"And the Jews on Berner Street, the socialists, how religious were these radicals?"

Not at all.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

A gray area...

Hello Greg

While I am not Jewish, I have a long-standing interest in the Jewish aspects of the case and also the history of the Jews. I do know something about the traditions among the Jews and about the different shades of the Hebrew faith, as it were.

You say, "I mean, do not the Orthodox were curly sideburns, hats and beards always....?"

To set you right, you are thinking of the Hassidic Jews who are more ritualistic in terms of dress and practices than other Orthodox Jews. An Orthodox Jew today would take care to wear a head covering, whether a yamulke or trilby type hat, sometimes black but not necessarily, observe the Sabbath (no work during the Sabbath) and other Jewish days of prayer, likely but I think not necessarily have a beard, and eat Kosher food and drink Kosher beverages at all meals.

A religious Anglo-Jewish man of 1888 such as Samuel Montagu, Member of Parliament for Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets, would have observed these practices but be otherwise pretty much undistinguishable from an Anglo-Christian gentleman of the day, I believe.

In other words, Montagu's dress would be little different from his Christian counterpart except for wearing the head covering and being sure to observe the Jewish holidays and rituals. If anyone knows different please feel free to correct what I have written.

The Hassidic Jews and other strict Hebrew sects would be a set apart from such Anglo Jews. There would also though be a difference between Montagu, say, and Lord Rothschild or other Jewish men who though they practiced the Jewish faith might not be quite as observant as the East End Member of Parliament.

Best regards

Chris

Excellent Chris. Thanks much. Yes, the Hassidic Jews must be to whom I'm referring......I see them daily in my current neighborhood....

Anyway, what you have stated basically confirms my thesis that we can't lump Jewish reverence into a single bucket. I think we must be careful when basing our suppositions on strict Jewish practice....

It seems Lawende and company may fall into your last category although I still wonder, in general, how reverent members of the Berner street club were.......?


Greg

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all,

With all this talk of Jewishness I'm wondering what percentage of Whitechapel Jews were orthodox? I mean, do not the Orthodox were curly sideburns, hats and beards always....? The photos of shop owning Jews that I've seen have them in more or less regular clothes. And the Jews on Berner Street, the socialists, how religious were these radicals?

My feeling, although I'm not certain, is that there was variety in degree of religious observance, probably not as diverse as today, but certainly existing to some extent, so, in some leap of logic, if Jtr was a Jew, surely he didn't give a damn about religious strictures.....

I expect we can't lump all the Jews together on this issue but please, if someone knows more, don't hesitate to update us.....


Thanks, Greg

Hello Greg

While I am not Jewish, I have a long-standing interest in the Jewish aspects of the case and also the history of the Jews. I do know something about the traditions among the Jews and about the different shades of the Hebrew faith, as it were.

You say, "I mean, do not the Orthodox were curly sideburns, hats and beards always....?"

To set you right, you are thinking of the Hassidic Jews who are more ritualistic in terms of dress and practices than other Orthodox Jews. An Orthodox Jew today would take care to wear a head covering, whether a yamulke or trilby type hat, sometimes black but not necessarily, observe the Sabbath (no work during the Sabbath) and other Jewish days of prayer, likely but I think not necessarily have a beard, and eat Kosher food and drink Kosher beverages at all meals.

A religious Anglo-Jewish man of 1888 such as Samuel Montagu, Member of Parliament for Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets, would have observed these practices but be otherwise pretty much undistinguishable from an Anglo-Christian gentleman of the day, I believe.

In other words, Montagu's dress would be little different from his Christian counterpart except for wearing the head covering and being sure to observe the Jewish holidays and rituals. If anyone knows different please feel free to correct what I have written.

The Hassidic Jews and other strict Hebrew sects would be a set apart from such Anglo Jews. There would also though be a difference between Montagu, say, and Lord Rothschild or other Jewish men who though they practiced the Jewish faith might not be quite as observant as the East End Member of Parliament.

Best regards

Chris

[GregBaron]

All Kosher....?

Hi all,

With all this talk of Jewishness I'm wondering what percentage of Whitechapel Jews were orthodox? I mean, do not the Orthodox were curly sideburns, hats and beards always....? The photos of shop owning Jews that I've seen have them in more or less regular clothes. And the Jews on Berner Street, the socialists, how religious were these radicals?

My feeling, although I'm not certain, is that there was variety in degree of religious observance, probably not as diverse as today, but certainly existing to some extent, so, in some leap of logic, if Jtr was a Jew, surely he didn't give a damn about religious strictures.....

I expect we can't lump all the Jews together on this issue but please, if someone knows more, don't hesitate to update us.....


Thanks, Greg

[lynn cates]

frenzy

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

I have little doubt that in Mac's mind--to say nothing of Sir Robert and Littlechild's--ANY sexual irregularity indicated sexual insanity; and, sexual insanity is equated--again in their minds--with frenzy. In turn, this becomes a "homicidal mania." To see what I am thinking, just substitute Ostrog here. Same song; different verse.

If Druitt really is the culprit and indeed confessed to Lonsdale, I shall be delighted to reconsider.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

I don't know Latin, but Macnaghten sure did.

He was convinced Druitt killed these five women in an escalating orgasm of furious savagery. Therefore Druitt must have been 'sexually insane' or else why else would he have committed these ghastly crimes?

If you read the earlier post of mine, of relevant quotes, you will see that I think that Mac, Sims, and the [un-named] Vicar are all writing variations of the same posthumous diagnosis of the same deceased suspect: 'sexual mania', 'peculiar' or 'furious' 'mania', and 'epileptic mania'.

We can add the more straight-forward one peddled by MP Farquharson in 1891: 'homicidial mania'.

This posthumous diagnosis, I think, originated from Druitt telling people, or one person credible to the family, that he was the fiend, followed by his own self-murder before he, or they, could section him.

In the veiled version of all this, in Sims, the mad doctor confesses to other doctors about his maniacal desires a year before the murders -- none of these desires having anything to do with homosexuality.

Whereas Druitt was really a barrister, as was Henry Lonsdale (and a priest) and so was his brother William: was it therefore a barrister who confessed to another barrister after the murders?

[lynn cates]

insanus

Hello Jonathan. Pardon the intrusion, but why would not "sexually insane" designate what its Latin roots mean?

Insane = "Insanus," ie, "unhealthy."

Recall the dictum:

"Mens sana in corpore sano."

"A sound (healthy) mind in a sound (healthy) body.

Cheers.
LC