Conjecture vs 'evidence'

[Paul Sutton]

I use quote marks to capture the sense that (concerning suspects) there's no evidence that hasn't been questioned/torn to shreds- especially for witness statements. It seems to be the main activity here.

1. Could anyone point me to a thread where this led anywhere. For example, where even a vague consensus has been reached, that a certain suspect becomes more likely?

2. Can anyone point me to a thread where cherry-picking of 'experts' isn't done. Or perhaps, where there's some consensus on an expert opinion, and one which makes a specific suspect more likely

I'll qualify that: it's of course not wrong to question experts, who can be highly misleading - not deliberately, but a recent example makes the point. In the Jill Dando case, the experts on the fragment found on Barry Bulsara's coat completely misstated the statistical argument, to the later astonishment of many statisticians, which may have led to him being wrongly freed. There's no space here, but it's very well summarised in Nick Ross' blog.

In short, they ignored Bayes' Theorem, on how prior events affect probability. Ross makes the good point that expertise can be very narrow, and there's specific judicial warning about experts deliberating on areas outside their expertise - how this is dangerous, since we punters may get clobbered with 'that's what the experts say' when they're not speaking from their expertise.

Still, it strikes me that too much debate is people googling and trading expert opinion, without the necessary background. I'm not really interested in a debate about what that constitutes, of course it's arguable.

3. This is a big ask. Could someone provide a list of what they see as the best evidence for each of these, following? Obviously people can debate what they like, but I'm not asking for some pile-on about how so-and-so is worthless of consideration, only a moon-calf would consider them, how one needs to discuss bloody rags at all hours for twenty years before having the temerity to do this, etc:

1. William Bury
2. Montague Druitt
3. George Chapman
4. Francis Thompson
5. Charles Lechmere
6. Jimmy Savile

4. For any candidate, can someone provide a piece of witness evidence that seems beyond any dispute. Again, I'm not asking for a reprise of the debate on how unreliable such evidence inherently is.

5. Can someone use all of the above to give their full conjecture on a suspect. Again, a huge ask.

I realise that would seem a horror to some, and risky. I was struck by one vociferous poster who admitted to having a name but being unwilling to share it. It does seem to me that this one creates outrage and triggers the full assassination routine, almost by default.

And this may seem like me 'setting a task'; if so just ignore it. And it may seem lazy (or welcome) but I'm not intending to participate - I'll leave it to the experts.

Thanks,

Paul

[Iconoclast]

This is a very clever post, Paul, as it illustrates what we should all know if we allowed ourselves to grasp it - namely, that no candidate exists for which there is uncontested evidence, and no eyewitness account which is beyond equivocation on some grounds or other.

Of course, James Maybrick is slightly unusual in that there are at least two sources of physical evidence pointing directly at his guilt, neither of which are uncontested (if they weren't, we'd all accept the mystery was solved already). Other than Maybrick, there is no evidence whatsoever which could be said to incontrovertibly point towards anyone as the criminal. If the DNA analysis on the shawl had been applied correctly, there could have been something against someone, but that one fell well short of incontrovertible, as we all know.

It makes you wonder whether there is any point whatsoever in even discussing the case at all?

Ike

[Paul Sutton]

This is a very clever post, Paul, as it illustrates what we should all know if we allowed ourselves to grasp it - namely, that no candidate exists for which there is uncontested evidence, and no eyewitness account which is beyond equivocation on some grounds or other.

Of course, James Maybrick is slightly unusual in that there are at least two sources of physical evidence pointing directly at his guilt, neither of which are uncontested (if they weren't, we'd all accept the mystery was solved already). Other than Maybrick, there is no evidence whatsoever which could be said to incontrovertibly point towards anyone as the criminal. If the DNA analysis on the shawl had been applied correctly, there could have been something against someone, but that one fell well short of incontrovertible, as we all know.

It makes you wonder whether there is any point whatsoever in even discussing the case at all?

Ike

Many thanks Ike - I'll immediately break my rule and respond, since it's on the purpose, not on the questions I pose!

The point of my post wasn't - exactly - to make your last point. But subconsciously, that's what I'm probably alluding to. I'd love to be wrong. Shoot me down (not you, but the forensics crowd).

It's all good fun (up to a point) but does need shaking up. In science, it's the norm for people to constantly ask - 'What's the point of this?'

I'm a lover of pointless activities, relish them. It's when they pretend to be serious (and moralistic) that I start to worry. I participate in numerous discussions on the Sherlock Holmes Canon - which exist in the Holmes' world, and treat it as reality. They get heated, but it's within accepted limits of absurdity. Ditto for discussions on sport.

I think the entire point of this is to make conjectures - the original Ripperology. No doubt it was frequently absurd, but it's more honest than the current 'evidence-based' charade. This fits with the wider discourse we're in - the managerialist mindset - which pretends issues can only be discussed if the discussion is 'evidence based.'

It's not for me to suggest how others spend their time. But I can make observations.

Do the few who stick their necks out get decapitated, not because of what they say, but because they say it at all?

[rjpalmer]

4. For any candidate, can someone provide a piece of witness evidence that seems beyond any dispute. Again, I'm not asking for a reprise of the debate on how unreliable such evidence inherently is.

Excuse my commentary, but whenever I see a Ripperologist use the word "candidate," I can't help thinking of my old acquaintance, David Radka, now many years dead, who posted on this forum almost from its inception in the 1990s but was largely seen as a gadfly and a joker by those who did not know him. In fact, Radka had a master's degree in philosophy from a good American university and was a practicing Certified Public Accountant.

