If "Cohen" is "John Doe" why aren't the asylum records littered with Cohens?

[Tim_B]

Cohen seems to be one of the better suspects, but the skeptic in me asks:

If "Cohen" is the equivalent of "John Doe" why aren't the asylum records littered with Cohens?

[Trevor Marriott]

Cohen seems to be one of the better suspects, but the skeptic in me asks:

If "Cohen" is the equivalent of "John Doe" why aren't the asylum records littered with Cohens?

Martin Fido’s suggestion that the police mixed the names up and were not sure of his true identity thereby naming him Cohen as was standard practice does not stand up to scrutiny. This renaming was a practice used by USA immigration authorities at the time. In my research, I could find no evidence to show that it was used by the police or asylum or workhouse authorities at this relevant time period in this country.

Having regard to the time Cohen is alleged to have spent incarcerated I would have expected the workhouse and asylum authorities, and the police to make some attempt to identify an allegedly nameless man under their care. After all, this unidentified man Fido suggests was given the name Cohen must have been somebody’s son, father or brother and for that person to suddenly disappear without any further trace is almost unimaginable, and I am sure the family of such a man would be seeking him out.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Gerry Anderson, the puppet guy, was originally called Abrahams, which in turn had been given to his grandfather on his arrival in London in place of his unwieldy Jewish surname, this was 1895.

The general name issue is well known across the board in the LVP. Without debating the specifics of Fido's theory, (incidentally, the first I took seriously), the only way for there to be several Cohens would be for admissions who were actually called Cohen, and then however many 'John Doe' types.
Presumably there's not an abundance of native John Doe's because they would give a name, even if it's not correct, so would be indistinguishable on the list. A foreign speaker with mania, adding to translation issues, would need a name, the large Jewish population making it more likely that a non British person would be Eastern European Jewish, as opposed to a wandering manic Frenchman, so it would be statistically likely that anyone who was admitted 'at large' and unable to speak English would be Jewish, but the likelihood is low, so how many cases of unknown mystery foreign madman should we expect to see?

But, the question is not "why is there only one Cohen?", but "why is there only one obviously dangerous admission?" That was the crux of Fido's book. If, IF, Anderson was right then Cohen is the only candidate. And if he was an unidentified Jew, then it's more likely for him to be the only one. He's the exception, not the rule.

[Losmandris]

I always had this one down as one of the more creditable theories. Is it a little be too good to be true? I suspect so, too many holes and superposition.

Tristan

[Tim_B]

But, the question is not "why is there only one Cohen?", but "why is there only one obviously dangerous admission?" That was the crux of Fido's book. If, IF, Anderson was right then Cohen is the only candidate. And if he was an unidentified Jew, then it's more likely for him to be the only one. He's the exception, not the rule.

I know the crux of Fido's book. And my question is exactly "why is there only one Cohen?"

If one is going to float the idea that using Cohen is a "John Doe" type usage in asylums, then I expect to see evidence of that.

This has nothing to do with "why is there only one obviously dangerous admission?" - it has to do with why didn't you examine the records of numerous asylums in England that have nothing to do with Jack the Ripper (20 asylums for example) and show me a bunch of initial admissions as Cohens. Maybe they were later identified. But if you want me to believe that using Cohen was some sort of common practice I want to see a sample drawn from numerous asylums that shows me that this practice was actually used.

I like David Cohen as a suspect just because his mental illness seems like a good fit for a Ripper suspect, but Fido's argument for getting there through Kosminsky is highly questionable.

As of right now here is my view of Fido's argument on this particular subject:

He was looking for Kosminski in the asylum records.

He ended up finding Kosminski and Cohen eventually and Cohen looks like a better suspect.

So, he decided Cohen could actually be Kasminski, but that he was renamed Cohen upon entry into the asylum. He states he was told that sources told him using "Cohen" like "John Doe" was a common practice.

Ok, fine, if it's common practice, show it by taking a sample of asylums (10% of those in England) and show me that upon initial entry into several asylums unidentified people were issued the name Cohen until their true identity was discovered.

That is how you show this Cohen business was actually used in England, not some person "saying" it was. You need to "show" it was.

