Did Anderson Know

[Stewart P Evans]

Earlier?

...
And again, I do not see that there is any evidence showing when Kozminski became a strong suspect. It is certainly possible as Stewart states that it was in 1890, when he was first brought to the workhouse. However, I also think there is conflicting evidence suggesting it may have been earlier... Macnaghten for one, and Henry Cox for another.
Rob H

How, would you say, do Macnaghten and Cox suggest that Kosminski became a 'strong suspect' earlier?

[Stewart P Evans]

Lie

The invention of supposed pro and anti Anderson camps doesn’t really hold much water. Begg has for years pointed out the complex arguments when concidering Andersons character.
BEGG: “Not that he [Anderson] was as priggishly truthful as Washington with the legendary cherry tree. As an ex-Secret Serviceman, he had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to ones brothers, but he denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear truth they would only misuse…Hair-splitting? Of course. That is the nature of scrupulosity. But it is quite incompatible with publishing lies in books for a wide audience. Martin’s position is simply that Anderson would lie if it achieved a greater good, such as bringing a murderer or terrorist to justice, but would not do so to enhance his own reputation or that of the CID. That assessment may be wrong, although it would appear soundly based in an understanding of the period,”
Pirate

Nobody is inventing anything. And you are merely confirming what I said, i.e. they claim that Anderson would not lie in books published for a wide audience and would not lie 'to enhance his own reputation or that of the CID.' By those criteria we can safely take in all Anderson writes safe in the knowledge that he is not lying or deceiving.

[Jeff Leahy]

No, I’m putting that statement in context. Begg has never said anything other than Anderson is a complex character to consider. And has always presented balanced opinion about him. So if there are, pro and anti camps, which Begg has always denied and I feel rather simplistic given the broad range of opinion about the Ripper, then we are arguing about the details rather than general or over all assessment of his character..

What ever your views on Anderson he seems fairly consistent in his belief that the crime was committed by someone suffering severe mental trauma. He couldn’t have understood what that meant as we do today at that time. But its interesting that his suspect appears to have been suffering schizophrenia and thus fits very much with modern thought on this type of serial killing.

Kosminski is a far better psychological match for committing these crimes than Druitt.

Yours Jeff

[Natalie Severn]

Sticking To The Facts

Jeff,

The fact is that very little is known about Druitt"s mental state.All we know is that he was found drowned in the River Thames .
The next fact is that very little is known about Kosminski for you to be stating he is a "better match" than Druitt for Jack the Ripper.What makes you say this? How is he a "better match?
Fact - There isnt the slightest hint in any of his hospital records that Aaron Kosminski had any connection to Jack the Ripper.There isnt the slightest hint either that he was violent----in the sense that "David Cohen" was clearly violent who was incarcerated in Colney Hatch in 1888 and died soon after.

Please can we now try to stick to the known FACTS ?

[robhouse]

Hello Stewart,

When I say an ad hominem argument, I am simply referring to the attempt to debunk the whole Kozminski as a suspect theory via attacking Anderson's character, integrity etc. I do not personally see much point in claiming that a person is either of a saintlike character, and incapable of lying, nor a despicable rogue who is incapable of telling the truth. Whether or not a person may have lied, had lapses of memory I do not think can prove anything about whether the specific statement in question is true or not. Quoting from wikipedia for example:

"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)"

As I think you might agree, there is a tendency here for certain people to get somewhat hysterical over these issues, and to decide to throw out absolutely everything Anderson ever said as being untruthful. I think someone earlier today said something about not trusting anything any of the senior police officers ever said.

As for the "head officers at CID"... I do not know who this might be. Nor am I really disagreeing with your opinion that the margin note refers to the Ripper letter. I am just stating my opinion that it might not. It might refer to the previous part (part of the same paragraph) which Swanson underlined and highlighted. I am saying it is debatable. I do not think anyone can state as a fact that it refers to the Ripper letter.

Re Macnaghten and Cox... as Chris wrote earlier: "Macnaghten's statement that he was committed to an asylum about March 1889. That does seem to be an error, but at least it shows that Macnaghten believed that Kozminski's incarceration (and, presumably, investigation) pre-dated his own appointment in June 1889. " This is a valid point I think to be considered.

And re: Cox. As I have written before, I think that Cox may very well have been conducting surveillance on Kozminski. Surely, if we believe Swanson, then someone at City CID was. And according to Cox's account, it seems that this surveillance was sometime around Nov 1888 - Feb 1889.