Anyway, Radka always bristled at the use of the word "candidate" and railed against it, and felt it was the wrong way of going about things. He felt it reduced the case to a sort of low-level parlor game like Clue--was it Professor Plum or Colonel Mustard?" He would similarly rail against British Empiricism and aligned himself with the Continental Rationalists. His idea was to forget about 'candidates' and instead look at the evidence as a whole (by which he meant Kate Eddowes' apron, the Goulston Street Graffito, the Lusk kidney, the depositions at the inquest, the nature of the mutilations, police opinions, etc.) and when one did this logically and open-mindedly and even with a low bow in the direction of what he called 'the subjective,' it led to the inevitable conclusion that the murderer was none other than the brother or the brother-in-law of Aaron Kozminski. This eccentric and surprising conclusion was peak Radka.

Sadly, David came down with terminal cancer while he was working on his project and died without completing his entirely thesis, so we'll never know the full extent of his thinking, but he did publish a dissertation called 'A.R.' which stood for 'Alternative Ripperology,' which he considered a necessarily antidote to those who spoke of 'candidates' or who insisted on the empirical approach. I think it is largely forgotten. I never see anyone ever discussing it. But he was very much in favor of 'conjecture' over 'evidence' and felt that 'conjecture' could reach a sort of tipping point to where it became evidence. (I'm somewhat butchering his full thought-process here).

Personally, I'm an empiricist, so I ultimately rejected Radka's theories, but I found it an enjoyable exercise and it was certainly a different way of looking at things.


--

One comment I would make about your list of suspects is that I think it would inevitably lead to a war over the merits of apples v. oranges and at least one banana.

There isn't anything one could truly call 'evidence' against a Druitt or a Kozminski, but that misses the point in many respects, because they were contemporary or near contemporary suspects against whom the police held suspicion, and we only have a dim idea of what that the 'evidence' may have been. And is it not rather irrational to dismiss the 'evidence' when you don't know what the 'evidence' was, and there is a fair amount of probability that your guesses may be very far from the mark indeed?

By contrast, Lechmere and Thompson are modern 'suspects' named by modern theorists, so we do, in fact, know the full case against them. It's laid out in all its glory or dishonor. These sorts of suspects are being 'prosecuted' by their respective theorists in a way that Druitt and Kozminski cannot truly be prosecuted, and we, the jury, have every right to weigh the evidence and dismiss it if we so choose.

Klosowski is something of a 'banana' because he falls somewhere in between. I suppose one could argue that Abberline is more akin to a modern theorist in naming him, as opposed to a policeman who was actively following a specific line of inquiry.

[Paul Sutton]

Excuse my commentary, but whenever I see a Ripperologist use the word "candidate," I can't help thinking of my old acquaintance, David Radka, now many years dead, who posted on this forum almost from its inception in the 1990s but was largely seen as a gadfly and a joker by those who did not know him. In fact, Radka had a master's degree in philosophy from a good American university and was a practicing Certified Public Accountant.

Anyway, Radka always bristled at the use of the word "candidate" and railed against it, and felt it was the wrong way of going about things. He felt it reduced the case to a sort of low-level parlor game like Clue--was it Professor Plum or Colonel Mustard?" He would similarly rail against British Empiricism and aligned himself with the Continental Rationalists. His idea was to forget about 'candidates' and instead look at the evidence as a whole (by which he meant Kate Eddowes' apron, the Goulston Street Graffito, the Lusk kidney, the depositions at the inquest, the nature of the mutilations, police opinions, etc.) and when one did this logically and open-mindedly and even with a low bow in the direction of what he called 'the subjective,' it led to the inevitable conclusion that the murderer was none other than the brother or the brother-in-law of Aaron Kozminski. This eccentric and surprising conclusion was peak Radka.

Sadly, David came down with terminal cancer while he was working on his project and died without completing his entirely thesis, so we'll never know the full extent of his thinking, but he did publish a dissertation called 'A.R.' which stood for 'Alternative Ripperology,' which he considered a necessarily antidote to those who spoke of 'candidates' or who insisted on the empirical approach. I think it is largely forgotten. I never see anyone ever discussing it. But he was very much in favor of 'conjecture' over 'evidence' and felt that 'conjecture' could reach a sort of tipping point to where it became evidence. (I'm somewhat butchering his full thought-process here).

Personally, I'm an empiricist, so I ultimately rejected Radka's theories, but I found it an enjoyable exercise and it was certainly a different way of looking at things.


--

One comment I would make about your list of suspects is that I think it would inevitably lead to a war over the merits of apples v. oranges and at least one banana.

There isn't anything one could truly call 'evidence' against a Druitt or a Kozminski, but that misses the point in many respects, because they were contemporary or near contemporary suspects against whom the police held suspicion, and we only have a dim idea of what that the 'evidence' may have been. And is it not rather irrational to dismiss the 'evidence' when you don't know what the 'evidence' was, and there is a fair amount of probability that your guesses may be very far from the mark indeed?

By contrast, Lechmere and Thompson are modern 'suspects' named by modern theorists, so we do, in fact, know the full case against them. It's laid out in all its glory or dishonor. These sorts of suspects are being 'prosecuted' by their respective theorists in a way that Druitt and Kozminski cannot truly be prosecuted, and we, the jury, have every right to weigh the evidence and dismiss it if we so choose.

Klosowski is something of a 'banana' because he falls somewhere in between. I suppose one could argue that Abberline is more akin to a modern theorist in naming him, as opposed to a policeman who was actively following a specific line of inquiry.

Many thanks for this. It's great to read and useful - many ideas for me. I'll not be responding on them here, as I don't want to get into discussion, but rather to just read it. I hope that's not dismissive - it's the opposite. I don't have a position to argue.

Is there any chance of a numbered response, however brief, to my points (1 to 5)? For point 3, if I'm 'setting too much work', then just pick your best suspect.

