Kosminski..why the big secret ?

[robhouse]

Hello Dave et al,

Where do you get the idea that he was "drooling"?

Rob H

[Dave James]

Hello Dave et al,

Where do you get the idea that he was "drooling"?

Rob H

Hi Rob,
Where do you think? All the descriptions describe a man who ate bread out of the gutter, wouldn't take food from others etc. etc.
OK, he might not have been droooling, but it's an image that is always propagated.

Sorry! Just hada horrible image, Dewie in the 'Scream' films. It's on TV at the moment,

Sorry
All the best
Dave

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Rob,
Where do you think? All the descriptions describe a man who ate bread out of the gutter, wouldn't take food from others etc. etc.
OK, he might not have been droooling, but it's an image that is always propagated.

Sorry! Just hada horrible image, Dewie in the 'Scream' films. It's on TV at the moment, Sorry All the best Dave

All the descriptions are WRONG. This is a terrible insult to those who suffer this illness (schizophrenia). And only serves to perpetuate the Kosminski MYTH.

Which seems to suite people not interested in the facts surrounding the case.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

I'm extremely interested in the facts surrounding the Kosminski case, so maybe you could set the record straight with the RIGHT descriptions of AK. Maybe this will help to dispel the Kosminski MYTH.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

One of the primary ones Simon, that I always take exception to, is the erroneous statement that Kozminski was an "imbecile." This normally accompanies the word "drooling" as in "drooling imbecile"... which is usually supported by the fact that Kozminski "ate food out of the gutter."

Sugden calls Kozminski an imbecile, as does Martin Fido and others, and this so-called "fact" has propagated. So perhaps that one thing, for starters can be corrected.

I have posted on this several times already and I do not feel like going into it again. Suffice to say the following:

1. "Imbecile" was a legal classification of insanity.
2. Kozminski was not classified as an imbecile.
3. Leavesden accepted various classifications of insane people... not just imbeciles as has been commonly assumed.

In short, the assertion that Kozminski was an "imbecile" stems from a lack of understanding of the classification system of insane people in the Victorian era, combined with a misreading of his files, and the assumption that Leavesden was solely for Imbeciles.


Rob H

[Dave James]

All the descriptions are WRONG. This is a terrible insult to those who suffer this illness (schizophrenia). And only serves to perpetuate the Kosminski MYTH.

Which seems to suite people not interested in the facts surrounding the case.

Pirate

Hi Pirate,
Didn't mean to offend. I agree with your comment, but without understanding, this is the image that has been propagated by most of the respected JtR authors. So please, don't shoot the messenger.
All the best
Dave

[Chris]

Where do you think? All the descriptions describe a man who ate bread out of the gutter, wouldn't take food from others etc. etc.

As far as I know, it's only the one description - provided by Jacob Cohen in 1891, that says that. If - as suggested by your reference to "all the descriptions" - you know of any others, it would be interesting to know the details.

[The Good Michael]

If we look at the murders as a progression, which I do, why can't we also look at mental illness as a progression?

Eating from the gutter/street/trash bin because one doesn't trust taking food from someone, is clearly a paranoid issue, but one that has nothing to do with intelligence. This sort of thing is seen in Los Angeles on a daily basis with some of the homeless who would rather scrounge for themselves than deal with having to even think about what it would take to secure a job, a car, an apartment, clothing, or to stay sober. That kind of thing is not even a remote possibility with many people. It isn't so far removed from the times when we all have sat down with a stack of bills and a slim bankbook and nearly went mad trying to figure out how we were going to come out of the black hole. Eating from the gutter is not so far from where we all have been.

Cheers,

Mike

Addition: It is the height of ignorance to paint a suspect with the broad brush of imbecility that allows one to casually and without real thought, dismiss him. Mental illness is a highly complex issue that cannot be simply explained, and especially with regards to someone of whom we know nearly nothing.

Kosminski was a man with mental illness. He was named as the murderer. That's where we are. Uninformed arguments about what a mentally ill man could have done serves no purpose but to retard the case against Kosminski. Calling someone a liar (Anderson)because one has a preconceived idea about what Kosminski was like, and has given that persona life, is further ignorance.

[robhouse]

"Phillip Sugden's excellent breakdown of the Kosminski theory in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper shows, or at least should show, to all of us that Kosminski was not the Ripper and neither was Druitt or Ostrog."

