Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

Although during the LVP there had to be more than one Polish Jew in London, I'm certain that when Anderson was writing TLSOMOL he referenced the innocent Kosminski from the MM.

As I wrote in my article, Anderson may have been a lot of things but he most definitely wasn't stupid. He probably didn't name his Polish Jew because, as unlikely as it may have been, Kosminski could have sued him for libel. And based on Leopold Greenberg's reaction to Anderson's "wicked assertion" I'm willing to bet that the Jewish community would have stepped up to help him bring an action.

Happy New Year.

Simon

[jason_c]

Hi Jason,

you must be kidding.
Just have a look at the Ostrogish part of the same document...
How accurate would you find it ?

Amitiés,
David

From what we know of Ostrog its not very accurate according to his criminal record at least. But even Ostrog's part of the memorandum is not entirely without merit. This may further change in future if we ever find more information on him.

You asked why Kosminski was put forward as being a suspect. MM gave his reasoning, its there in black & white. Theres no need for anyone to believe MacNaghten, but it was the basis for police suspicions against him.

[DVV]

But even Ostrog's part of the memorandum is not entirely without merit.

That's a most elegant way to express how rubbish it is.
Agreed!

Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Mistaken post please delete

[Jeff Leahy]

Quote: Hi All,

In the complete absence of any evidence to show that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, what does it matter to us whether the poor man was a drooling vegetable or Brain of Britain?

This is a rather ridiculous argument for someone as well informed on the subject, as you are Simon. Clearly there was not enough evidence at the time to bring the case to court, plus no one has any better evidence (or lack of it) against any other suspect.

He was what he was, and we can get a pretty good idea about that from his extant case notes. No amount of argument about the many and varied manifestations of schizophrenic behavior is going to make him any less innocent.

Well here you are incorrect. Clearly Schizophrenia is at the heart of the case for Aaron Kosminski being the Ripper. And many of the main protagonists for Anderson’s theory have argued that Aaron could NOT have been the Ripper because of those case notes. Indeed the Great Martin Fido himself has mistakenly made a claim for Cohen on that very point.

If we are truly concerned about such matters, then Aaron Kosminski deserves better from us than the current lynch mob mentality which seems intent on protecting the reputations of two top cops at the exorbitant expense of condemning an innocent man to eternal damnation.

I object to this comment. Clearly the case being made is that Aaron simply happened to be Jewish, which had no bearing about the murders what so ever, and was clearly suffering from an illness and was thus not to blame for what happened. The man, if he was the Ripper, which as you says no one can prove, was clearly very ill. No one has been more consistent in pointing out the facts about schizophrenia than I over the past three years and SCHIZOPHRENICS ARE NOT DANGEROUS! Unless perhaps to themselves. Only in very very rare circumstance do they become so. I cant quote exact statistics to you because there I no internationally excepted figures, but only about 3 in one hundred schizophrenics are dangerous (depending where you live) but most experts agree that outside influences effect these people usually drugs or alcohol, if Aaron had of been alive today he could have gotten treatment and these crimes (if he were the Ripper) probably wouldn’t have happened.

What I have been arguing is not that Aaron was the Ripper (although I except the possibility) but that given what is known about him and the condition he was suffering from, THAT HE COULD HAVE BEEN THE RIPPER.

Better to spend our time asking why Macnaghten originally chose to put Kosminski in the frame for the Whitechapel murders, why it took seven years for Anderson to first advance his nameless homicidal maniac committed to an asylum theory, and why someone so desperately wanted Macnaghten and Anderson to be seen walking on water that they were willing to tinker with Swanson's marginalia.

A very happy and prosperous New Year to you all.

Simon

I really don’t see a problem with Anderson’s position. Policeman don’t discuss on-going cases, he’s a busy man, no one could have fore seen the on going interest in this case, at the time, certainly not into future generations…He keeps stump until later on, then with the benefit of hindsight says, well yes we got someone, we put him in the asylum and the murders stopped so we must have been right..

Again I’m not saying he was right, just that he clearly believed he was right and I don’t think he would have lied.

Pirate

Sorry guys I carefully made this post in word but the quotes did not translate. To make it more clear I highlighted Simons quotes and I now appear to have made two posts. I do apologuise...one of the problems of my condition. Happy New year

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

No problem. I understood your original post.

I have never suggested that schizophrenics are dangerous. I have merely argued that no amount of discussion on the subject will make Kosminski any less innocent. I choose my words carefully for, except in the fevered imagination of Macnaghten, there was never any question of him being guilty. The same applies [if not more so] to Michael Ostrog, who was in a French jail throughout the WM. And then there's Druitt . . .

You said that schizophrenics "are not dangerous", so what is it about Kosminski and "the condition he was suffering from" which suggests to you that "he could have been the Ripper"?

I'm not certain why you objected to my comment about a lynch mob mentality, for I am reliably informed that a book about Kosminski as the Ripper is currently being written on the basis of Macnaghten and Anderson's word—or in plain English no evidence whatsoever. If that's not protecting the reputations of two top cops I don't know what is.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Simon,

With all due respect you do not know what is in my book, but I can guarantee you I did not write it to protect the reputations of anybody. My motivation to write the book was simply to get the information about Kozminski out to the public, in a readable form.