I like the word 'candidate' for its connotations of that individual self-selecting...

In the categorisation of 'empiricist' vs 'conjecturist', I favour the latter - since I think there's nothing more to be gained from the former. In philosophy, I'm the opposite. But please show I'm wrong (on the Ripper, not British empiricism vs continental rationalism!).

[Iconoclast]

Full disclosure, one of your likes was mine.

[JeffHamm]

Excuse my commentary, but whenever I see a Ripperologist use the word "candidate," I can't help thinking of my old acquaintance, David Radka, now many years dead, who posted on this forum almost from its inception in the 1990s but was largely seen as a gadfly and a joker by those who did not know him. In fact, Radka had a master's degree in philosophy from a good American university and was a practicing Certified Public Accountant.

Anyway, Radka always bristled at the use of the word "candidate" and railed against it, and felt it was the wrong way of going about things. He felt it reduced the case to a sort of low-level parlor game like Clue--was it Professor Plum or Colonel Mustard?" He would similarly rail against British Empiricism and aligned himself with the Continental Rationalists. His idea was to forget about 'candidates' and instead look at the evidence as a whole (by which he meant Kate Eddowes' apron, the Goulston Street Graffito, the Lusk kidney, the depositions at the inquest, the nature of the mutilations, police opinions, etc.) and when one did this logically and open-mindedly and even with a low bow in the direction of what he called 'the subjective,' it led to the inevitable conclusion that the murderer was none other than the brother or the brother-in-law of Aaron Kozminski. This eccentric and surprising conclusion was peak Radka.

Sadly, David came down with terminal cancer while he was working on his project and died without completing his entirely thesis, so we'll never know the full extent of his thinking, but he did publish a dissertation called 'A.R.' which stood for 'Alternative Ripperology,' which he considered a necessarily antidote to those who spoke of 'candidates' or who insisted on the empirical approach. I think it is largely forgotten. I never see anyone ever discussing it. But he was very much in favor of 'conjecture' over 'evidence' and felt that 'conjecture' could reach a sort of tipping point to where it became evidence. (I'm somewhat butchering his full thought-process here).

Personally, I'm an empiricist, so I ultimately rejected Radka's theories, but I found it an enjoyable exercise and it was certainly a different way of looking at things.


--

One comment I would make about your list of suspects is that I think it would inevitably lead to a war over the merits of apples v. oranges and at least one banana.

There isn't anything one could truly call 'evidence' against a Druitt or a Kozminski, but that misses the point in many respects, because they were contemporary or near contemporary suspects against whom the police held suspicion, and we only have a dim idea of what that the 'evidence' may have been. And is it not rather irrational to dismiss the 'evidence' when you don't know what the 'evidence' was, and there is a fair amount of probability that your guesses may be very far from the mark indeed?

By contrast, Lechmere and Thompson are modern 'suspects' named by modern theorists, so we do, in fact, know the full case against them. It's laid out in all its glory or dishonor. These sorts of suspects are being 'prosecuted' by their respective theorists in a way that Druitt and Kozminski cannot truly be prosecuted, and we, the jury, have every right to weigh the evidence and dismiss it if we so choose.

Klosowski is something of a 'banana' because he falls somewhere in between. I suppose one could argue that Abberline is more akin to a modern theorist in naming him, as opposed to a policeman who was actively following a specific line of inquiry.

I recall David and "alternative Ripperology". Hmmm, I used to have a copy of it (or a short version at least), and if it hasn't been lost in a hard drive failure I had, I should print it off again and refresh my memory of his thinking and approach.

I can't really contribute to the specifics of this thread though, as I don't have a "suspect" really, nor is it my main interest. My personal view is that the information we have is too minimal to build the bridge from offense to offender simply because most of the information we have to work with is either very close to a specific offence, or very close to the specific offender, and there's a huge canyon of emptiness we have to span to connect them.

There isn't even a consensus on what cases are linked, ranging from Nichols & Chapman by one person, Stride another, Eddowes another, and Kelly yet another; so 4 Jack's - I've not seen a 5 Jack idea, but that doesn't mean it's not out there, all the way to Jack killed nearly all the unsolved cases over the past 20 years - meaning the combined JtR/Torsoman idea. I think the majority would agree that one person was responsible for Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes/Kelly, with Stride a strong maybe. Tabram also gets considered fairly strongly, and perhaps McKenzie gets less, but some consideration. Obviously, depending upon which cases one decides need to be explained, there can be disagreement from the very get go. For example, if one thinks McKenzie should be include, Druitt being dead makes it hard to accept anything put forth against him.

Discussions of suspect theories often then boil down to a singular choice point, very early in the presentation, and the overall "theory" is not really considered. But every suspect theory has to fill in the void by making choices that the surviving information does not answer for us - effectively we simply have to "guess" which branch to follow at times in order to continue. I think we all know we have to do that, but for some reason, people seem very reluctant to just say "Yes, I'm assuming that ...". For example, with regards to the apron piece, it wasn't found until 2:50 am, and the area was patrolled at 2:20, when it wasn't spotted. Now, if it wasn't spotted at 2:20, that's either because it wasn't there or because it simply wasn't noticed during that patrol. If it wasn't there, then the direction of travel from MS to GS may not reflect a general direction of Jack going home, but if it was simply overlooked at 2:20, then the opposite idea becomes more worthy of consideration. There is nothing in the surviving information that answers which of those options has to be right, and they are mutually exclusive (either the apron was or was not there at 2:20), and which branch you choose allows for different ideas to be put forth.

