Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jeff Leahy]

, psychotic serialists .

I'll watch out for Salvador Dali

[Jeff Leahy]

Non sequitur.
Since the definition I’ve presented is that formulated by the FBI there remains one of two possibilities. Either Mr Hazelwood is unfamiliar with the FBI’s own classificational literature, or his knowledge of the Whitechapel Murders is insufficient for him to have designated the Ripper a blitz attacker.

Or Thirdly that Mr Hazelwood actually bothered to read the entirety of the FBi quote you provide and concluded that very little contact on the night was required by the killer… as is self evident in the word 'Little'

Hence : Disorganized serial killer

Do what you like. Anyone with a semblance of intelligence would research the issue and arrive at their own conclusion. You’ll probably take the easy option and continue to quote those who you define as experts – essentially anyone who expresses a view which seemingly supports your belief that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

No i'll continue with the FACTS. Jack required no skill other than asking a prostitute for business. The victim took the killer somewhere quiet where she was subjected to a sudden and surprising attack that took her off guard. I'd refer to this as a blitz attack because that what it is in the true meaning of the word.

I'm not really interested in the samantic's of what you believe something says, however I think it in poor taste that you criticise Hazelwood when clearly its your own observation that is in error.

Yes, I’ve seen some of your TV output, including the programme in which you contacted the spirit of Kate Eddowes in the cellar of the Ten Bells. Gripping stuff. Especially the bit where ‘Kate’ revealed the name of her killer.

The Definitive Story does not contain a scene with Kate endows in the Ten Bells, in fact it doesn't contain the Ten Bells other than one brief wide shot of the Church next door. It certainly doesn't contain any of the victims suggesting the name of any suspect and does not name Aaron Kozminski as Jack the Ripper.

I suggest you do your research properly. And actually read carefully the information you claim supports your point of view.

Yours Jeff

[Garry Wroe]

Oh, and by the bye, Jeff, with reference to yet another myth you've been peddling on this thread, psychotic serialists who kill during relatively lucid periods tend not to become passive once their psychosis reasserts itself. They go out and kill with even more ferocity and less restraint than was the case during the 'lucid' phase.

[Garry Wroe]

In which case its clear that Hazelwood doesn't agree with your interpretation of the definition. Because he calls Jack the Ripper a blitz attacker.

Non sequitur.

Since the definition I’ve presented is that formulated by the FBI there remains one of two possibilities. Either Mr Hazelwood is unfamiliar with the FBI’s own classificational literature, or his knowledge of the Whitechapel Murders is insufficient for him to have designated the Ripper a blitz attacker.

My money’s on the latter.

The question is do i trust an expert in the field or an amateur like yourself?

Do what you like. Anyone with a semblance of intelligence would research the issue and arrive at their own conclusion. You’ll probably take the easy option and continue to quote those who you define as experts – essentially anyone who expresses a view which seemingly supports your belief that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

I quote experts thats the nature of producing a documentary.

Yes, I’ve seen some of your TV output, including the programme in which you contacted the spirit of Kate Eddowes in the cellar of the Ten Bells. Gripping stuff. Especially the bit where ‘Kate’ revealed the name of her killer.

Who was it again?

Er …

Oh, yes ... I remember.

Aaron Kosminski.

Now there’s a shocker.

Native intelligence? Like an Urban Fox..I could go with that but we are still talking about a disorganised serial killer.

Well, you are. Most, however, are not shackled by agenda-driven thinking and thus evaluate the evidence for what it is rather than what they’d like it to be. Doubtless if anyone did happen to agree with you they’d soon be elevated to the status of expert.

[Jeff Leahy]

It’s not my definition of the blitz attack we are dealing with here. I’ve been citing the definition used by criminologists the world over – Roy Hazelwood included.

In which case its clear that Hazelwood doesn't agree with your interpretation of the definition. Because he calls Jack the Ripper a blitz attacker.

The question is do i trust an expert in the field or an amateur like yourself?

Er, no it isn’t. That was the element of the conversation overheard by Mrs Long. The woman presumed to have been Chapman and her companion were already standing together when sighted. They were still standing together when Mrs Long left the vicinity. If Cadosch is to be believed there was further conversation at the crime scene itself.

