The only patient who fits Anderson's account?

[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........

[RealTyche]

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

[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.

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

[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!

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Voyeur]

This is probably the most exciting and interesting suspect for me. I strangely love the intrigue regarding the Kosminsky/Kaminsky/Cohen scenario.

[empty]

Cohen (not Kaminsky?)

I have to say that the Cohen suspect has always looked a highly likely one to me. I can't claim to be a Ripper expert by any means, but one or two things strike me and I'd like to lay them out, as much to confirm things for myself as to ask questions or challenge other views. However, I'd welcome any feedback.

If Anderson is right, and he seems very firm in his assertions, Swanson and MacNaughton must have been outsiders to the "resolution" of this case and yet I had understood that Anderson and Swanson worked closely together? Anderson states it was a positively ascertained fact that the killer was a Polish Jew who was incarcerated shortly after the last murder (MK). This points to Cohen and no other.

Does anyone know the exact dates of Cohen's transfer to the workhouse and then to Colney Hatch?

Anderson does not identify the suspect, nor indicate that his name (if not Cohen) was ever established, nor whether he had family. This could easily be Cohen, but definitely can't be Kosminski.

However, Swanson adds to the story and it is his additions which seem to demonstrate a garbling of this account. If Cohen's name was not known, he could not have confused Kaminsky with Kosminski. He also says that this suspect was returned to his brother's house - yet Anderson seems not to have known this, which I find too incredible. Originally, Cohen was called Aaron Davis Cohen when picked up - maybe this was his real name after all?

So, there is nothing to say that Anderson knew Cohen to be actually called Kaminsky, and if he did, why was his name not changed back when he had been correctly identified?

Swanson may have heard about the identification of the suspect by the witness, but it seems unlikely he was involved in any signifcant manner, considering his version of events is so confused with Kosminski's fate - and I cannot believe that Swanson would have got confused over a case of this magnitude if he was involved in its resolution.

No one seems to have identified Cohen as Kaminsky at the time, whether that was his name or not, so any confusion associated to the similarity with Kosminski's name would seem to be irrelevant. The confusion could only have come from Swanson hearing about "a young Polish Jew who wound up in Colney Hatch" and later assumed this was Kosminski based on MacNaughton's own confusion/misinformation.

MacNaughton seems sure that Kosminski was incarcerated in March 1889, but we know that to be false, and it seems likely that Cohen was incarcerated in December 1888 or January 1889, therefore demonstrating how far out of the loop MacNaughton must have been.

So, in conclusion, if Anderson really did know who the killer was, he needn't have been Kaminsky, but it seems highly likely he was Cohen.

Swanson cannot have been involved in Cohen's incarceration or identification, but his marginalia is mis-reporting what he later heard about the case (possibly from Anderson himself, but several years after the event).

MacNaughton names Kosminski as a suspect (possibly deliberately intending to refer to Kosminski rather than Cohen), and Swanson appears to have leapt on this name as that of Cohen, whose name he had maybe not been told, but whose identity matched Cohen's description.

The 'resolution' therefore was a quiet relief for Anderson who felt sure his man was incarcerated, after which he could tell the force to wind down their enquiries. However, clearly the resolution was an almost private matter for Anderson, which is why most officers at the time considered the case had never been solved. Maybe even Anderson was careful not to test his assuredness by making a professional announcement which turned out to be a false dawn!!! Perhaps Anderson muttered something of the event to Swanson years later in response to a "Hey Guv, what really happened to Jacky?" and was briefly told about an identification and incarceration of a "young Polish jew".

Feel free to correct me or disagree, but it seems to me that Swanson is the one who has muddied the water here by what must be a garbling of facts based on hearsay rather than involvement himself in the actual resolution of the case.

Maybe Kaminsky was Cohen, but Anderson may not have known that and it doesn't matter anyway. It seems to me that, if there were no Swanson marginalia, commentators might feel more confident in stating that, IF Anderson really did know the murderer's identity, Cohen was almost certainly JtR.

[Observer]

Hi Sara

I've know a very few schizophrenics

A very good freind of mine, sadly no longer with us, was a schizophrenic, to someone who did not know him he would undoubtly appear quite normal, but I knew him for many years, and got to recognise certain traits which pointed to his ilness. The overwhelming impression I got revovled around his need for acceptance, however, the slighest negativity aimed his way led to his belief that he was worthless.

It was very frustrating at times, one needed to watch what one said, and I knew when I had said something out of place, that is out of place considering his state of mind, for he would brood and I could see he was processsing what I had just said. He was on strong medication, but he still had this great doubt of the World, a very insecure man.

He could also be a very violent man, and being of a rather large muscular build, it wasnt just my concern for him which made me gaurd my comments , my own physical well being was aslo a very important factor hehe.

All in all he was a good family man, as I said, to the casual observer no different to any man in the street, but believe me he was not well, not well at all

I don't know if the above is typical of schizopgrenia, but that's what I observed.

All the best

Observer

[Chris]

A final point: as I've mentioned elsewhere on the site, I didn't really know Dan Farson when he wrote his Ripper book but I got to know him very well later and even worked with him. He had a very cavalier approach to research and tended to make things up if they 'seemed right', not check primary sources, and so forth. I'd be very wary of taking anything he wrote as gospel. (He was very interesting however on the Jeremy Thorpe case LOL - knowing Thorpe really well as he did!)

Could you expand on what you mean by "making things up"? Obviously that's quite a serious thing to say about somebody, and I'd view it as being in a very different category from "not checking primary sources", or writing inaccurately from memory.

Maybe you could give an example of the kind of thing you're thinking of?

[Sara]

I've know a very few schizophrenics and I can confirm that some of them appear very rational and intelligent most of the time, even when they begin to go into an 'episode'. Equally, manic depressives are perfectly rational until they go into one or other of the extremes of their mental state. They too can become very violent when in the manic phase - I was once attacked by a very dear friend in the full manic state, who had earlier begged me to confine her to medical care if I felt she was 'going over' again.... something I couldn't do alas as only her family had that power, and they were 'in denial'.

Another thing which rarely gets mentioned is how freely drugs which are now classed as highly dangerous, were available in Victorian times, many of them morphine-derived. Self-medication was fairly normal right across society and many became addicted to drugs like chloral. It's perfectly possible that the Ripper used drugs but there would be no records of such usage of course. It's clear too from current medical records and surveys that misuse of drugs is to blame for a great deal of current schizophrenia in the young.

A final point: as I've mentioned elsewhere on the site, I didn't really know Dan Farson when he wrote his Ripper book but I got to know him very well later and even worked with him. He had a very cavalier approach to research and tended to make things up if they 'seemed right', not check primary sources, and so forth. I'd be very wary of taking anything he wrote as gospel. (He was very interesting however on the Jeremy Thorpe case LOL - knowing Thorpe really well as he did!)

[empty]

Martin,

A quick question if I may. I seem to remember that you mention Nathan Kaminsky being treated for syphillis shortly after an attack on woman that you'd "already identified as looking like Jack the Ripper learning his trade". Forgive me if I've got this wrong somewhere, but are you able to elaborate on this, please?

Many thanks.