Perhaps if the presentation simply acknowledges where and what choices are being made. For example where one accepts that "in order to progress I'm going to go with the idea that the apron was there at 2:20 but it wasn't noticed...". If one states that clearly, then a reader can then decide "well, I personally tend to consider things following the other option, but ok, let's view it from this angle for now...", and that way one can evaluate the rest of the presentation, decide it was well argued, and yet still not buy it. Understanding a theory is not the same as accepting it.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see a collection of the ideas all in one place.

- Jeff

[Paul Sutton]

I recall David and "alternative Ripperology". Hmmm, I used to have a copy of it (or a short version at least), and if it hasn't been lost in a hard drive failure I had, I should print it off again and refresh my memory of his thinking and approach.

I can't really contribute to the specifics of this thread though, as I don't have a "suspect" really, nor is it my main interest. My personal view is that the information we have is too minimal to build the bridge from offense to offender simply because most of the information we have to work with is either very close to a specific offence, or very close to the specific offender, and there's a huge canyon of emptiness we have to span to connect them.

There isn't even a consensus on what cases are linked, ranging from Nichols & Chapman by one person, Stride another, Eddowes another, and Kelly yet another; so 4 Jack's - I've not seen a 5 Jack idea, but that doesn't mean it's not out there, all the way to Jack killed nearly all the unsolved cases over the past 20 years - meaning the combined JtR/Torsoman idea. I think the majority would agree that one person was responsible for Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes/Kelly, with Stride a strong maybe. Tabram also gets considered fairly strongly, and perhaps McKenzie gets less, but some consideration. Obviously, depending upon which cases one decides need to be explained, there can be disagreement from the very get go. For example, if one thinks McKenzie should be include, Druitt being dead makes it hard to accept anything put forth against him.

Discussions of suspect theories often then boil down to a singular choice point, very early in the presentation, and the overall "theory" is not really considered. But every suspect theory has to fill in the void by making choices that the surviving information does not answer for us - effectively we simply have to "guess" which branch to follow at times in order to continue. I think we all know we have to do that, but for some reason, people seem very reluctant to just say "Yes, I'm assuming that ...". For example, with regards to the apron piece, it wasn't found until 2:50 am, and the area was patrolled at 2:20, when it wasn't spotted. Now, if it wasn't spotted at 2:20, that's either because it wasn't there or because it simply wasn't noticed during that patrol. If it wasn't there, then the direction of travel from MS to GS may not reflect a general direction of Jack going home, but if it was simply overlooked at 2:20, then the opposite idea becomes more worthy of consideration. There is nothing in the surviving information that answers which of those options has to be right, and they are mutually exclusive (either the apron was or was not there at 2:20), and which branch you choose allows for different ideas to be put forth.

Perhaps if the presentation simply acknowledges where and what choices are being made. For example where one accepts that "in order to progress I'm going to go with the idea that the apron was there at 2:20 but it wasn't noticed...". If one states that clearly, then a reader can then decide "well, I personally tend to consider things following the other option, but ok, let's view it from this angle for now...", and that way one can evaluate the rest of the presentation, decide it was well argued, and yet still not buy it. Understanding a theory is not the same as accepting it.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see a collection of the ideas all in one place.

- Jeff

Many thanks. This 'alternative Ripperology' is exactly what I'm after - if you dig it out, could you somehow share it? Your post is full of the sort of conjecture I crave, open and not inhibited by some mind-numbing focus on a specific piece of 'evidence'. I guess if this was an ongoing enquiry now, that would be fine, but we're now 135 years later! So some overview, a 'holistic' approach, is needed.

Paul

[jmenges]

David’s piece is in the dissertation section.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-ar.html

JM

[Paul Sutton]

David’s piece is in the dissertation section.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-ar.html

JM

Just scanning the sections, this is exactly what I've yearned for! Both an overview and detail. constructed around central ideas - reminds me of a DPhil thesis.

Now to read in detail.

Thanks,

Paul

[Scott Nelson]

Anyway, Radka always bristled at the use of the word "candidate" and railed against it, and felt it was the wrong way of going about things. He felt it reduced the case to a sort of low-level parlor game like Clue--was it Professor Plum or Colonel Mustard?" He would similarly rail against British Empiricism and aligned himself with the Continental Rationalists. His idea was to forget about 'candidates' and instead look at the evidence as a whole (by which he meant Kate Eddowes' apron, the Goulston Street Graffito, the Lusk kidney, the depositions at the inquest, the nature of the mutilations, police opinions, etc.) and when one did this logically and open-mindedly and even with a low bow in the direction of what he called 'the subjective,' it led to the inevitable conclusion that the murderer was none other than the brother or the brother-in-law of Aaron Kozminski. This eccentric and surprising conclusion was peak Radka.

We came to the conclusion that the murderer was either Jacob Cohen (brother-in-law of Woolf) or David Cohen (two separate men). Jacob, if one considered an epistemological method* -- David Radka. Or it could have been Aaron David Cohen using a more straight-forward empirical approach, which I favored, being influenced by Martin Fido's writings.

Fido came to his conclusions from studying Anderson's writings and the Swanson Marginalia notes. Aaron David Cohen was the only foreign-born insane Jew who went to a workhouse and asylum just after the murders stopped (with Kelly) and died shortly afterwards. I went through the Workhouse and Colney Hatch Admissions and Discharge registers and can confirm Fido's conclusion that (Aaron) David Cohen is the only guy who fits the bill.


* study of knowledge acquisition derived from truth, belief and justification. David Radka believed Aaron Kosminski was set-up as a 'fall-guy' by members of his household because he was insane, unoccupied and demonstrated threatening violence so they wanted him out of their lives. David told me the case solution could be unpacked from a study of the Peloponnesian War. I've been unable to do that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A familiar theme: regardless of whether there is a case against Swanson's Kosminski, the murderer has to be a Polish Jew.

