Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jason_c
    replied
    Maxine Carr gave a false alibi for Ian Huntley to the police during the Soham inquiry. Its not quite the same scenario as Kosminski and his family but an example of an educated person putting emotion and love ahead of doing the right thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Hi Michael

    Firstly I must apologies if my post gave you the impression I was directly ‘Pissed’ at you. I am aware that that my crafting of words is not always as strong as it could be.. for was not my intension.

    I was trying to deal with a generalized perception about Aaron Kosminski which I feel there is no real evidence for.

    Firstly I’m saying that the research done by Rob and his cohorts has demonstrated a very different picture of the kosminski family to what was previously thought. Ie far from being poor polish Jews they appear to have been relatively wealthy tailors and indeed somewhat aspirational having owned a pub and eventually moving to Ramsaget to open a guest house.

    Having spent some time with an expert on schizophrenia discussing the illness I also see Aaron far from being out of control masturbating and eating from the gutter as a very different young man in his teens. Perhaps even the family ‘Golden boy’. The one they saw as becoming a Doctor or lawyer or perhaps a Rabi.

    The early stages of Schizophrenia can be very confusing for the families involved, with little idea why their loved one is starting to act so strangely. Also the illness often strikes the person in waves. So periods of normality and then psychotic episodes lasting between 12 and 16 weeks. Then back to normal..

    Perhaps the family simply did what many do today and go into self denial about the problem. In your post you again use an analogy of ‘sane’ people doing bizarrely sane things out of apparent desperation, ie terrorism. We are not dealing with that here, we are dealing with a family going through the experience of illness. And the natural reaction to that might have been to help and protect. So its my belief that the family may have been through a long struggle to try and help before eventually admitting there was nothing they could do any further.

    May I again take this opportunity of wishing you a very Merry Xmas and my deepest apologies if you interpreted my post as personal in any way what so ever.

    Merry Xmas

    Yours Jeff/Pirate
    Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 12-26-2009, 11:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • perrymason
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Pirate Jack View Post
    Sorry Michael but this rearly is the same old 'Kosminski' was a looney eating out of the gutter MANTRA..

    It anoys me because it shows little concern or consideration about a serious illness: SCHIZOPHRENIA

    Not only is it possibe Aaron was a relatively high acheiving but also that his family might have been seriously confused by his behaviour.

    What you are trying to do is rationalize the un-rational.

    Pirate
    Im not sure why you are so pissed at me for suggesting that no family of any kind would harbor a member of their own who they knew, or felt strongly, that was guilty of mutilating women he murders out on the streets.

    Yes, today families of terrorists who know the plans of their children or relatives might conceal them from justice outside "their own kind".....like an Iraqi on Iraq soil who would be taken into custody by Americans or any of the coalition under the same pretext, for murdering innocent people.

    But thats due to the politics of occupations... not theology or ethnicity. In the LVP, based on my scenario, those roles were different..the crimes were by local men and investigated by the same. The Immigrants didnt feel like invaders or like the Police were oppressors from another land.

    Best regards Pirate

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Hi Pirate,

    the problem is more about Anderson point of view.
    He said his "people" sheltered Jack - I mean, knowing that he was Jack.
    Impossible, in my opinion.

    Amitiés mon cher,
    David

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Sorry Michael but this rearly is the same old 'Kosminski' was a looney eating out of the gutter MANTRA..

    It anoys me because it shows little concern or consideration about a serious illness: SCHIZOPHRENIA

    Not only is it possibe Aaron was a relatively high acheiving but also that his family might have been seriously confused by his behaviour.

    What you are trying to do is rationalize the un-rational.

    Pirate

    Leave a comment:


  • perrymason
    Guest replied
    What you seem to be discussing is under what conditions "his kind" would be inclined to shelter a man that they either knew outright or strongly suspected was killing and cutting women open.

    My answer would be fairly simple.....no relatives of anyone would hide a man like that.....for one simple reason, they couldnt be sure that they were safe in his presence if that was the case.

    Now, AP remarks about Bury are another matter, because what may have been covering up in that case is a maniac who did in fact stab women....thats a far cry from the kind of act or mind that cuts women to pieces.

    Not to say Bury wouldnt warrant some concern from his family as well, but some stabbings pale in comparison to the crimes that caused an entire nation and in fact the world to hold its breath.

    My best regards

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Originally posted by jason_c View Post
    IF Kosminski's relatives knew he was JtR then I agree they would likely have informed the police at once. IF they simply had suspiscions then it is perhaps more likely they kept quiet.