Rob H

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

The fact is that very little is known about Druitt"s mental state.All we know is that he was found drowned in the River Thames . ]

Druitt said himself he was 'becoming like Mother', Who as we know had a history of mental illness. Indeed there appears to have been a family history of such. Manic Depression therefore seems a fairly reasonable assessment. But I agree we can not be certain.

The next fact is that very little is known about Kosminski for you to be stating he is a "better match" than Druitt for Jack the Ripper.What makes you say this? How is he a "better match? ]

I say this because I have given considerable time and effort talking to experts on schizophrenia. Aarons known records suggest very clearly he was suffering this condition. His age fits perfectly with usual progression of the illness. And as would be expected he was completely harmless once removed from the environment he was in. In short these crimes were most probably committed by someone going through an early phase of what is referred to today as ‘psychotic’ episode. This phase would have lasted about 16 weeks. Almost an exact match for the period of time the first set of murders took place.

Fact - There isn’t the slightest hint in any of his hospital records that Aaron Kosminski had any connection to Jack the Ripper.There isnt the slightest hint either that he was violent----in the sense that "David Cohen" was clearly violent who was incarcerated in Colney Hatch in 1888 and died soon after.

Please can we now try to stick to the known FACTS ?

Yes exactly I agree. And being completely harmless is what my expert opinion has suggested is the most probable, given what is known today, Schizophrenics are not dangerous. They can become dangerous under certain conditions. Non-social Lust killers fit into this pattern, check Robs thread on other place. However once cut from their environment and contributing factors they would be pretty harmless.

The idea of a violent offender is 'SO' 1980's. Martin Fido may have been given this advice but its simply out of date.

Anderson may not have understood this. But clearly he was ahead of his time with his basic premise.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Well Jeff,I honestly think you are talking through your hat here.

First of all without a psychiatrist"s diagnosis following a thorough examination and assessment with Aaron present in the here and now, we really HAVE NO IDEA whether or not Aaron Kosminski was suffering from schizophrenia He could have been suffering from one of several mental illnesses.

Moreover,even supposing he was suffering from that illness it is a fact that between the years of 1891 and 1919 when he was incarcerated , there were absolutely no medication such as we have today to control the course of such an illness.
Therefore it is fallacious to suggest that a man who had slaughtered at least five women, the last in a frenzy of murderous assault would have been calmly walking his dog around Cheapside exactly one year later, and once sectioned in 1891 , would never once return to any such urges at Colney Hatch or Leavesdon.This would have been the first time in history,I would imagine, that a man suffering from paranoid schizophrenia over 100 years ago,therefore without any access to the modern drugs that can control the illness ,that such a man who you suggest was the dangerous serial killer we know as Jack the Ripper , meekly lived out his thirty years in the bin without a flicker of desire to kill again or even to have engaged in any other known violent psychotic episode.

[Stephen Thomas]

"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)"

Quite so, Rob

It's the old lawyer's standby trick

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury....

If this person lied once ever they are therefore lying now

[jason_c]

I don't quite follow your reasoning. I am presenting the written word of others, including Anderson himself, which some who read these boards may not be aware of. What are you claiming is an ad hominem argument? Everything I have written or the words of the Dublin press?

As you well know I have long argued that others, for many years, published only the pro-Anderson writings and articles and he has been presented as 'having a peculiarly scrupulous regard for the truth' (really?), 'would never have lied directly' and, in his writings, 'to be both honest and accurate'. I do not agree. So what are you objecting to? Or is it okay for some to draw a picture of Anderson as 'honest and accurate' in his writings so we can all safely believe in what he says as regards the Ripper, whilst others must not portray a negative side to him in order to show that his word may not be so blindly accepted?

No doubt you subscribe to the view in the A-Z where we are warned that "persistent attempts to disprove his statements by denigrating his character are almost on a par with the outdated game of abusing and dismissing the police as a whole (and Warren in particular) in order to allow irresponsible theorising from some other source."

Sorry, I simply do not agree with that but I do believe in providing the full picture so that others may draw their own conclusions, which I am sure they are intelligent enough to do.

You draw a picture which distinctly leans towards the anti-Anderson camp.

Im sure you will say your not in any camp, but you certainly bat for one side more than the other.

[Jonathan H]

To Pirate

I think you make a good point about Druitt and Kosminski.

In the sense that Druitt's death is mysterious and inexplicable, about which there could be mulitple reasons and interpretations. For example, that this man suffered some kind of depressive illness -- and may have had nothing watsoever to do with the Whitechapel murders.

Whereas we have a primary source which shows that Aaron Kosminski, a resident of Whitechapel, was certified insane and put into the asylum system.