This would strengthen Fido's case immensely. If he showed that in the 10% sample of all asylums in England between the years 1885 and 1900 twenty people were initially named Cohen (used like John Doe) and then renamed when their correct identity was discovered he would make his own case significantly stronger. If in that same sample not a single person entered as Cohen (besides the David Cohen he is talking about) it blows his case out of the water.

So, for me, he needs to prove that Cohen was commonly used as a John Doe name. He can't just say that somebody told him it was.

[Abby Normal]

I know the crux of Fido's book. And my question is exactly "why is there only one Cohen?"

If one is going to float the idea that using Cohen is a "John Doe" type usage in asylums, then I expect to see evidence of that.

This has nothing to do with "why is there only one obviously dangerous admission?" - it has to do with why didn't you examine the records of numerous asylums in England that have nothing to do with Jack the Ripper (20 asylums for example) and show me a bunch of initial admissions as Cohens. Maybe they were later identified. But if you want me to believe that using Cohen was some sort of common practice I want to see a sample drawn from numerous asylums that shows me that this practice was actually used.

I like David Cohen as a suspect just because his mental illness seems like a good fit for a Ripper suspect, but Fido's argument for getting there through Kosminsky is highly questionable.

As of right now here is my view of Fido's argument on this particular subject:

He was looking for Kosminski in the asylum records.

He ended up finding Kosminski and Cohen eventually and Cohen looks like a better suspect.

So, he decided Cohen could actually be Kasminski, but that he was renamed Cohen upon entry into the asylum. He states he was told that sources told him using "Cohen" like "John Doe" was a common practice.

Ok, fine, if it's common practice, show it by taking a sample of asylums (10% of those in England) and show me that upon initial entry into several asylums unidentified people were issued the name Cohen until their true identity was discovered.

That is how you show this Cohen business was actually used in England, not some person "saying" it was. You need to "show" it was.

This would strengthen Fido's case immensely. If he showed that in the 10% sample of all asylums in England between the years 1885 and 1900 twenty people were initially named Cohen (used like John Doe) and then renamed when their correct identity was discovered he would make his own case significantly stronger. If in that same sample not a single person entered as Cohen (besides the David Cohen he is talking about) it blows his case out of the water.

So, for me, he needs to prove that Cohen was commonly used as a John Doe name. He can't just say that somebody told him it was.

hi Tim
Totally agree.
The whole Kaminsky/cohen/Kosminsky theory is waaay too convoluted, even if you did find a bunch of Cohen for john Doe examples. The suspect was kosminsky-the one named and the one found in records. no need for the wild goose chase.
but i see what your saying.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Cohen seems to be one of the better suspects, but the skeptic in me asks:

If "Cohen" is the equivalent of "John Doe" why aren't the asylum records littered with Cohens?

Hi Tim,

Having revisited things, and thinking more about your original question, I think first of all, why Cohen? Well as Fido points out, he's the only admission that matches the time frame, so assuming Anderson was right, that's your man. But why Cohen, as a name? Looking around online, there are lots of references to 'Cohen' being used as a generic name in the LVP for Jews, but, the references all seem to be very similar, if not word for word. More so, I can't find a single source reference, which leads me to believe the source is Fido's book. So, if 'Cohen' is a place holder name, which it may well be, I don't know where Fido sourced it, I gather from my aged copy of his book it was from whoever was the archivist he spoke to. Likewise, if it was genuinely a placeholder name, how many would we expect to see? Not many, one? So it's a hard argument. I guess it comes down to advocating Fido's case, if Anderson was right, Cohen is your man. How he came to registered under that name? I'll throw that open to the board.

Great food for thought though.

[Tim_B]

Hi Al,

I appreciate your response, but I will reiterate mine.

It comes to nothing more than statistics and data analysis. Take a 10% random sample from all of the asylums in England during that time period within a given time frame, say 1885 - 1905. Then count the Cohens. It's that simple.

The data itself will answer the question as to whether using Cohen was common or not. What an archivist said to Fido is not data, it's hearsay. If there are no Cohens other than the one Fido looked at his case is null.

**PS - not trying to be gruff - I actually work at an archive and have historical training - but at heart I am a math/science/statistics person and also have a mathematics degree and it's quite obvious that data analysis is what needs to be used to answer this question. The data can speak for itself as to the commonality of Cohen usage as "John Doe" in English asylums during this time period. Furthermore, I am not considering any other points made by Fido here, I am simply analyzing the usage of Cohen as "John Doe" during that time period since his case hinges on that. If Cohen usage as "John Doe" fails as a feasible concept according to the data sample, his premise fails and he is simply wrong.

