The only patient who fits Anderson's account?

[Christine1932]

But where is the evidence? Accusing dead mentally ill man sounds... Donīt understand me wrong, Iīm interested of the case. But the naming of dead people who cannot speak for themselves ... the fact that poor guy was mentally ill, even violent, is not evidence of any kind.

[Robert]

Well, Anderson didn't name Aaron Kosminski at all. Swanson named a man called Kosminski, and didn't give a forename. And this was hardly done publicly - it was just a note in a book he was reading. Macnaghten named a man called Kosminski as being among the suspects - in a confidential memorandum. There was thus no need for Aaron Kosminski to speak up for himself.

David Cohen and Nathan Kaminsky were not mentioned at the time as suspects.

[dixon9]

I have tried to find out a description of 'David Cohen' but have yet to find one. i.e height,build facial description.

if any of you can help,i would be grateful

Thanks

[perrymason]

Well, Anderson didn't name Aaron Kosminski at all. Swanson named a man called Kosminski, and didn't give a forename. And this was hardly done publicly - it was just a note in a book he was reading. Macnaghten named a man called Kosminski as being among the suspects - in a confidential memorandum. There was thus no need for Aaron Kosminski to speak up for himself.

David Cohen and Nathan Kaminsky were not mentioned at the time as suspects.

Thats true of Cohen Robert, but Kosminski is discussed by Macnaghten in his Memoranda in 1894 in both pre-Ripper and post Ripper series terms,... as someone who had many "circs" that made him a strong suspect....he didnt say that was retrospectively.

And we have comments on him from Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten.

All the best.

[Chris]

David Cohen and Nathan Kaminsky were not mentioned at the time as suspects.

Thats true of Cohen Robert, but Kosminski is discussed by Macnaghten in his Memoranda in 1894 in both pre-Ripper and post Ripper series terms,...

But of course Aaron Kozminski was a different person from Nathan Kaminsky!

[perrymason]

But of course Aaron Kozminski was a different person from Nathan Kaminsky!

My apologies....I was reading about Kosminksi, Koslowski and Kaminsky when I replied....I just read you wrong.

Best regards

[Scott Nelson]

another blow to the David Cohen theory

Howard Brown has posted an interesting article on the forums site, entitled "The London Police by James Monro in the North American Review, November 1890, v 151, no. 408, pp. 615-629.

Howard highlighted a significant part of the piece - important for time it was written and because of Monro's position at the time of the writing - Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police.

Monro wrote: "Excluding the unique series of outrages in Whitechapel, - at the non-discovery of the perpetrators of which none grieved more than the Metropolitan Police, - I cannot call to mind half a dozen really serious cases of murder which, within the last five or six years, have remained undetected; and the number of such offences committed is really small."

If David Cohen was Anderson's Polish Jew suspect, surely Monro would have know about it and in this quote he clearly does not. Cohen had been dead for over a year at the time of Monro's writing. Monro's view also tallies with another piece in the Cassells Magazine of the same year, where he told the interviewer that the police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.

[RealTyche]

I was under the impression that Anderson's Polish Jew suspect was Kosminski. Am I incorrect in this?

[GregBaron]

Schizophrenia etc..........

Great discussion all and mostly old so I don't know if anyone will
again chime in but I mainly wanted to add an opinion and I will say
an opinion based on personal experience.

I think it unlikely that JtR was schizophrenic. Everyone is certainly
aware that the murderer undoubtedly possessed a degree of cunning.
I believe you will find that it more likely that a schizophrenic
will commit mass murder or incredibly violent acts but without the
hiding of evidence, the ability to escape or the charm to entice one
without eliciting fear. A characteristic of 'episodes' is delusion,
delusions are characterized by an inablility to distinguish reality
from fiction. Committing an act like a vicous murder and then recovering
for a few weeks before another episode overtakes does not coincide
with schizophrenic behavior IMO.

In contrast, the JtR murders speak volumes of the (psychopath/sociopath/
anti-social) personality: cunning, daring, planning, escape, thrills,
remorseless, empathy-less etc...

Schizophrenics rarely murder in a series as their illness prevents
the rational thinking necessary to continue and avoid detection. There
are probably exceptions but I think a study of serial killers will
reveal the psychopath far more often than the schizophrenic. Of course
I suppose we don't know if Kosminski was schizophrenic but what we
hear of his behavior seems to suggest it. I have no idea about Cohen, not
sure anyone else does either?

P.S. If Kosminski's 'auto-eroticism' were a crime, I'm afraid few
men would walk the earth in freedom........

[Jonathan H]

The Monro interview, no surprise, also throws a huge monkey-wrench into the viability of Aaron Kosminski being the Fiend, or at least being in any sense a suspect -- or known at all -- contemporaneous with the police hunt for this specific killer up to the murder of Frnaces Coles on Feb 13th 1891.

The essential reason that Martin Fido, an Anderson expert, is so convinced that the 'Polish Jew' suspect must be Cohen, and not Kosminski, is that the former matches the paradigm put forward by the former police chief in 1910.

That the killer's identity was known by no later than mid-1889.

Fido is right: this cannot be reconciled with Kosminski's incarceration in early Feb 1891. Therefore it cannot be that Polish Jew.

What Fido arguably missed is that Anderson had become muddled about the events of 1888 to 1891. He had become hostage to the sly recasting of those events and years by his former subordinate, Macnaghten -- to make the Yard look better, which meant ... Anderson looked better.

Therefore, a witness, Lawende, who had said no to a Getnile suspect in 1891 and yes to a Gentile suspect in 1895 was redacted back into 1888, or 1889, to say yes and then no to a Polish Jew suspect -- 'Kosminski'.

