Did Anderson Know

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Pirate,

Cohen fits the profile of a murderer. Put him one on one with Kosminski and he bests him. He fits the profile of several of the most important things the police said. Things that get your attention and cause suspicion. I mentioned them in my post.

The point of syphilis is not that is made Nathan Kaminsky go insane at an early age, it shows he probably consorted with prostitutes. In any case, Martin Fido, in the podcast and here on the board, had backed off his Cohen/Kaminsky connection some. But I still think he had it right the first time.

Cohen came into the Poor Jews Temporary Shelter on Leman St. The police were called. Nobody knows where he came from. There is no further info, apart from his asylum record, about Cohen, nor Kaminsky. But to me that doesn't work against them. The great deal of info that has been uncovered about Kosminski and his family, etc, is great research work, but doesn't do anything to strengthen his case, in my mind.

Roy

ps I'm not convinced either that an insane Jew did it. Van Onselen's research shows there was another factor, the criminals in the area.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Roy

Then we must beg to differ. Schizophrenics by and large are not dangerous. In fact they are largely a danger to themselves. My brother is the head of social services at a well-known County Council and deals with, and commits, Schizophrenics on a regular basis..

He went through Aaron’s records and confirmed that he would appear to be a typical sufferer of the condition. Although he stressed that he would expect him to be relatively harmless, that is NOT to say that he might not become extremely dangerous under certain conditions, especially in the early stages of psychotic episodes.

Of course he caveat himself that he could not allow for modern drugs. But remember that Peter Sutcliff hasn’t said boo to a goose since being locked up…in fact they are considering his release because he has been such a puppy dog.

All the best, thanks for your reply

Pirate

PS I am aware of Martins position and remain a big fan.

[Natalie Severn]

There is no evidence Jeff, that Aaron Kosminski was ever,in any way, involved in violence,still less murder and even less likely , serial murder.He had no criminal record pre Colney Hatch, post Colney Hatch or at Leavesdon .
We dont know what he was like in 1888 that is quite true but what we do have is a glimpse of a young man of 24 in 1889 who took Jacob Cohen"s dog for a walk round Cheapside in November 1889 .Now if you are trying to tell us that this was someone who had a psychotic blow out in Mary Kelly"s room the previous year and subsequently became a "burnt out schizophrenic" then I think you have that quite wrong.
But what is right,is that this in no way detracts from Rob "s ----and Chris"s too I may add ---- really outstanding research of the past years,which I personally hope may help to clear Aaron ultimately,of his unlikely suspect status.

[Jeff Leahy]

As i said, its precicely because of the the reasons you list that I find Aaron interesting as a suspect, given what is now known about the condition of Schizophrenia. and I dont beleive that I ever suggested Aaron was burnt out in 1888, anyone who understands the norm of this condition knows burn out happens mid-thirties to fourties.

Pirate

[Chris]

We dont know what he was like in 1888 that is quite true but what we do have is a glimpse of a young man of 24 in 1889 who took Jacob Cohen"s dog for a walk round Cheapside in November 1889

Just on that point, what Aaron said was "the dog belongs to Jacobs". It's been speculated that he may have meant Jacob Cohen, but of course he may simply have meant someone called Jacobs that we don't know about.

[Johnr]

Yeah. But Did Anderson Know...?

Its a pity Jacob's dog wasn't a tracker, then we might get back on track.

All this valuable Cohen/Kozminski/Kosminski/Kama-a-a-an-ski discussion will be lost to future researchers trying to find it .

If Anderson knew all this was it him who told Donald McCormick?

JOHN RUFFELS.

[robhouse]

Question for Stewart Evans, or anyone else that may know the answer to this.

Hi Stewart. You wrote:

"Even accepting mental deterioration someone who was believed to have been the biggest serial killer yet seen in London would hardly have received this accolade, nor would he have been placed in the relatively insecure Colney Hatch when a secure institute for the criminally insane such as Broadmoor (where Cutbush was detained) would have been more appropriate."

Can you comment on Anderson's 1908 comment that "the author of those murders [i.e. the Whitechapel murders] was a lunatic, and if evidence had been available to bring him to justice he would have been sent to Broadmoor."

This seems (to me) to suggest that a person could only be committed to Braodmoor if there was evidence that he was a criminal, and the person was insane. In other words, I think the institution was intended to deal with those criminals that were deemed "not guilty" because they were insane as defined by the M'Naughten Rules. Is this correct?

If there was no concrete evidence against Kozminski, would the police have lacked the authority to have him committed to Broadmoor? Anderson's quote is the only reference to this I have seen.