There is just one problem with the candidature of Aaron David Cohen - apart from the fact that even Macnaghten seems to have known of no other Polish Jewish suspect than Kosminski and that, like Kosminski, Cohen was only 23 at the height of the murders, with there having been not a single sighting of any of the victims with customers of such tender age - and it is this: where is the evidence that he could speak English?

Unless you can find a report of him speaking in English at his trial for walking a dog in public without a muzzle.

[Scott Nelson]

Here's a give and take discussion I had with David Radka many years ago. It was posted over on the forums site sometime afterwards. Our ideas were largely in development back then. Some of my views have changed since then. No definitive answers unfortunately.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

If Aaron goes into the workhouse from 14 Greenfield Street, then, maybe the people accompanying him at his admission say that he is coming in from 3 Sion Square instead…………..but I think we have to take much of this data in general terms, and not come to any particular conclusions about matters based on specific names and addresses. Reluctantly, I have to concede to your logic in this assessment. A lot of the frustration is with the scant written records we have, and most of them consist of second or possibly, third-hand information. But at this point I’m not willing to concede that the Swanson Marginalia is entirely a second or third-hand source. I think that Swanson himself was present at the Identification. Anyway, this how his account sounds to me.

….. in 1890 Aaron was being to some extent cared for by his extended family, and that these were composed of the four names above, and that various groups were more or less overseeing him at various times. Agree. It would be nice if we could conclusively determine which family he stayed with, when and for how long.

I wouldn't think that any one group would consider it their sole responsibility to care for him in any event. An untreated paranoid schizophrenic is a lot to handle. I absolutely agree that Aaron was a full-blown paranoid schizophrenic in 1890-1. It is harder to say what his mental condition was in late 1888, but as you say, he could still have been functional enough to engage prostitutes in conversation, then swiftly, calmly and noiselessly, kill them. He probably did go from household to household in between bouts of wandering the streets. But it is a bit hard to envision a 23-year old who had only lived in London for 6 years accomplishing what he allegedly did.

He might have still been able to manage on his own in a reduced sense during the Terror. Absolutely. I’m reminded of the slightly “tipsy” man that Schwartz followed south on Berner Street. The apparent drunkenness may have been the early manifestations of a dementia that came on and then disappeared as the schizophrenia progressed.

Do you have records of him ever showing up in any census? Can there be any reasonable approximation of where he was before he went into the workhouse the first time? During the Terror? In the years following his immigration? Is there any way we could trace his movements from immigration to his first stay at the workhouse? Aaron and his sisters came to London in 1882 (this is in his burial record), so Aaron would not have appeared in the 1881 census. Unfortunately, no addresses for Aaron are recorded, expect that his “brother” H.W. Abrahams, resided at the “Dolphin”, a public House on Whitechapel Road (in 1919). He does appear in the 1891 census (I believe I’m the first to ever find this) in the Registration District of Barnet, subdistrict: Finchley, parish of St. James on the District London County Asylum Register RG12/1058, folio 102, p. 43 (Night of April 5th, 1891) – this is Colney Hatch. Aaron is recorded by the designation “AK” and “L” for lunatic, Single, aged 26, occupation (or former occupation): hairdresser. I have the register for all inmates and with only a couple of exceptions, most are identified by their initials or the letter, L (for lunatic). Most had former occupations listed, and by deduction of his age (25 or 26) and occupation, I’m certain this is Aaron. It is interesting that quite a number of other inmates were listed as “Hairdressers”, “Police Constables” and “Newspaper Vendors”. I would like to do an in-depth study of the Colney Hatch census and publish it someday. There are other interesting things in it, as well, which I can discuss with you later if you like.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be any known way to trace Aaron’s movements just before, during, and after the murders. The reason is probably because he was a “dependent”, who apparently never worked; therefore he would not be listed in the postal directories. (I have done an extensive search of the directories (at great personal expense) during the period from 1886 to 1892, and thus far no “Aaron Kosminski” pops up anywhere.

The two brief stays at the workhouse may correspond to important events in Aaron's life…….. When he's going in he's being basically dumped by his frightened relatives, and when he's going out he's being sent somewhere ultimately by Robert Anderson. Yes, absolutely correct. And as you point out, if he hadn’t worked for years, why waste time sending him to a Workhouse for rehabilitation? And was July 1890 actually his first Workhouse visit? Probably yes, and it was probably at this time that the Workhouse authorities either A) examined Aaron, found him to be an unsuitable candidate for the Workhouse and relinquished him to his family, or B) Contacted the police, who came to the Workhouse and interviewed the authorities and family relatives, before alerting Anderson. If (B), then Anderson would have quickly arranged for the Hove Identification and Aaron would have been whisked away (But this does not explain how they were able to contact the witness so quickly and send him to Hove as well.) I know that Stewart Evans favors the scenario in (B). But would the police return him to his brother’s house and watch him for 6 months, until he was returned to the Workhouse again in February 1891? This doesn’t make sense and a six-month surveillance could amount to naught. I favor something along the lines of (A), where his behavior culminates to the point of the knife threat (I would say sometime in January to early February 1891), when the “brother” contacts the police directly and they take him to the Seaside Home, after which he is returned to the brother’s house (possibly without the rest of brother’s family) and watched “for a very short time”—probably only 2 or 3 days, maybe a week at the most before he goes into the asylum. Or the family may have moved during this time— remember Swanson says only that “Kosminski” was watched at his brother’s house, he doesn’t necessarily mean that the brother and his family were also there. The police may have arranged with the brother to watch Kosminski as he stayed there alone. The police may have arranged for new living accommodations for the family.