RH

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

You said that schizophrenics "are not dangerous", so what is it about Kosminski and "the condition he was suffering from" which suggests to you that "he could have been the Ripper"?

I think that is a fair question and clearly one, which I would ask myself. I’m hoping that you might give me a little time to condense that opinion. I’m not avoiding the question just asking for more time on a very difficult and constantly changing subject. However I do know that there are now experts willing to give a different reply to that question than when it was asked in 1988? I’m not an expert…I simply seek to ask the right questions with contempory experts.

There is nothing about Schizophrenia which is black and White. You can only work in case studies. My own brother will not be committed to specifics. Indeed some would question the term ‘SCHIZOPHRENIA’ altogether, which means its likely that in a few years people will look back and laugh as I am doing to those who raised theories twenty years ago.

Also I have not read Rob’s book. But I have followed his posts with extreme interest for some years. As I have followed those Andrew Spellek.

These guys are not wild theorists but hard core Ripperologist’s who have given serious attention to detail for the benefit of the field of ‘Ripperology’…

To be honest I am ashamed of the work done in ‘The Media’ and specifically documentaries in the UK, in recent years. Lets hope someone at last takes these guys seriously because they are the future of Ripperology and people like me aren’t worthy of the damn hard work they have put in…

Pirate Jack

[lynn cates]

schizophrenia

Hello Pirate.

"Indeed some would question the term ‘SCHIZOPHRENIA’ altogether, which means its likely that in a few years people will look back and laugh as I am doing to those who raised theories twenty years ago."

Well, R D Laing and Thomas Szasz are 2 such. I daresay it is to them you refer.

I think such skepticism is well founded--the diagnosis is indeed a slippery one.

Do you see a distinction to be made between schizophrenia (again, if it exists) and paranoid schizophrenia? Do you see a possible connection between Kosminski and the latter?

The best.
LC

[Natalie Severn]

Jeff,
I do not think it helpful to state "the ripper was clearly very ill" [and therefore not responsible for his actions].We dont know whether he was "very ill".He clearly had "abnormal urges" but does that of itself make him "very ill"? I dont think it does. He may or may not have been . Was everyone involved "very ill" [ -and therefore not guilty of any crimes against humanity?-] who murdered the 6,000,000 Jewish men women and children in WW2? I think not.But they had ,by the various means of propaganda that Hitler and his mob put out ,begun to perceive Jewish people as "abstractions" and not human beings at all.I personally see the ripper as having adopted a similar attitude towards the women he slaughtered.He didnt see them as human beings just abstractions who could be got rid of .
Best
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Lynn

You are clearly better informed than me, but yes I am aware that there are those within the profession that would seek to re-define the word SCHIZOPHRENIA, specifically as a syndrome.

However my theorizing has been made with people working at field level, people who who work with, sanction, and understand ‘schizophrenia’ as it is applied to patients…today.

You can call something anything you wish, it’s the practical, applied, use of the term that I’m interested in. And clearly that is very difficult. Even more so if you ask a professional to give opinion on a case now over one hundred years ago.

These guys are clearly very cautious what they are willing to say, because correctly they are very concerned how numb wits in the media, yes like me, are going to interpret that information, because obviously they don’t need channel FIVE shouting about schizophrenic’s being possible ‘Jack the Rippers’ when this case is clearly almost unique…

It has to be put in Historical context, so back to Martin Fido

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,
I do not think it helpful to state "the ripper was clearly very ill" [and therefore not responsible for his actions].We dont know whether he was "very ill".He clearly had "abnormal urges" but does that of itself make him "very ill"? I dont think it does. He may or may not have been . Was everyone involved "very ill" [ -and therefore not guilty of any crimes against humanity?-] who murdered the 6,000,000 Jewish men women and children in WW2? I think not.But they had ,by the various means of propaganda that Hitler and his mob put out ,begun to perceive Jewish people as "abstractions" and not human beings at all.I personally see the ripper as having adopted a similar attitude towards the women he slaughtered.He didnt see them as human beings just abstractions who could be got rid of .
Best
Norma

Hi Norma

Merry Xmas.

Look this is bollocks. The death of millions of jews has nothing what so ever to do with Schizophrenia, NOTHING.

Aron was mentally ill. Thats very simple. What ever his race , creed or colour, he would have reacted in the same way, given his illness.

The problem is that we still do not fully understand that illness. You are again trying to rationalize the irrational.

Yours Pirate / Jeff x

PS I have been over the case notes in detail with my brother and he has little problem giving a deignosis of schitzophrenia.

[Stephen Thomas]

Oh, OK,

I'll say this one more time and then sod off.

Anderson's 1910 pronouncements have absolutely nothing to do with Macnaghton's 1894 take-your-pick fall guy fantasy fest. Don't confuse stuff, folks.

And a Happy New Year to you, Simon

[DVV]

Hi Stephen,

but the first mention of Anderson having a theory dates back to 1895 (from Griffiths I think). And prior to this, at least up to 1892, the little he said rather indicates that he had no idea of who JtR was.

Amitiés, best wishes,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes ther is a problematic three years to cover. I dont think anyone is arguing otherwise. Just that there are many senarios which explain this?

Pirate