Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk

[rjpalmer]

A question of Koz and affect?

Oh my! Full marks for that one.

[Uncle Jack]

Sorry mate, but that's one heck of a non-sequitur.

Considerable evidence suggests that Aaron Kosminski WAS Anderson's suspect.

Whether he was harmless or not is a separate issue. You've placed the cart in front of the horse.

I think we can all agree that Kosminski was the man suspected by Anderson and Co. What we need to get to the bottom of now is WHY he was suspected. In my opinion, I find it likely that the main reason why Kosminski was suspected was simply because he matched what a lot of people assumed the murderer had to be - a raving lunatic. This, matched with the fact that he threatened his sister with a knife, adds to the factors that they were searching for. Now, years later, we get a sense that JTR likely wasn't a raving maniac or a psychotic monster, but a cool, calculated 'normal' fellow. Definitely not what Anderson etc expected the killer to be. Kosminski was just a stereotype who matched the bill. This man clearly doesn't work as a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think we can all agree that Kosminski was the man suspected by Anderson and Co. What we need to get to the bottom of now is WHY he was suspected. In my opinion, I find it likely that the main reason why Kosminski was suspected was simply because he matched what a lot of people assumed the murderer had to be - a raving lunatic. This, matched with the fact that he threatened his sister with a knife, adds to the factors that they were searching for. Now, years later, we get a sense that JTR likely wasn't a raving maniac or a psychotic monster, but a cool, calculated 'normal' fellow. Definitely not what Anderson etc expected the killer to be. Kosminski was just a stereotype who matched the bill. This man clearly doesn't work as a suspect.

In my opinion nothing surrounding Kosminski can be relied upon as being anywhere near accurate and safe to rely on.

Macngahten is the first to mention a likely suspect who he only refers to by surname, that name being Kosminski, that was in his memo in 1894. All that is known about Kosminski from that memo does not match the antecedents of Aaron Kosminski. Despite that 130 years later there are those who still want to readily accept that the two Kosminskis are one and the same. In the amended memo which is now known as the Aberconway Version he in effect removes from further suspicion the man referred to as Kosminski.

Macngahten, was Swansons immediate superior but mentions nothing about any Seaside home ID, or any ID for that matter, so a question mark hangs over the Swanson marginalia and who did actually write the pencil annotations, which could not have been written until after 1910, and again like in Macngahtens memo only the surname is mentioned. The ID parade if it did ever happen in the way suggested, is one of the most significant pieces of evidence in this case and no one involved seems to know or want to put in print the full name of the prime suspect, and taking into account all the logistics required to stage such a parade, there are only two people out of all the police officers and officials involved in the investigation who mention it ever taking place, and that I find really unusual.

Now onto Anderson from 1888 right through to at least 1908 he is quoted on many occasions as stating the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer. Yet in 1910 when he published his book out of the blue comes the ID parade and all that went with it. Why did he not mention the suspects name. Some will say to protect the family or the identity of the suspect. But if Swansons marginalia is to be believed, he states Kosminski died around 1889, when in fact he didn't die till 1919.

There are also contradictions between Swanson and Anderson. Swanson wrote that the suspect was identified and then incarcerated, whilst Anderson wrote that the suspect was incarcerated and then identified.

A full investigative review of all everything to Aaron Kosminski and the Swanson marginalia can be found in my book Jack the Ripper the real truth

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1535752176&sr=8-2

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Danny Spence]

In my opinion nothing surrounding Kosminski can be relied upon as being anywhere near accurate and safe to rely on.

Macngahten is the first to mention a likely suspect who he only refers to by surname, that name being Kosminski, that was in his memo in 1894. All that is known about Kosminski from that memo does not match the antecedents of Aaron Kosminski. Despite that 130 years later there are those who still want to readily accept that the two Kosminskis are one and the same. In the amended memo which is now known as the Aberconway Version he in effect removes from further suspicion the man referred to as Kosminski.

Macngahten, was Swansons immediate superior but mentions nothing about any Seaside home ID, or any ID for that matter, so a question mark hangs over the Swanson marginalia and who did actually write the pencil annotations, which could not have been written until after 1910, and again like in Macngahtens memo only the surname is mentioned. The ID parade if it did ever happen in the way suggested, is one of the most significant pieces of evidence in this case and no one involved seems to know or want to put in print the full name of the prime suspect, and taking into account all the logistics required to stage such a parade, there are only two people out of all the police officers and officials involved in the investigation who mention it ever taking place, and that I find really unusual.