The first time to Hove, the second to Colney Hatch. Deals are being made, influence applied, secrets kept, distances maintained. Nobody knows more than they have to know. I think that the first workhouse visit was arranged by his family, not by Anderson. The second workhouse visit would have occurred after the Seaside Identification, so Anderson undoubtedly had a hand in that. He may have wanted the same authorities who examined Aaron back in July to look at him again to see if there was any discernable change- further mental deterioration, etc. This may have been done to see if the police could legally interrogate Aaron or force some kind of confession. But when it was determined at the workhouse that he was a lunatic, Anderson had no choice but to send him to the asylum. I also think that during the brief period of time that he was being watched at his brother’s house, Anderson was conferring with the medical authorities and the reluctant witness in a last-ditch effort to bring a criminal charges against him. When it soon became apparent that it wasn’t going to happen, Kosminski goes to the asylum.

....perhaps his relatives were trying to give him a last chance to work-to force him to be productive under coercive conditions. But if true, why didn't they take these steps before he became seriously disturbed? They may have tried to do so in the Spring of 1890, but then after he was discharged into the care of his brother after the first workhouse stay, it became apparent that it was a useless endeavor. It was after this first visit to the workhouse that Aaron probably took to wandering the streets.

“…..the ideas that he masturbates to excess, threatens his sister with a knife, takes bread from the gutter, etc. are questionable. The ideas that he refuses work, threatens an inmate with a chair, mutters to himself, etc. are relatively trustworthier. Actually, I tend to believe the testimony of Jacob Cohen. Don’t forget the masturbation was confirmed by Macnaghten (who probably got it from police files) and that Anderson in his correspondence to the Jewish Chronicle, was absolutely adamant that he engaged in such behavior and that it was the cause of his madness (it probably wasn’t that uncommon a practice of lunatics or imbeciles – Hyam Hyams, a married man, practiced “self-abuse” and “painted his walls with filth”. So too, did the cigar maker, Joseph Isaacs, who was briefly suspected by Abberline.

Who else could the suspect realistically be? If you want to say it is another Kosminski, I'd think you'd need to show at least some specific data about that person's movements to support your position. Are you working on something like this now? Given the data we have, it probably was Aaron. However, Swanson, Anderson (by his son, Arthur) and Abberline all said that a man was suspected who had died in an asylum. Through Macnaghten and Swanson we know that this man was “Kosminski”. And as I’ve written elsewhere, Anderson told his son that the man had died in an asylum (and Aaron was still alive when Anderson died in 1918). Call it intuition, a hunch, or whatever, but I still believe in the strong possibility that there may have been somebody else named “Kosminski” who fits the bill better than Aaron.

My best candidate would be a 40-year old boot and shoe-maker, Isaac(s) Kosminskie, who lived in the Brunswick buildings on Goulston Street, across the street and down (south) from the where the piece of apron was dropped. This guy and his family completely disappear in the 1901 census. They are the only “Kosminski” family I have found to be missing between the 1891 and 1901 census in London. There are also about a dozen other Kosminskis in the 1891 census, anyone of which could have harbored the Kosminski murder suspect, including the hairdresser, Daniel Kosminski. You have to ask the question, if Anderson and a few others believed that Kosminski was the Ripper, would they have allowed his actual name to be recorded in admissions registers and asylum case-note files. And the workhouse records are even less secure than asylum records, but there in the Mile End records we have Aaron Kosminski’s name. It is possible that the suspect, Kosminski, via instructions from Anderson to the authorities, went into the asylum under an alias? This is admittedly, far-reaching speculation, but how else explain why the police officials thought Kosminski had died in the asylum? Begg gives a possible answer, that when Aaron was transferred from Colney Hatch to Leavesden in April 1894, this became garbled in communication to police that he had died in Colney Hatch.

“But first, Swanson says that the City CID watched his brother's house only after he was returned from the Seaside Home Identification.”

I don't believe Swanson's wording need be taken this way. Swanson talks of the City CID watching the house after the identification, but he doesn't say that the city was NOT watching it before. When he says Aaron "was sent by us with difficulty," this may mean, as Begg has interpreted, that the Met (Anderson and Swanson) needed a means by which to deceive the city as to the identification. Yes. Good point. As you commented, I think that the Sagar and Cox accounts of the city surveillance on the suspect probably pertained to the time period before he was hauled off to the Seaside Home. But the MET had to covertly send him to Hove because, if my suspect and witness are correctly identified, both lived in the City borough, not MET territory, and Anderson wanted total control over the transactions.

This may have involved Anderson secretly arranging for Aaron to be sent from the workhouse to Hove, as opposed to openly picking him up wherever he was living and taking him to Hove. Yes, agree, especially since he may have been wandering in and out of his brother’s house (or shop?) at the time. Incidentally, this scenario strongly suggests that it was the City Police who first picked up information on Kosminski, and then for whatever reasons, the MET obtained slightly different (and better?) information and they decide to quickly act on it.

If the City was NOT watching before the identification, then what happened to cause them to watch later? The implication would be that they got wind of the identification and decided to then begin watching, but why would they do this? Wouldn't they figure that the Met had attended to the matter and left it at that? Why would they break the borough rules and covertly station people inside Met territory beginning AFTER the identification? As I said above, I acknowledge the possibility that the City Police may have been watching Kosminski before the Hove Identification, as well as after. It’s a case of who had the most clout or who was the more ambitious of the two forces, translated to the personalities of Major Henry Smith vs. Robert Anderson. And who was in a stronger position to know the facts (City- one murder victim, MET- more than one murder victim). I think that after the positive identification, but no forthcoming evidence from the witness, Anderson decided to let the City Police know what had happened, so they could resume watching him. The city police involved in the surveillance of Kosminski from before the Identification probably knew the suspect’s habits better than the MET else anyway, so they could follow him more successfully.