That is the element we know about. Everything else is speculation. Your trying to draw the conclusion it required sophistication. However we simply don't know that. Hazelwood concludes obviously NOT MUCH SOPHISTICATION WAS REQUIRED..

And I tend to agree with him.

You appear to be confused by the term ‘little to no precrime interaction’. The ‘little’ means next to nothing. Almost zero. No more than a couple of words. Then BANG!!! An onslaught of unrestrained and ferocious violence.

No I'm simply saying that it allows for interaction. Your interpretation allows for none…

I think Hazelwwod is better placed than yourself as he is an Expert

Now consider the scene witnessed by Lawende and party involving Kate Eddowes at the Church Passage entry. It requires no words from me to dismiss any possibility that Kate was the victim of a blitz attacker.

Hey babe fancy a shag.. How much you got… a shiny six pence…lets wait tip the geezers over there have disappeared….. END

I’m quoting every modern law enforcement agency the world over – the FBI included. You are the person who fails to understand the term, which is ironic since you are the person who introduced it into the debate with reference to Roy Hazelwood and his seeming support for your Kosminski theory. Now you’ve dug yourself into a hole. Using the definition applied by Roy Hazelwood and those of his colleagues who developed the FBI Ripper profile, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, a blitz-style attacker.

Thats your interpretaion of Blitz attack…Hazelwood who is an expert clearly does not agree with you

I agree with the Expert

The blitz and ruse attackers are two entirely different entities. Each operates in a distinct and specific way. It says much about the depth of your criminolgical knowledge that you are able to confuse the two classifications.

Well I've reconstructed a few hundered murders in my time….But as I said an expert Hazelwood disagrees with your interpretation that blitz attackers can have no contact. It allows for the killer to meet throw a ruse and attack quickly shortly afterwards.

So you’re of the opinion that my reference to Stewart’s exasperation is an indication that I’m losing the argument?

Er, Jeff, so far you’ve cited Bill Beadle, Roy Hazelwood, John Douglas and Don Rumbelow, to each of whom you have attached ‘expert’ status.

I quote experts thats the nature of producing a documentary. What I don't do on the boards is try and hide behind the apron strings of other posters.

Which comments on Major Smith? You mean the same Major Smith who knew Kosminski, investigated him, cleared him of any involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, and who then savaged Anderson in print for having suggested that Kosminski was the killer?

You made a series of statements claiming Major Smith named Kozminski. I pointed out to you that this wasn't interlay true and that what he said and anderson relied is clearly more complex than you seem to believe

The women would have approached him. They would have led him to a spot where business could be conducted with relative safety from arrest.

You don't know which of the two spoke first none knows that.

And what’s this about skill?

He required no skill. Just the ability to ask for 'business'

The issue is not that of skill. It is one of native intelligence. This was a man who trawled for victims during the hours which gave him the best opportunity for victims as well as avoiding detection. Thus he was able to calculate risk against reward. He was able to converse with potential victims without frightening them off. He was able to control these women such that no-one saw or heard anything suspicious whilst the crimes were in progress. Afterwards he was able to clean himself up and behave in such a manner that he avoided suspicion in those who knew or interacted with him.

Its you who have made an issue of terminology claiming Hazelwood was mistaken. He wasn't only your interpretation is incorrect.

Jack required little if any skill. As Hazelwood said he was lucky

Native intelligence.

Native intelligence? Like an Urban Fox..I could go with that but we are still talking about a disorganised serial killer.

Yours Jeff

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks, Abby.

[Abby Normal]

It’s not my definition of the blitz attack we are dealing with here. I’ve been citing the definition used by criminologists the world over – Roy Hazelwood included.


Er, no it isn’t. That was the element of the conversation overheard by Mrs Long. The woman presumed to have been Chapman and her companion were already standing together when sighted. They were still standing together when Mrs Long left the vicinity. If Cadosch is to be believed there was further conversation at the crime scene itself.

You appear to be confused by the term ‘little to no precrime interaction’. The ‘little’ means next to nothing. Almost zero. No more than a couple of words. Then BANG!!! An onslaught of unrestrained and ferocious violence.

Now consider the scene witnessed by Lawende and party involving Kate Eddowes at the Church Passage entry. It requires no words from me to dismiss any possibility that Kate was the victim of a blitz attacker.