    A mixture of "Gentile Justice" and persuading oneself that the blood stained knife found under brother Aaron's bed was there for an innocuous reason.
    I'm afraid suspicions could be enough, sometimes...
    And even if you don't call the police, you take your rippin brother and tell him to get off quickly.
    Especially when you have a wife and three daughters, Jason...
    Which was the case of Mr Abraham.

    Amitiés,
    David

    Leave a comment:


  • jason_c
    replied
    Originally posted by DVV View Post
    Jason, I agree. Anderson's theory doesn't make Anderson an Anti-Semite, at least, not in the sense it has for us now.

    That immigrants may display a tendency to mistrust the police is something understandable. But it couldn't be to the extent suggested by Anderson.

    Sincerely, do you think Kosminski's brother in law was mad enough to let Jack the Ripper sleep with his wife and daughters ?

    Protecting a thief is one thing. Sleeping with Jack is another.

    Amitiés,
    David
    IF Kosminski's relatives knew he was JtR then I agree they would likely have informed the police at once. IF they simply had suspiscions then it is perhaps more likely they kept quiet.

    A mixture of "Gentile Justice" and persuading oneself that the blood stained knife found under brother Aaron's bed was there for an innocuous reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Hi Pirate,

    Anderson's own words from 1888, 89 and 92 show that he had no Polish Jew theory in mind at that time.
    At least not a firm and elaborated one.
    So what you call a "first hand experience", in this case, would rather be a late memory of such an experience.
    But AP's last post and that of Chris prove Anderson wrong in his assertion that Polish Jews would have protected the Ripper.

    The only thing Anderson was sure of, before the Macnaghten memo, is that the murderer had to be a "maniac" (1892).

    Joyeux Noël,
    David

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Unless of course he was basing what he said on first hand experience of Aron Kosminski his family and the identification..

    Perhaps the family themselves were uncertain at first and grew suspecious before they appraoched Anderson via Crawford?

    As has been stated several times there is NO direct evidence that Anderson was Anti-semitic (at least ny the modern interpretation of that meaning). So perhaps what he says is from his first hand experience?

    Merry Xmas

    Pirate Jack

    Leave a comment:


  • Cap'n Jack
    replied
    I believe the bark may have to be stripped further from the tree to allow us to see the wood beneath, for some long time ago I posted some details from this period of time where Metropolitan police officers were complaining about the recently arrived Jews from Eastern Europe because they were always at the police stations trying to bring charges against family, friends or neighbours. One quote - which I've now lost but it must be in the archives here - from a station inspector more or less was 'You can't move in the station for Jews trying to dob each other in, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, they are all at it...'
    So I think Anderson was making one of his many false assumptions based on his direct lack of knowledge of the true circumstances... so yes he was being racist by using one of the many myths about the Jews that had followed them over the sea from Eastern Europe, just like the myths about blood sacrifices etc.
    By god if it was in The Times, then it must be true.

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris View Post
    We do know that Aaron's brother Woolf had no general objection to calling in the agents of "Gentile justice", as Anderson calls it. When he caught one John Isaacs burgling his house in Greenfield Street in 1886, the first thing he did was to send for a constable.
    "...and that proves Anderson's diagnosis to be false on every point..."

    1: Bloodstains aren't so relevant, and the ripper may have lived in a common lodging house

    2: Mr Abrahams was ready to call the police when necessary.

    Bravo Chris!

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris
    replied
    We do know that Aaron's brother Woolf had no general objection to calling in the agents of "Gentile justice", as Anderson calls it. When he caught one John Isaacs burgling his house in Greenfield Street in 1886, the first thing he did was to send for a constable.

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Originally posted by jason_c View Post
    I do remember reading a dissertation on casebook that suggests these Polish Jews were wary of "Gentile justice" due to the persecution they had received in Poland/Russia. Gentile justice in mainland Europe(and at times in Britain) was a story of persecution and mob rule.

    Perhaps Jews as persecuted minority may make you more open minded to these prejudices of Anderson rather than the traditional Gentile anti Jewish beliefs.
    Jason, I agree. Anderson's theory doesn't make Anderson an Anti-Semite, at least, not in the sense it has for us now.

    That immigrants may display a tendency to mistrust the police is something understandable. But it couldn't be to the extent suggested by Anderson.

    Sincerely, do you think Kosminski's brother in law was mad enough to let Jack the Ripper sleep with his wife and daughters ?

    Protecting a thief is one thing. Sleeping with Jack is another.

    Amitiés,
    David

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Even more interesting if Robs Theory about the Crawford letter and Aaron's sister were the case?

    Pirate



    PS http://www.ripperconference.com/dvd/promo.html
    Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 12-24-2009, 01:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X