It seems to me they may have known something on their own about Aaron, and that they might as well have received this information before the identification. Yes. I provide speculations as to how the city police may have picked up this information in my Butchers’ Row article. Smith is known to have interviewed one of the Mitre Square witnesses. It seems likely that this was after the fact. An informant probably went to the MET directly before the Identification, and they had better information than the City Police possessed.


“And its in perfect keeping with the fact that Kosminski was a lunatic who could not be arrested (at that point in time) by the police.”

And/Or, because Anderson had a deal with the witness to not arrest Aaron.

Well, possibly. But the way Anderson and Swanson recount the incident, they were taken by complete surprise at the witness’ refusal to testify after he had positively identified the suspect. If the witness was told that the suspect would just be locked away, not brought to justice, then your scenario could work. But Anderson said that the point of the identification was to secure evidence against the suspect and Swanson wrote that the witness feared his evidence would hang the suspect.

Possibly anybody in the 4-family clan could have been taking care of Aaron and making these arrangements, pulling the switcheroo on the record books. As long as Anderson gets his man, would he care? Agree. We shouldn’t rely too much on vaguely recorded admissions/discharge relations for Workhouses. Asylums may be a different story.

“This, to me indicates that Aaron may have become too troublesome for the Abrahams, so it was decided to have him live with his eldest sister and her family after he was discharged.”

Or, because the City CID had been watching the Abrahams' house and the Abrahams' thought THIS was troublesome. If you want to say that the City CID started surveillance when Aaron changed permanent residence, then I'd think you'd have to explain why. You bring up an excellent point here. Imagine the effect on the brother and his family knowing that police are watching their every move. Something ignited the arrest (yes, I believe he was arrested) and transfer of Kosminski to Hove. This may have been either a combination of the witness coming forward, or being sought out, or the suspect’s brother finally going to police (perhaps Jacob Cohen?) because of his hopeless condition. But the point is that when Aaron changed residences, this would have still been too early for the police surveillance, in my opinion.

“But some time before Aaron was re-admitted to the Workhouse in February 1891, Morris Lubnowski and his family had left no. 16 Greenfield Street, leaving Aaron to live alone. They may have moved because Aaron was becoming progressively more demented, (masturbating in public, etc.), finally culminated with the knife threat to his sister (Matilda).”

Maybe yes, maybe no. There is no information about which sister was threatened with a knife or when. It is hard to imagine they left him behind-who would have taken care of him? He's been with family for some time, why would family abandon him? Perhaps they were desperately trying to get their distance from him considering police interest, but I can't imagine an inhumane abandonment unless he were decidedly violent, and this characteristic does not appear in asylum records. Besides, wouldn't they want to keep tabs on him, to keep him from further killing? Perhaps Aaron simply rotated back to the Abrahams,' or in fact accompanied the Lubnowski's to New Street. Or perhaps Aaron left the Lubnowskis' to roam the streets of his own accord before they moved. This would be typical of a paranoid schizophrenic. Perhaps he'd dilapidated to the point that the family considered him harmless by then.

It is suspicious that the Lubnowskis leave Greenfield Street sometime just after the Terror and pop up on New Street under the name “Cohen” just as Aaron is going into the asylum. I guess we’ll have to let this one rest: it’s pretty speculative. But I would also suggest that both the Abrahams and Lubnowskis were raising young children at the time, and that neither were too keen on having him around their house.

Sugden bought the "mother" feint in his book. Since the first name of the mother is not given, this may indicate that the person or persons seeing Aaron's admission to Leavesden did not know Aaron's mother's first name. Therefore, Aaron's real sisters and his putative real brother perhaps were not involved with this step, because they would know her first name. In other words, if Matilda Kosminski Lubnowski or Betsy Kosminski Abrahams impersonated their mother, or if Wolf Kosminski were Aaron's real brother, they'd possibly give their mother's correct first name. The absence of a first name on a document of this sort should be noted.

The implication here is that there was a “mother” living at 63 New Street, or somewhere else, in London. She may have lived with “Wolf” and/or come to London sometime between the April 1891 Census and 1894. Certainly, I would agree that it is possible Betsy or Matilda impersonated their mother, or some relative could have just said that the next-of-kin was his “mother”, who may still have been alive and living in Poland for all we know. If there was a mother in London, she quite possibly died before the 1901 census because there is no elderly woman named “Kosminski” listed there. On the other hand, the 1881 census shows that a “Hailer Sorben”, female, aged 65, widow, was living with Daniel Kosminski on Bromehead Street, Whitechapel. Could Daniel be the brother and was this woman Aaron’s mother? I also have a death register list that shows a “Genandel Kosminski”, 62, who died in September 1896.

“When Aaron was returned to the Workhouse Infirmary on February 4, 1891, his
address was given as 16 Greenfield Street.”

(1) This may have been done to try to disavow attachment or responsibility for a suspected murderer. (2) Did workhouses accept unstable people to their infirmaries? I thought the purpose of a workhouse was production. It certainly isn’t out of the question that many unstable people were in fact, admitted to Workhouses. A good many were probably deemed “insane” by Victorian definitions and sent back out on the streets. The Sims reference to a “a Pole of curious habits and strange disposition who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after nightfall” could suggest that relatives came to visit or check up on him at daytime. But when it came time give information to Workhouse/asylum authorities, they preferred to say that he lived alone.

This is where it gets interesting. Matters and events are apparently getting compounded, and it becomes harder to separate what's what. Is there a person who is taking on the name Wolf Kosminski, or is Wolf Kosminski a feint?