Thanks for your help.

Rob H

[Stephen Thomas]

Can you comment on Anderson's 1908 comment that "the author of those murders [i.e. the Whitechapel murders] was a lunatic, and if evidence had been available to bring him to justice he would have been sent to Broadmoor."

This seems (to me) to suggest that a person could only be committed to Braodmoor if there was evidence that he was a criminal, and the person was insane. In other words, I think the institution was intended to deal with those criminals that were deemed "not guilty" because they were insane as defined by the M'Naughten Rules. Is this correct?

If there was no concrete evidence against Kozminski, would the police have lacked the authority to have him committed to Broadmoor? Anderson's quote is the only reference to this I have seen.

Yes, Rob, that's exactly it. Broadmoor was, and still is, a prison for (old fashioned phrase!) criminal lunatics. In order to be sent there you have to be convicted of a crime.

It's a prison first, mental hospital second.

[robhouse]

Thanks for the reply Stephen. It makes sense.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

Yes my understanding is that Broadmore is an institution for the criminally insane.

But at what point is one deemed ‘Criminally Insane’?

Do you have to be convicted by a jury? Or can you be convicted on the word of a doctor or magistrate? What evidence is required as proof of guilt? Both Today and of course in 1888….?

I have a nephew studying Law and he is always interested in stuff like this. I will give him a buzz and see if he can discover anything.

Pirate

[robhouse]

I would guess that a trial would have to be held in any case...

evidence would be presented to show that the person actually committed the crime. Then if it was deemed that the person was insane, he/she would be considered of diminished responsibility (not guilty by reason of insanity) and consigned to Broadmoor. I think it would be something like that, but I am not sure.

RH

[Cap'n Jack]

Important to note, I think, that Anderson banged on about Her Majesty's Pleasure many years later in an article in the New York Times - I have posted that some years ago - in connection with his 'suspect' locked up in Broadmoor.
So generally speaking I reckon the majority of the criminally insane at Broadmoor were subjects of Her Majesty's Pleasure.

[Jeff Leahy]

I would guess that a trial would have to be held in any case...
evidence would be presented to show that the person actually committed the crime. Then if it was deemed that the person was insane, he/she would be considered of diminished responsibility (not guilty by reason of insanity) and consigned to Broadmoor. I think it would be something like that, but I am not sure. RH

Hi Rob

I have spoken to my nephew who is doing his end of year exams next week and he is rather busy. However he was most interested in the question and said he would be willing to look into the precice detail week after next...

He wasn't certain if Broadmore was the only institution for the criminally insane at the time? But is fairly certain that the laws governing 'criminal Insanity date back before Broadmore existed. He seems to agree with what is being said but also said its probably worth doing some research before commiting himself to a definitive answer.

So if you have any specific questions let me know by PM but I will get him to email whatever he discovers in a couple of weeks.

All best

Pirate

[robhouse]

I am not sure what "At Her Majesty's Pleasure" means exactly. According to the wikipedia entry, it does not sound like it means that the government (or the monarchy) has the legal authority to have someone consigned to an institution without a trial. (?) It sounds more like it means "a life sentence." Here is the wikipedia:

The term is used to describe detainment in prison for an indefinite length of time.[5] A judge may rule that a person be "detained at Her Majesty's pleasure" for serious offences. This is sometimes used where there is a great risk of reoffending; however, it is most often used for juvenile offenders, usually as a substitute for life sentencing (which would naturally be much longer for younger offenders). For example, the British Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 states:

"Where a person convicted of murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as life imprisonment appears to the court to have been aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed, the court shall (notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act) sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure."[6]

Prisoners held at Her Majesty's pleasure are frequently reviewed to determine whether their sentence can be deemed complete; although this power traditionally rested with the monarch, such reviews are now made by the Home Secretary. Minimum terms are also set, before which the prisoner cannot be released; these were originally set by the Home Secretary, but since 30 November 2000 have been set by the trial judge.[7] Prisoners' sentences are typically deemed to be complete when the reviewing body is "satisfied that there has been a significant change in the offender's attitude and behaviour."[7]

[Chris]

I would guess that a trial would have to be held in any case...

evidence would be presented to show that the person actually committed the crime. Then if it was deemed that the person was insane, he/she would be considered of diminished responsibility (not guilty by reason of insanity) and consigned to Broadmoor. I think it would be something like that, but I am not sure.

I think someone could be detailed at Her Majesty's Pleasure either following a verdict of "guilty but insane" (as it then was) or after being found unfit to plead.