Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Jeff Leahy]

Isn"t it therefore perfectly "appropriate" and "reasonable" ,in the light of these records we have on Aaron,showing him first as a young man who enjoyed walking the dog in Cheapside and later as a "non-dangerous" / harmless asylum inmate, to question whether Anderson"s statements on JtR being a low class Polish Jew, bear any correlation to the picture of Aaron that has begun to emerge ?

Firstly as far as I remember the Dog wasn't Aaron's, it belonged to Jacob.

And to portray Aaron as an animal lover on what is actually known, is a stretch of the imagination. Though I guess possible, I dont think there's anything of fact to draw this conclusion from.

And Secondly, Schizophrenics are NOT dangerous.

So his asylum records seem consistant with the illness.

The point is that in 'rare' circumstance. Given certain conditions, Schizophrenics can become dangerous. And I understand can be sexually over active.

I'm not disputing the possibility that Aaron was very intelligent, Schizophrenics often are, but his asylum records were not written by Aaron Kosminski, and I think we should be careful of over romanticizing his character.

There is nothing in what we know about Aaron that suggests that Anderson's conclusions were incorrect.

Pirate

PS Glad your back casebook

[Natalie Severn]

Firstly as far as I remember the Dog wasn't Aaron's, it belonged to Jacob.

And to portray Aaron as an animal lover on what is actually known, is a stretch of the imagination. Though I guess possible, I dont think there's anything of fact to draw this conclusion from.

And Secondly, Schizophrenics are NOT dangerous.

So his asylum records seem consistant with the illness.

The point is that in 'rare' circumstance. Given certain conditions, Schizophrenics can become dangerous. And I understand can be sexually over active.

I'm not disputing the possibility that Aaron was very intelligent, Schizophrenics often are, but his asylum records were not written by Aaron Kosminski, and I think we should be careful of over romanticizing his character.

There is nothing in what we know about Aaron that suggests that Anderson's conclusions were incorrect.

Pirate

PS Glad your back casebook

To make a statement like "schizophrenics are not dangerous" - is unhelpful.The question to ask is surely whether the particular form of schizophreia Aaron Kosminski suffered from was dangerous.
Now if Aaron suffered from paranoid schizophrenia ,then certainly he "could "have been very dangerous.And Jack the Ripper "could have" suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.
What I am trying to establish is why Anderson"s suspect should be Aaron Kosminski.The same Kosminski btw, that Macnaghten talks of as being a "homicidal maniac" the one who terrified Whitechapel in Autumn 1888.
Macnaghten refers to him having 'a great hatred of women",yet here again there is no evidence from any records that this was the case with Aaron. Finally both Anderson and Macnaghten give "solitary vices" as the reason Kosminski [or their low class Jew]suspect, has become mentally ill---as did his family ---yet not a single doctor refers to it,though records describe his untidiness,unwillingness to work, apathy,"cleanliness" fetishes about drinking and eating, preferences for speaking in his mother tongue,intermittent incoherence etc and his hallucinations -both auditory and visual etc.
As Ap pointed out earlier,if Aaron really was Jack the Ripper or the "homicidal maniac described,it is very strange indeed that he was not sent to Broadmoor,which was and still is a high security hospital for the criminally insane.
It is absolutely ridiculous to assert that Jack the Ripper was ever harmless.If he was schizophrenic then he was a paranoid schizophrenic, and moreover he was a paranoid schizophrenic whose illness took a highly dangerous course that ended the lives of at least five women.And lets not talk nonsense about premature "burn out".Aaron Kosminski was 24 years of age when he walking the dog in Cheapside.This was a full year after Jack the Ripper had held Whitechapel in a state of abject terror.Aaron certainly was not "burnt out then,when he was walking the dog in November 1889 ,neither was he,according to his records ,"burnt out" until at least the end of the following decade.
Meanwhile we are expected to believe that Jack the Ripper magically morphed into Aaron Kosminski , a rather stubborn but quite harmless person with mental health problems as the hospital records record.

[Chris]

What I am trying to establish is why Anderson"s suspect should be Aaron Kosminski.