This is the million dollar question, and I don’t have an answer yet. But I hope to someday soon. Either “Wolf” 1) existed as Kosminski’s brother, 2) existed as his brother-in-law, 3) was a name fabricated by relatives, or 4) was actually “Jacob Cohen”, who gave evidence to authorities and the police as his “brother” at the Workhouse and under his real name in the asylum (confidential-- Colney Hatch records; more accessible--Workhouse records, if you get what I’m trying to say).

....they may have cobbled together Wolf from Woolf Abrahams and Kosminski from Aaron Kosminski, possibly to make it look like Woolf Abrahams would have been in charge of matters if the commitment were to have been later questioned, when in fact Woolf Abrahams had not been involved with it. Did this putative committing person exist or did he not? If he did, who was he? Good question. One possible answer, as I said would be “Jacob Cohen”. I’m still looking for “Wolf Kosminski” in the 1891 census, and a descendent (see below) is positive that a family member was the suspect.

On the one hand Isaac Kosminski, Daniel Kosminski, Morris Lubnowski, Woolf Abrahams or Martin Kosminski? Or on the other Joseph Hyam Levy, or Robert Anderson? Can you determine anything that may help resolve these questions from the records? A perspective on these questions may provide closure concerning the stakeout and other questions. First question, yes. There are twelve known adult males surnamed “Kosminski” living in London in 1891. Several of these guys weren’t in London during the terror (but that still doesn’t mean that one of them couldn’t have been the suspect’s actual brother). One guy, in particular, Abraham Kosminski, is really interesting. He lived on Langdale St., in St. Georges, very near a couple of other Kosminskis. He died of Bright’s disease in 1894 at the age of 42. More on him some other time. There’s also H.W. Abrahams, who signed Aaron’s death certificate (this could be Woolf Abrahams) and several interesting names that emerged from by Butchers’ Row research, Abrahms, Gluckstein and Salmon. And two or three butchers who may have employed the city suspect, Morris Bosman, Frederick Louisson and Solomon De Leuw.

Second question, I believe that Levy is the best candidate for Anderson’s witness for stated reasons. Look at the statistics; 12 Kosminski men in London in 1891; fewer (less than 4) in 1877, when Levy sponsors Martin Kosminski’s British Naturalization application. So during the murders, there were between 4 and 12 men in all of London named Kosminski. And Levy sees someone near Mitre Square, and Sims says that a “policeman” saw the Pole near Mitre square, who could only later be identifed by height and build (when referring to Kosminski). Ergo, Levy knew Martin K., Martin K. knew another man named Kosminski, and this man was also known to Levy. And so on and so on…….

I'm interested in your [Kosminski] contact. What kind of things does he say? Does he speak of having schizophrenia in his family? Can he provide any documents from the lives of these people? Yes I think he can. It’s quite fascinating reading. I heard from him again a couple of weeks ago, but I don’t want to press him too much. One part that struck me was that he said that Wolf was a “mean and cruel” man who ill-used his grandson (the father-in-law of my contact’s wife) at the age of 16.

I'm thinking in terms of a possible connection of the murderer through Martin Kosminski to Joseph Hyam Levy. I'm aware that the general corner of Mitre Square where the murder took place is a lamp penumbra, which a prostitute and client would likely choose over the other areas of the Square. However, if as, you say the body was found DIRECTLY behind the one house of the three that was associated with Levy, then possibly this placement has some meaning concerning Levy. Yes, that is possible. The house was formerly occupied by the cigar-maker, Lewis Levy in the late 1870s. He was a relative of JHL. The house had been unoccupied for several years prior to the murders. It is tempting to think that the killer used the house on occasions. I’m not suggesting that the Ripper fled to this house after killing Eddowes, but that he many have used it prior meeting her and he knew that that part of the Square would be the most inconspicuous place to do his deed.

[Wickerman]

...
There isn't anything one could truly call 'evidence' against a Druitt or a Kozminski, but that misses the point in many respects, because they were contemporary or near contemporary suspects against whom the police held suspicion, and we only have a dim idea of what that the 'evidence' may have been. And is it not rather irrational to dismiss the 'evidence' when you don't know what the 'evidence' was, and there is a fair amount of probability that your guesses may be very far from the mark indeed?

Hi RJ.

David Radka, that name brings back memories, he was always pushing epistemology.

For both Druitt & Kozminski to be considered contemporary suspects it is surprising we have nothing in writing to verify that claim.
Macnaghten was at least still on the job when he wrote his memorandum, so had access to reliable information, unlike Anderson, Major Smith, and others.
It's just that he wrote that 6 years after the murders, which isn't as contemporary as we would like.
For all the effort Rob House put into his excellent book about Kozminski, he was not able to improve Kozminski's viability, it reads more like a biography than a suspect book.
Jonathan Hainsworth, and previously Andy Spallek?, have provided a great deal in support of Druitt's involvement, yet still falls short of true evidence.

The only true suspects we know of from the time of the murders, outside of Tumblety & possibly the medical student Sanders, are, if I recall correctly, three listed by Warren; Isenschmit, Puckeridge & an unnamed tenant of a brothel.
If the police truly developed a suspect that character was immediately investigated and eliminated from their inquiries. They didn't have a list of suspects per-se. To be a police suspect was a temporary status, lasting hours at the most. Sanders might be an exception to that because they couldn't find him.
So, I have my reservations about both Druitt & Kozminski being actually suspects at the time of the murders.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think that the Sagar and Cox accounts of the city surveillance on the suspect probably pertained to the time period before he was hauled off to the Seaside Home.

The above quote can also be found in

Kosminski: An essay By Scott Nelson

at

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/aaron-kosminski/2629-kosminski-an-essay-by-scott-nelson

How could you have imagined that an unemployed hairdresser could have been working in Butchers' Row and also been the owner of a number of shops?