I’m quoting every modern law enforcement agency the world over – the FBI included. You are the person who fails to understand the term, which is ironic since you are the person who introduced it into the debate with reference to Roy Hazelwood and his seeming support for your Kosminski theory. Now you’ve dug yourself into a hole. Using the definition applied by Roy Hazelwood and those of his colleagues who developed the FBI Ripper profile, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, a blitz-style attacker.


The blitz and ruse attackers are two entirely different entities. Each operates in a distinct and specific way. It says much about the depth of your criminolgical knowledge that you are able to confuse the two classifications.


I’ll frame that one.


So you’re of the opinion that my reference to Stewart’s exasperation is an indication that I’m losing the argument?

Er, Jeff, so far you’ve cited Bill Beadle, Roy Hazelwood, John Douglas and Don Rumbelow, to each of whom you have attached ‘expert’ status.

On that basis you lost the argument almost as soon as it started.


Which comments on Major Smith? You mean the same Major Smith who knew Kosminski, investigated him, cleared him of any involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, and who then savaged Anderson in print for having suggested that Kosminski was the killer?


The women would have approached him. They would have led him to a spot where business could be conducted with relative safety from arrest.

You fail to grasp even that much.

And what’s this about skill?

The issue is not that of skill. It is one of native intelligence. This was a man who trawled for victims during the hours which gave him the best opportunity for victims as well as avoiding detection. Thus he was able to calculate risk against reward. He was able to converse with potential victims without frightening them off. He was able to control these women such that no-one saw or heard anything suspicious whilst the crimes were in progress. Afterwards he was able to clean himself up and behave in such a manner that he avoided suspicion in those who knew or interacted with him.

Native intelligence.

totally agree with this 100%
Its what I have been trying to say, but not nearly as eloquent or concise.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Jeff,

But we can only speculate that he spent little time with the victims. If you accept Stride as a JtR victim it's possible he was with her for several hours: see for example the testimony of Best and Gardner and William Marshall, who refers to a suspect who was educated, well-spoken, even charming. And, as I've noted before, Kelly might well have been asleep when he attacked her. In fact, whether you accept Hutchinson's suspect, or say, Cox's Blotchy suspect, there is a reasonable possibility that he spent several hours in her company as well.

Bingo JohnG
Great points.

[Garry Wroe]

"with little to no precrime interaction between the victim and perpetrator"

You think so do you? Well lets actually look at what you appear to be saying as you have bought no new evidence to support your claim but simply repeat the same mantra… If you actually look at your definition of Blitz attack it clearly has the word 'little' suggesting Blitz attackers can have a degree of contact with there victim, even by your own statement. This has already been pointed out to you.

It’s not my definition of the blitz attack we are dealing with here. I’ve been citing the definition used by criminologists the world over – Roy Hazelwood included.

The only thing we actually believe Jack said, If Mrs Long indeed saw him with the victim is 'Will You" hardly a long protracted conversation as I have been pointing out.

Er, no it isn’t. That was the element of the conversation overheard by Mrs Long. The woman presumed to have been Chapman and her companion were already standing together when sighted. They were still standing together when Mrs Long left the vicinity. If Cadosch is to be believed there was further conversation at the crime scene itself.

You appear to be confused by the term ‘little to no precrime interaction’. The ‘little’ means next to nothing. Almost zero. No more than a couple of words. Then BANG!!! An onslaught of unrestrained and ferocious violence.

Now consider the scene witnessed by Lawende and party involving Kate Eddowes at the Church Passage entry. It requires no words from me to dismiss any possibility that Kate was the victim of a blitz attacker.

No i'm saying the word blitz has a clear meaning. And presumably who ever you are quoting and claiming 'used it in a different way'

I’m quoting every modern law enforcement agency the world over – the FBI included. You are the person who fails to understand the term, which is ironic since you are the person who introduced it into the debate with reference to Roy Hazelwood and his seeming support for your Kosminski theory. Now you’ve dug yourself into a hole. Using the definition applied by Roy Hazelwood and those of his colleagues who developed the FBI Ripper profile, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, a blitz-style attacker.

Attually as your own definition contains the word 'Little' its almost certainly you that miss understand the very thing you are claiming. As Jack the Ripper clearly used very Little ruse 'Will you' to convince the prostitutes he was a client.