I personally do not think Sugden's "breakdown of the Kosminski theory" is what I would call "excellent." He raises some valid points, but I think his conclusions are wrong. His views on the matter have been generally adopted however, and they are endlessly repeated like a mantra here on the boards... drooling imbecile, wish dreams etc.

RH

[jason_c]

The reports of Kosminski's hearing over the dog muzzle incident mentions nothing about drooling or knuckle dragging. He seems to be opinionated, coherent and English speaking in 1889.

As for the rest, there is nothing new about differing police officers having different views about a case. I am certainly willing to admit that Anderson's "ascertained fact" was actually a theory.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Rob,

Thank you for answering my question to Jeff. I guess his latest copy of the LVA newsletter has yet to arrive.

Simon

So I need permission to go to the loo now? I do actually work you know..

I did google LVA and got some fairly strange conections, what are you refering to?

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate,
Didn't mean to offend. I agree with your comment, but without understanding, this is the image that has been propagated by most of the respected JtR authors. So please, don't shoot the messenger.
All the best
Dave

Hi Dave

Thank you for your polite reply. It has been pointed out to me that I can at times be a little crotchety.

And I agree we should be careful of being to critical of respectable authors who have reached conclusions you don’t agree with. As Mei Trow pointed out at the 2009 Conference, authors can only be guided by the expert opinion of their day. If that expert advice changes over a period of time then it is not entirely their fault. And when it comes to subjects like mental health expert opinion seems to change on an almost yearly basis. There are some that would like the word Schizophrenia gone altogether.

The problem when considering Aarons mental condition is that there is very little to go on. His records are merely comments on his physical condition rather than his mental state. And as Rob has pointed out terms used at the beginning of the century often varied from institution to institution and had slightly different meanings.

However most current expert opinion I have received is that Aaron was probably suffering from some form of Schizophrenia, the condition does have many variations. And of course someone dealing with schizophrenia today has different drugs and social conditions to deal with, so they can only generalize about how the illness might have affected Aaron Kosminski.

The vary word imbecile carries a lot of connotations today that doesn’t square with what we know about Schizophrenia. The condition typically starts late teens, early twenties (although some people are diagnosed much later) far from being stupid they are often comparatively high achievers. Breakdowns often happen to new university graduates. So its possible Aaron was the family golden boy they hoped would become a Rabi in his early teens, who knows?

The condition tends to hit the suffer in waves. Periods of time called psychotic episodes usually last 12-16 weeks. So its more than possible that Aaron was in the gutter one month and happily walking his dog the next. We just do not know for certain. I’m only saying that the expert opinion I have been given allows for this possibility.

I believe what Rob is trying to do is challenge our perceptions of Aaron Kosminski and add as much new factual evidence about him as possible and hopefully his new book will become the bench mark on the subject, Aaron Kosminski, in the future.

Pirate

[The Good Michael]

The problem when considering Aarons mental condition is that there is very little to go on.

Exactly what I have said. So, dismissal of a suspect based on inexpert opinion is ludicrous. It isn't fair to even say that he was schizophrenic. We can say that he was ill enough, or that his family thought him ill enough to be put away. That in itself, says something, however.

Let's just get away from labeling, shall we?

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

‘After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification and he knew he was identified.
On suspects return to his brothers house in whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day and night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards- Kosminski was the suspect-DSS

Hi Mike

I'm fairly happy with a diagnosis of a form of 'Schizophrenia'. My caution would be in pigeon holing schizophrenics. There is a lot of variation.

However i do think it reasonable to listen to expert advice on typical behaviour patterns that this illness might create/induce?.

As long as people understand that you are being general rather than specific to Aaron's case.

Pirate

[DVV]

I personally do not think Sugden's "breakdown of the Kosminski theory" is what I would call "excellent." He raises some valid points, but I think his conclusions are wrong. His views on the matter have been generally adopted however, and they are endlessly repeated like a mantra here on the boards... drooling imbecile, wish dreams etc.

RH

Hi Rob,

agreed. We don't know enough about his personality to dismiss him on such a basis.I therefore agree with Mike's posts too.

What I find questionable (to say the least) is Anderson's "ascertained fact".

Amitiés,
David