I think there are two questions here:
(1) Were Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten talking about Aaron Kozminski, or a different Kozminski?
(2) Was Aaron Kozminski the murderer?

Now admittedly there are statements in the accounts of Swanson (certainly) and Macnaghten (apparently) that don't fit Aaron Kozminski. But in the absence of any other Kozminski that fits any of the statements of Anderson, Swanson or Macnaghten, I think we have to assume that the person they are talking about is Aaron.

The only realistic alternative is that for some reason they knew someone as Kozminski who, for some reason, was never officially recorded under that name. But if there was anyone who fitted all the accounts, it appears that Martin Fido's searches would have eliminated him, regardless of the name under which he was recorded.

But of course that doesn't mean Aaron was the murderer. As I've said many times, I think he is unlikely to have had any connection with the crimes.

Finally both Anderson and Macnaghten give "solitary vices" as the reason Kosminski [or their low class Jew]suspect, has become mentally ill---as did his family ---yet not a single doctor refers to it ...

I don't understand this comment.

Of course, Aaron's medical records do refer to "self abuse" as the cause of his insanity, and that he practised self abuse was among the information supplied to Dr Houchin by Jacob Cohen.

As Ap pointed out earlier,if Aaron really was Jack the Ripper or the "homicidal maniac described,it is very strange indeed that he was not sent to Broadmoor,which was and still is a high security hospital for the criminally insane.

I'm quite happy to be corrected on this, but as I understand it he could not have been sent to Broadmoor, unless he had been indicted for a criminal offence and been found "guilty but insane" - which obviously no one was, in respect of the Whitechapel Murders.

[Lyn]

Hold on a minute, Jeff, I don't think that Norma is trying to 'romanticise' Aaron. (Nor do I see that 'whose dog it was' exactly matters. I think Norma was simply trying to mention that Aaron was apparently not considered dangerous at that time.)

Remember too, not to get into the mindset that ALL Schizophrenics aren't dangerous 'as a matter of fact'; some (far too many) have been known to be. But most aren't.

My curiosity is why Kosminski's family felt the need to 'bring him in'.

And bear in mind too that masturbation is more typical than hypersexuality amongst male Schizophrenics after 'burn out'. (Well, it often is.) There's a difference.

Ya, you got me here, you old goat you!

Lyn

[Robert]

Hi Chris

Maybe Nats meant that there are no reports of self-abuse in Aaron's notes during the time he was at the asylums.

It's impossible to get inside his mind. Maybe such self-abuse as there was actually stopped after his incarceration, because he felt happier? He would have been nagged to get up in the morning and take baths. But there would have been no stressful children to deal with, no one prompting him to get a job, and unless the authorities were heavily into therapy (which I doubt) he'd have been left more or less to himself.

One other thing, on a similar point to the self-abuse issue : we don't hear of Aaron refusing to eat meals in the asylum, or roaming the corridors and searching the floors for discarded scraps.

Robert

[Chris]

Maybe Nats meant that there are no reports of self-abuse in Aaron's notes during the time he was at the asylums.

But if it's a question of whether Macnaghten's and Swanson's Kosminski is Aaron or a different Kozminski, that's irrelevant. Macnaghten speaks of "solitary vices" and Anderson of "unmentionable vices" - both as the cause of Aaron's insanity - and Houchin records that Jacob Cohen told him he practised "self-abuse", which is carried over into the asylum records as the cause of insanity. So Aaron Kozminski fits the Anderson/Macnaghten account precisely in that respect.