Now onto Anderson from 1888 right through to at least 1908 he is quoted on many occasions as stating the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer. Yet in 1910 when he published his book out of the blue comes the ID parade and all that went with it. Why did he not mention the suspects name. Some will say to protect the family or the identity of the suspect. But if Swansons marginalia is to be believed, he states Kosminski died around 1889, when in fact he didn't die till 1919.

There are also contradictions between Swanson and Anderson. Swanson wrote that the suspect was identified and then incarcerated, whilst Anderson wrote that the suspect was incarcerated and then identified.

A full investigative review of all everything to Aaron Kosminski and the Swanson marginalia can be found in my book Jack the Ripper the real truth

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1535752176&sr=8-2

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi there Trevor. Just out of interest, is your 'The Real Truth' book a completely new book, or is it a revised edition of your 'JTR: 21st Century Investigation'? I actually loved '21st Century Investigation' and even though I ultimately disagreed with your Feigenbaum conclusion, I found the book a mighty good read and one of my favourite overall overviews of the case in generally. It was very well written.

[The Baron]

In my opinion nothing surrounding Kosminski can be relied upon as being anywhere near accurate and safe to rely on.

Macngahten is the first to mention a likely suspect who he only refers to by surname, that name being Kosminski, that was in his memo in 1894. All that is known about Kosminski from that memo does not match the antecedents of Aaron Kosminski. Despite that 130 years later there are those who still want to readily accept that the two Kosminskis are one and the same. In the amended memo which is now known as the Aberconway Version he in effect removes from further suspicion the man referred to as Kosminski.

Macngahten, was Swansons immediate superior but mentions nothing about any Seaside home ID, or any ID for that matter, so a question mark hangs over the Swanson marginalia and who did actually write the pencil annotations, which could not have been written until after 1910, and again like in Macngahtens memo only the surname is mentioned. The ID parade if it did ever happen in the way suggested, is one of the most significant pieces of evidence in this case and no one involved seems to know or want to put in print the full name of the prime suspect, and taking into account all the logistics required to stage such a parade, there are only two people out of all the police officers and officials involved in the investigation who mention it ever taking place, and that I find really unusual.

Now onto Anderson from 1888 right through to at least 1908 he is quoted on many occasions as stating the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer. Yet in 1910 when he published his book out of the blue comes the ID parade and all that went with it. Why did he not mention the suspects name. Some will say to protect the family or the identity of the suspect. But if Swansons marginalia is to be believed, he states Kosminski died around 1889, when in fact he didn't die till 1919.

There are also contradictions between Swanson and Anderson. Swanson wrote that the suspect was identified and then incarcerated, whilst Anderson wrote that the suspect was incarcerated and then identified.

You are contradicting yourself here Trever,

first you say : Despite that 130 years later there are those who still want to readily accept that the two Kosminskis are one and the same

Then you say: he states Kosminski died around 1889, when in fact he didn't die till 1919.

Second you say: Some will say to protect the family or the identity of the suspect

and then you don't accept them saying for the same reason that the suspect died shortly after that.


The Baron

[jason_c]

I think we can all agree that Kosminski was the man suspected by Anderson and Co. What we need to get to the bottom of now is WHY he was suspected. In my opinion, I find it likely that the main reason why Kosminski was suspected was simply because he matched what a lot of people assumed the murderer had to be - a raving lunatic. This, matched with the fact that he threatened his sister with a knife, adds to the factors that they were searching for. Now, years later, we get a sense that JTR likely wasn't a raving maniac or a psychotic monster, but a cool, calculated 'normal' fellow. Definitely not what Anderson etc expected the killer to be. Kosminski was just a stereotype who matched the bill. This man clearly doesn't work as a suspect.