To Stewart

I think you have put very clearly the evolution of Anderson's lack of a contemporaneous chief suspect, followed by a face-saving theory, finally climaxing as a 'definitely, ascertained fact' in self-serving memoirs -- which is quite typical regarding public debacles which hardly flatter considerable egos.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well Jeff,I honestly think you are talking through your hat here.

First of all without a psychiatrist"s diagnosis following a thorough examination and assessment with Aaron present in the here and now, we really HAVE NO IDEA whether or not Aaron Kosminski was suffering from schizophrenia He could have been suffering from one of several mental illnesses.

Moreover,even supposing he was suffering from that illness it is a fact that between the years of 1891 and 1919 when he was incarcerated , there were absolutely no medication such as we have today to control the course of such an illness.
Therefore it is fallacious to suggest that a man who had slaughtered at least five women, the last in a frenzy of murderous assault would have been calmly walking his dog around Cheapside exactly one year later, and once sectioned in 1891 , would never once return to any such urges at Colney Hatch or Leavesdon.This would have been the first time in history,I would imagine, that a man suffering from paranoid schizophrenia over 100 years ago,therefore without any access to the modern drugs that can control the illness ,that such a man who you suggest was the dangerous serial killer we know as Jack the Ripper , meekly lived out his thirty years in the bin without a flicker of desire to kill again or even to have engaged in any other known violent psychotic episode.

How many times must I tell you guys. Schizophrenics (with or without drugs) are not dangerous. They can become dangerous under certain circumstance.

Post death mutilators are so rare that they are virtually non-existant. Only a handful of cases in the last one hundred years.

Qualified expert opinion says it's possible that Aron could have committed the crimes over a 16 week period and stopped. He would then have been harmless once removed from the other factors that might have effected him to commit the crimes (thats a long way from saying he did them, its simply a medical possibility)

Very little is known about why schizophrenics commit violent crime. It is rare but it is a FACT that it does occasionally happen. And what is known about Aaron is consistent with that possibility. FACT.

About nine percent of schizophrenics after release commit violent crime. That is much lower than people suffering other mental illness, manic depressive forinstance. But they are more likely to commit bizarre out there crime. FACT.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Jonathan,
however, we also have access to a few significant records dating back to Aaron Kosminski"s admission to Coney Hatch. The most significant record is on the admission form,where it states the following:

is he a danger to others? answer : NO

And not once do the nursing staff even hint that Aaron is any kind of dangerous man let alone a killer such as Jack the Ripper! And this went on for nearly thirty years,thirty years when there were no modern drugs which can now render paranoid schizophrenics reasonably harmless , reasonably quickly during psychotic episodes,although restraints such as padded cells and straight jackets in the initial phase can still be found to be practised.Yet in his entire thirty years, we hear of no restraints ever being referred to or recorded.That ,in an age without modern drugs tells me that Aaron Kosminski was neither Jack the Ripper or a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia .

[Natalie Severn]

You are making this up I believe Jeff.
Either that or you have never worked with people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which I have done,in the Art Therapy department of a major psychiatric hospital in the North West of England.I do know what I am talking about here.

Anyway,what is it exactly that makes you suppose Aaron Kosminski was a violent paranoid schizophrenic in the Autumn of 1888?
When did you read a doctors report which stated this ----or even remotely suggested it? Can we have an answer to this?Otherwise ofcourse you are talking through your hat.You havent examined the man personally,for goodness sake,neither are you are a psychiatrist.

[Jeff Leahy]

You are making this up I believe Jeff.
Either that or you have never worked with people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which I have done,in the Art Therapy department of a major psychiatric hospital in the North West of England.I do know what I am talking about here.

As you well know its what my brother does for his living. He deals with schizophrenia on a daily basis. He is a qualified expert. He is on call for the police in a large county to advise and sometimes commit.

SCHIZOPHRENICS ARE NOT DANGEROUS. FACT.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes Jonathan,
however, we also have access to a few significant records dating back to Aaron Kosminski"s admission to Coney Hatch. The most significant record is on the admission form,where it states the following:

is he a danger to others? answer : NO

And not once do the nursing staff even hint that Aaron is any kind of dangerous man let alone a killer such as Jack the Ripper! And this went on for nearly thirty years,thirty years when there were no modern drugs which can now render paranoid schizophrenics reasonably harmless , reasonably quickly during psychotic episodes,although restraints such as padded cells and straight jackets in the initial phase can still be found to be practised.Yet in his entire thirty years, we hear of no restraints ever being referred to or recorded.That ,in an age without modern drugs tells me that Aaron Kosminski was neither Jack the Ripper or a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia .

Yes Yes , exactly you are getting it..

SCHIZOPHRENICS ARE NOT DANGEROUS.