After all, common practices are supposed to be exactly that, common.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

I appreciate your response, but I will reiterate mine.

It comes to nothing more than statistics and data analysis. Take a 10% random sample from all of the asylums in England during that time period within a given time frame, say 1885 - 1905. Then count the Cohens. It's that simple.

The data itself will answer the question as to whether using Cohen was common or not. What an archivist said to Fido is not data, it's hearsay. If there are no Cohens other than the one Fido looked at his case is null.

**PS - not trying to be gruff - I actually work at an archive and have historical training - but at heart I am a math/science/statistics person and also have a mathematics degree and it's quite obvious that data analysis is what needs to be used to answer this question. The data can speak for itself as to the commonality of Cohen usage as "John Doe" in English asylums during this time period. Furthermore, I am not considering any other points made by Fido here, I am simply analyzing the usage of Cohen as "John Doe" during that time period since his case hinges on that. If Cohen usage as "John Doe" fails as a feasible concept according to the data sample, his premise fails and he is simply wrong.

Hi, yeah right enough. Whatever Fido's source was, it's hearsay as far as I can tell. I suppose, statistically, random asylum records wouldn't be that accurate because an asylum that covered a non Jewish demographic would have no "David Cohen's" regardless of the amount of John Doe admissions.

As is, I don't think Fido's case hinges on the Cohen/Doe thing, he's just tried to bolster his case with it. Essentially, Cohen has to be Anderson's suspect. How he came by that name, no one knows. I don't think it weakens Fido's suspect, but it definitely opens the question. The Cohen Pseudonym appears to be Fido's belief. But your in the right place, because there are users here who actually knew him and heard his personal discourse on the matter.

And if I may add regardless of his interpretation of his findings, credit to him for his work and research. God Speed Martin.

[rjpalmer]

Gents--

Fido's 'Cohen as Doe' argument didn't surface until the second edition of his work. The suggestion didn't come from an archivist.

"As soon as I published, an explanation was provided by Jewish and Gentile informants from London, New York, Vienna, even the Far East. Didn't I know that Cohen was the usual 'John Doe' name that petty officialdom gave to Jews whose names were unpronounceable, hard to spell, or generally uncertain? Alas, I didn't."

Page 224.

[Tim_B]

Fair enough RJ, but I would argue that the Cohen/Doe is his most recent argument and certainly one he made. His source is still hearsay.

Regardless, on the flip side, if the analysis I suggest were to be done and we found 500 David Cohens in English asylums between 1885-1905 and most of them eventually had corrected Jewish names, Fido would suddenly have an overwhelmingly strong case to the point that I'm not sure there would be a stronger suspect than the David Cohen he suggests.

I also second that Fido wrote an excellent book and I like David Cohen as a suspect just on the merits of what Fido found out about him.

[Scott Nelson]

In the Thames Magistrate court on December 7, 1888, his name was recorded Aaron Davis Cohen. Later in the evening, when he was entered into the Whitechapel Workhouse the name was David Cohen. See line 3983:

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliver...3_020/0/20.pdf

There was no "John Doe" name assigned. Martin Fido got the name and all associated information about Cohen from the Workhouse and asylum case files. He later said it was poor speculation that David Cohen could have been a John Doe - type of alias.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

In the Thames Magistrate court on December 7, 1888, his name was recorded Aaron Davis Cohen. Later in the evening, when he was entered into the Whitechapel Workhouse the name was David Cohen. See line 3983:

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliver...3_020/0/20.pdf

There was no "John Doe" name assigned. Martin Fido got the name and all associated information about Cohen from the Workhouse and asylum case files. He later said it was poor speculation that David Cohen could have been a John Doe - type of alias.

Thanks Scott. We can probably put this one to bed then.

[Scott Nelson]

Not quite for me... I think Cohen could have changed his name from Kosminski.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Not quite for me... I think Cohen could have changed his name from Kosminski.

Sorry, I meant the OP, how did Martin reach the conclusion that David Cohen was a genetic catch all name?

Wether Cohen and Kosminsky are one and the same? That's not quite resolved yet...