Just to push back on this a bit. Dr Bond was considered as something of an Anderson man. Anderson seemed to call on Bond quite a bit in the Ripper investigation. Bond suggests that the Ripper was outwardly inoffensive but probably showed eccentric behaviour at times.Of course Anderson need not have agreed with Bond, but the Ripper as someone other than a raving lunatic seems to have been seriously considered in the Anderson side of the investigation.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are contradicting yourself here Trever,

first you say : Despite that 130 years later there are those who still want to readily accept that the two Kosminskis are one and the same

Then you say: he states Kosminski died around 1889, when in fact he didn't die till 1919.

Second you say: Some will say to protect the family or the identity of the suspect

and then you don't accept them saying for the same reason that the suspect died shortly after that.


The Baron

Am I not correct in stating that there are researchers who believe the Kosminski named by Swanson and Magnachten and now referred to as a prime suspect is looked on as Aaron Kosminski ?

Aaron Kosminski did die in 1919. The Kosminski referred to by Swanson died around 1889, so as stated the antecedents are wrong in the marginalia if Swanson was referring to Aaron Kosminski.

I don't accept them as being one and the same.

I hope this clarify s matters for you?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to push back on this a bit. Dr Bond was considered as something of an Anderson man. Anderson seemed to call on Bond quite a bit in the Ripper investigation. Bond suggests that the Ripper was outwardly inoffensive but probably showed eccentric behaviour at times.Of course Anderson need not have agreed with Bond, but the Ripper as someone other than a raving lunatic seems to have been seriously considered in the Anderson side of the investigation.

These profiles drawn up by Bond and others were nothing more than guesswork. Nothnig much has changed in 130 years with criminal profilers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi there Trevor. Just out of interest, is your 'The Real Truth' book a completely new book, or is it a revised edition of your 'JTR: 21st Century Investigation'? I actually loved '21st Century Investigation' and even though I ultimately disagreed with your Feigenbaum conclusion, I found the book a mighty good read and one of my favourite overall overviews of the case in generally. It was very well written.

Hi Danny
The new book is a revised edition, and does contain material not previously published

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Now onto Anderson from 1888 right through to at least 1908 he is quoted on many occasions as stating the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

'The Windsor Magazine', Vol.1, January to June 1895, page 507, 'Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.'

[jason_c]

These profiles drawn up by Bond and others were nothing more than guesswork. Nothnig much has changed in 130 years with criminal profilers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Maybe, maybe not. However, that does not negate the point I was making; that Anderson's side of the investigation had put proposed a culprit who was relatively normal in appearance and behaviour.

[Abby Normal]

Maybe, maybe not. However, that does not negate the point I was making; that Anderson's side of the investigation had put proposed a culprit who was relatively normal in appearance and behaviour.

Hi jason
that may be true in what bond said in his profile and what anderson initially wrote about kominski, but the real kominski was not normal in behavior and i would think in appearance either.

[jason_c]

Hi jason
that may be true in what bond said in his profile and what anderson initially wrote about kominski, but the real kominski was not normal in behavior and i would think in appearance either.

Thanks for the reply, AN. This is the age old conundrum surrounding Kosminski. We know something of his later behaviour and 'look' but not so much about him in earlier years. We do know that his behaviour and appearance did not warrant much attention in the dog muzzling case. From memory he was not described in any outrageous way during his appearance in court for that case. Personally, I am neutral on the issue of how weird he looked and acted in 1888.

[John Malcolm]

One thing that should be kept in mind regarding Aaron Kosminski and any idea of him being a "raving madman" (in appearance and/or behaviour), is the fact that he was brought to the workhouse on one occasion previous to the 1891 trip that led to his committal to Colney Hatch. In July '90, he was brought to the workhouse for observation (his family obviously believed there to be a problem that they couldn't resolve) and deemed fit enough to be returned to his family, hence not in some obviously mentally ill condition. This in itself doesn't prove anything. It should, however, give us pause to consider that he was not overtly "insane".

[The Baron]

One thing that should be kept in mind regarding Aaron Kosminski and any idea of him being a "raving madman" (in appearance and/or behaviour), is the fact that he was brought to the workhouse on one occasion previous to the 1891 trip that led to his committal to Colney Hatch. In July '90, he was brought to the workhouse for observation (his family obviously believed there to be a problem that they couldn't resolve) and deemed fit enough to be returned to his family, hence not in some obviously mentally ill condition. This in itself doesn't prove anything. It should, however, give us pause to consider that he was not overtly "insane".

Excellent post abd opservation John

The Baron