[Natalie Severn]

Welcome Lyn! Hi All,
Yes Chris,Robert has correctly pointed out that despite Jacob Cohen"s comments,no medical note refers to Aaron masturbating, apart from where they are recording what Cohen said in his admission notes.The fact that this activity isnt mentioned later ,could be because the staff at Colney Hatch were somewhat enlightened and guided by ground breaking and progressive doctors with regards to mental illness .We know Doctor Joseph Conolly pioneered progressive policies at Colney Hatch and St Bernard"s Hanwell from the 1850"s onwards. So maybe staff didnt think "self abuse" something that needed to be recorded,but rather formed part and parcel of other narcissistic pursuits.But as Robert said,maybe it had been simply a form of "stress relief" for Aaron when he was at home,-some respite from having to endlessly argue his corner with his relatives.
I agree Chris, that the fact that the admission notes record his "self abuse" strengthens the possibility that it is Aaron that Swanson and Macnaghten are referring to.
Regarding Aaron and the dog he took for walks-a dog he must have at least "got on with" because Aaron ,we know, could not be forced to do anything he didnt want to do and taking out a dog he didnt like would have been a very unlikely event in my opinion.But Lyn is right,I was trying to emphasise that Aaron was certainly not in the final stages of his illness, or a "burnt out" schizophrenic in November 1889 when he was walking the dog in Cheapside.This being a full year after the murders had stopped and Mary Kelly had been found in such a horrific state of mutilation.We know for a fact that Aaron's illness continued for many years yet and it struck at various times,one such time he was admitted to Mile End for a few days in 1890 for example,and then again some months later it seems to have struck again when he was admitted to Colney Hatch.Clearly,when he was admitted in 1891, his illness had not reached the final stages of dementia by any means.In fact there are clearly a number of periods of calm lucidity,together with cooperative behaviour and responses in English to various everyday questions,throughout his three year stay at Colney Hatch as well as at Leavesdon----only less often by then.We have a record of this having happened some time after he was transferred to Leavesdon in 1894 and before 1914 when his condition had deteriorated significantly and he hallucinating visually and aurally. It may be worth noting that Colney Hatch was like a small town with farms,some small industries ,a laundry,shops,occupational therapy areas etc where patients were expected to pull their weight and work as well as join in theatre activities and picnics during leisure time.This activity and work therapy Doctors were trying to introduce was hoped to break the patients from their delusions and " fantasy states" and help bring them back to states of reality. It sounds like Aaron often obstinately refused to participate in much of this ,especially work often apparently preferring to stay in his own world of hallucinations and monologues with himself in Yiddish .

[Robert]

Hi Chris

I think that Aaron was the man suspected, but I'm just wondering how accurate the info supplied to the doctors about these symptoms - self-abuse, eating from gutters - actually was. Still, if it was indeed accurate, then it seems to me to suggest that Aaron was highly suspicious, both of his family and of the world in general. Despite his reluctance to wash, there's a hint of a health fetish - "Is the food poisoned? Will I catch something if I go with a woman?" - and this doesn't go easily with plunging one's hands into a woman's abdomen. As you say, he doesn't seem a particularly good suspect, so we're thrown back on Macnaghten, Swanson and Anderson.

[Cap'n Jack]

'asylum for "quiet and harmless imbeciles" at Leavesden to serve the north of the capital.'

Now that, Natalie, is from the official Workhouse website.
So if Aaron was really a dangerous maniac capable of murdering five or more women, then what the devil was he doing at an asylum for 'quiet and harmless imbeciles'?

[Robert]

Hi AP

I remember reading - but cannot remember where - that Leavesden did indeed have some dangerous inmates. Similarly, I think there were some people at Broadmoor whose only crime was embezzlement or other non-violent offences.

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm quite sure that Leavesden did have some dangerous patients, Robert, but perhaps more dangerous to themselves rather than society at large?
And I say that because of the 'open door' policy they employed to the majority of their inmates, as highlighted by the exchange of letters in the Daily Telegraph in 1888:
'
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE DAILY TELEGRAPH."

SIR - I am requested by the committee of the Leavesden Asylum to advert to the letter signed "X" in your issue of this date, respecting the escape of a patient from this asylum some twelve months ago, and to forward you the following certificate respecting the condition of the patient prior to and at the time of his escape from the asylum.




Oct. 3, 1888.

"The patient who escaped from this institution whilst out with a walking party on Sept. 16, 1887, was, during his residence here, perfectly quiet and harmless, and certainly had no homicidal tendency. - H. CASE, Medical Superintendent."