That Anderson never seems to have realised this colossal error -- and the Swanson Marginalia, with the Seaside Home, only makes it worse. Whilst the much better informed Macnaghten dismissed this suspect thus leaving Aaron Kosminski as, arguably, the weakest of the 'police' suspects.

The Monro interview is yet another nail in this coffin.

[Kaspar]

The Monro interview, no surprise, also throws a huge monkey-wrench into the viability of Aaron Kosminski being the Fiend, or at least being in any sense a suspect -- or known at all -- contemporaneous with the police hunt for this specific killer up to the murder of Frnaces Coles on Feb 13th 1891.

The essential reason that Martin Fido, an Anderson expert, is so convinced that the 'Polish Jew' suspect must be Cohen, and not Kosminski, is that the former matches the paradigm put forward by the former police chief in 1910.

That the killer's identity was known by no later than mid-1889.

Fido is right: this cannot be reconciled with Kosminski's incarceration in early Feb 1891. Therefore it cannot be that Polish Jew.

What Fido arguably missed is that Anderson had become muddled about the events of 1888 to 1891. He had become hostage to the sly recasting of those events and years by his former subordinate, Macnaghten -- to make the Yard look better, which meant ... Anderson looked better.

Therefore, a witness, Lawende, who had said no to a Getnile suspect in 1891 and yes to a Gentile suspect in 1895 was redacted back into 1888, or 1889, to say yes and then no to a Polish Jew suspect -- 'Kosminski'.

That Anderson never seems to have realised this colossal error -- and the Swanson Marginalia, with the Seaside Home, only makes it worse. Whilst the much better informed Macnaghten dismissed this suspect thus leaving Aaron Kosminski as, arguably, the weakest of the 'police' suspects.

The Monro interview is yet another nail in this coffin.

That is fascinating. Just to clarify your paragraph on Lawende as a witness, who was the gentile suspect in 1891 that he was asked to identify - Kosminski? And who was the 1895 suspect? As far as I have gathered then Lawende was asked to identify Sadler in 1894 is that who you meant?

[Rubyretro]

I agree with you Greg.

[Jonathan H]

To Kasper

I subscribe to the theory that Joseph Lawende is the only witness of any importance, as this was how the police treated him -- as the Ripper Supergrass.

I do not believe that Lawende ever confronted Aaron Kosminski because suspicion about the latter being the fiend did not reach police until after he was permanently incarcerated on Feb 7th 1891 -- Macnaghten hints at the family ('suspecting the worst') as the source of the original fear.

Lawende was 'confronted' with Tom Sadler in March 1891, and said 'no', and then was wheeled out again for another dodgy sailor, William Grant Grainger, who non-fatally stabbed a Whitechapel prostitute in 1895 and, remarkably, said 'yes'.

But by then the chiefs of Scotland Yard had locked onto other suspects who could never be arrested; Anderson with perhaps Aaron Kosminski, and Macnaghten certainly with Montague John Druitt.

The description of Grainger matches eerily well that of Lawende's of a youngish, Gentile-featured sailor chatting with Eddowes, which also matches with, at least, the high school pictures of Montie Druitt.

The theory that, in 1910, Anderson is fusing the disappointing, non-identification of Sadler by Lawende, with Aaron Kosminski's incarceration at almost the same time -- who was never officially investigated let alone confronted by a witness -- is brilliantly argued by Don Rumbelow and Stewart P Evans in one of the best, if not the best book ever written about the mystery: JACK THE RIPPER SCOTLAND YARD INVESTIGATES (2006)

I cannot recommend this tome to you highly enough. You are also spoiled with an avalanche of pictures: photos, illustrations, cartoons, and so on.

The two ex-Constables also make the point that the bizarre reference in the Swanson Marginalia to the 'Seaside Home', of all places, being the location of the positive identification by an un-named Jewish-Judas [poor Lawende!] is explained by the theory of a suspect mishmash, because Tom Sadler was involved with the Seaman's Home at the time of his arrest for the Coles murder, and it this which is being mis-remembered by Swanson, or Anderson to Swanson.

[robhouse]

I do not believe that Lawende ever confronted Aaron Kosminski because suspicion about the latter being the fiend did not reach police until after he was permanently incarcerated on Feb 7th 1891 -- Macnaghten hints at the family ('suspecting the worst') as the source of the original fear.

Hi Jonathan,

I still do not see where you come to this conclusion. There is absolutely no definitive proof of when or how Kozminski came to the attention of the police. There is certainly no evidence that he did not become known to the police until AFTER Feb 1891, and in fact this is contradicted by Swanson. In short, Kozminski could have been a suspect as early as 1888... we simply do not know.

I don't have any problem with your presenting theories, but do not present as fact something which you can have no way of knowing.

Rob H

[Jonathan H]

To Kasper

There are number of people who are Buffs on these Boards. That means they are wedded to certain beliefs about this mystery for emotive reasons, not die to a judicious assessment of the surviving, fragmentary, contradictory material.

They act like Thought Police, swooping in at the first sign, usually wrong, that their cherished belief is being impertinently questioned.

Rob House is, I argue, one of them. He cannot deal with the theory that Aaron Kosminski was not a contemporaneous suspect because it would mean that he has been tilting at windmills.

Which it would not, ironically, but such is the fragility of faith in shadows.

The very phrase he quotes against me begins 'I do not believe ...' and the next is 'Macnaghten hints' -- not states. He then presents as fact that Swanson contradicts all this, when this too is an interpretation of an ambiguous source.

I had also written that this theory was not my own, but essentially came from two of the most experienced and respected writers in this field: Rumbelow and Evans.

Note that the substance of the rest of what I had posted is never dealt with?

It never is, and it never will be from that quarter.

Then the final arrogance of 'I do not have a problem ...' as if he is the penultimate judge of what is, and what is not acceptable; the sterile bossiness of the politically correct.