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,


JOHN BELL SEDGWICK,
Chairman of the Leavesden Asylum Committee.
Leavesden Asylum, near Watford, Herts, Oct. 3.'

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Ap.Well that is what I would have thought was the case,although given the people there were sometimes suffering from schizophrenia ,then developments could have happened that led to an occasional outbreak of violence.I remember when my mother was working in the Art Dept of a big psychiatric hospital she told me about two chaps with obsessional compulsive disorder being placed in beds that were side by side.This led to a violent incident when both needed to get out of bed at the same time, one on the left hand side and the other on the right ,whereupon they bumped bums rather painfully which in turn led to a really nasty fight.
But Robert,I am surprised about Broadmoor.I know it too used to have a fairly liberal regime,with the patients having a nice lounge to sit in ,various activities laid on to involve themselves in such as whist and bridge, that some put on plays for an audience etc but as I understood it nearly all patients had a history of serious mental illness usually involving violence.You mention embezzlement and this is often part of a psychopaths CV, so if psychopathy was diagnosed-whatever that was called in 1888, then a psychopath could indeed have found themselves inside Broadmoor even though their offence was only "embezzlement" ,nevertheless doctors could have assessed the person as likely to create mayhem at large in society --- possibly as ruthless con-artists etc.Must go and look up Leavesdon!

[Natalie Severn]

AP before I go over to Leavesdon site just to say thanks for such a superb find.That is a really good example of how Leavesdon operated its progressive policy.Pity the chap absconded!

[Chris]

I remember reading - but cannot remember where - that Leavesden did indeed have some dangerous inmates. Similarly, I think there were some people at Broadmoor whose only crime was embezzlement or other non-violent offences.

I think it certainly wasn't meant to have dangerous inmates, though I suppose they were only human and made mistakes like anyone else.

Below is an extract from a book entitled "The Charities Register and Digest", published in 1890, available at Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=IvETAAAAIAAJ (those outside the USA may need to use a proxy server such as https://proxify.com/), which includes a useful outline of the law of the time concerning lunatics and imbeciles.

[Lyn]

Thank you for the welcome, Norma. Jeff coerced me, the rascal.

So maybe staff didnt think "self abuse" something that needed to be recorded,but rather formed part and parcel of other narcissistic pursuits.But as Robert said,maybe it had been simply a form of "stress relief" for Aaron when he was at home.

I'd go with the latter, Norma. What Robert suggested. It's my understanding, well, from what I've learned from male Schizophrenics, that "stress relief" in that way is quite common. But it's more comfortable in a home environment -- or rather, 'where one feels most comfortable' I'm told. I don't think Schizophrenia has changed over Centuries.

We know for a fact that Aaron's illness continued for many years yet and it struck at various times,one such time he was admitted to Mile End for a few days in 1890 for example,and then again some months later it seems to have struck again when he was admitted to Colney Hatch.

Schizophrenia does 'strike at various times'. See below:

In fact there are clearly a number of periods of calm lucidity,together with cooperative behaviour and responses in English to various everyday questions,throughout his three year stay at Colney Hatch as well as at Leavesdon----only less often by then.

A Schizophrenic often has a number of periods of lucidity, more than perhaps realised. The tricky thing with Schizophrenia is that no one knows when 'episodes' will strike, particularly not the sufferer. Which is debilitating and as confusing for the sufferer as the family, perhaps more so for the family, but then the sufferer often has cognition of an episode which usually causes severe depression. Thus the cycle goes on and on..

It sounds like Aaron often obstinately refused to participate in much of this, especially work often apparently preferring to stay in his own world of hallucinations and monologues with himself in Yiddish .

The world of the Schizophrenic is a crazy and confusing one, where it's often just easier to simply stay in one's own world. Interaction with others is too often just too difficult. And working with others can be a nightmare that is unimaginable to those who aren't Schizophrenic. That can be a red flag, when individual sufferers go too far inward. As in Cho, (Virginia) although note that Cho went 'postal' rather than seek out victims over a period of weeks. But then, he had access to a quicker method. And also note that Schizophrenics are all individuals, so mileage varies.