The blitz and ruse attackers are two entirely different entities. Each operates in a distinct and specific way. It says much about the depth of your criminolgical knowledge that you are able to confuse the two classifications.

I'm a producer who uses 'expert opinion' to underpin FACTS in a story. Having a good grasp of the english language is fundamental in that pursuit.

I’ll frame that one.

Its always interesting that when someone is losing an argument they seek to hide behind others apron strings by putting out these kinds of 'Ruse' to distract from coherent argument.

So you’re of the opinion that my reference to Stewart’s exasperation is an indication that I’m losing the argument?

Er, Jeff, so far you’ve cited Bill Beadle, Roy Hazelwood, John Douglas and Don Rumbelow, to each of whom you have attached ‘expert’ status.

On that basis you lost the argument almost as soon as it started.

I presume that by this your hoping that I won't mention your failour to address my comments on Major Smith.

Which comments on Major Smith? You mean the same Major Smith who knew Kosminski, investigated him, cleared him of any involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, and who then savaged Anderson in print for having suggested that Kosminski was the killer?

No skill was required other than leaving his front door, wandering around for opportunity, asking prostitutes for business …

The women would have approached him. They would have led him to a spot where business could be conducted with relative safety from arrest.

You fail to grasp even that much.

And what’s this about skill?

The issue is not that of skill. It is one of native intelligence. This was a man who trawled for victims during the hours which gave him the best opportunity for victims as well as avoiding detection. Thus he was able to calculate risk against reward. He was able to converse with potential victims without frightening them off. He was able to control these women such that no-one saw or heard anything suspicious whilst the crimes were in progress. Afterwards he was able to clean himself up and behave in such a manner that he avoided suspicion in those who knew or interacted with him.

Native intelligence.

[John G]

Hello Jeff,

But we can only speculate that he spent little time with the victims. If you accept Stride as a JtR victim it's possible he was with her for several hours: see for example the testimony of Best and Gardner and William Marshall, who refers to a suspect who was educated, well-spoken, even charming. And, as I've noted before, Kelly might well have been asleep when he attacked her. In fact, whether you accept Hutchinson's suspect, or say, Cox's Blotchy suspect, there is a reasonable possibility that he spent several hours in her company as well.

[Jeff Leahy]

hi jeff
respectfully but totally disagree. And again you left out the part about a blitz style/disorganized killer attacking their victim where they meet. Something obviously the ripper did not do.

Have you ever been to these locations? The killer met his victim only yards from where he killed them. Church passage, the corridor through Hanbury street. Nichols possibly longer not known, Stride about nine feet.

The only possible long walk was MJK, 'You'll be comfy for what I've told you'

And if you want to keep emphasizing the "little" part of "little to no.." contact then go ahead, but I think you are missing the obvious context.

I'm simply quoting what Hazelwood says. And if he understood the terminology as is being claimed , presumably he believes that these 'little' encounters to trick the prostitute into a secluded place still count as 'Blitz' attacks. Thats what he describes these attacks as being. I'm just reporting what he says.

Anyway, I cant even see how you could describe the rippers meeting, talking to, probably schmoozing/charming, walking around with, convincing verbally or non verbally that he was legit, accompanying to a secluded spot for the purpose of sex, with a woman as "little" contact?!?

I've no idea what was said apart from 'Will You?' is that schmoozing as you put it? All Jack needed to do was ask for 'business' How that was done is simply interpretation.

As for the LSD/Schizophrenic comparison the less said the better.

LSD obviously places the person taking it in a 'delusional' state of mind. It can also bring on strong Paranioa attacks: WIKKI "The early work thought that LSD-induced hallucinations or psychosis resembled so-called schizophrenic hallucinations, and "LSD psychotics" resembled so-called schizophrenics.[Surveys of so-called schizophrenics found apparently high LSD usage rates. This led to the hypothesis that LSD is one of the causes of schizophrenia, with the mechanism being related to the serotonin neurotransmitter. Research into any connection between schizophrenia and LSD (or hallucinogenics) has been largely eliminated by the banning of LSD and no straightforward experimental test has been done".

I have know experience of discussion with Psychotics however the closest you night be able to get is throw LSD, though I'd agree one should take caution.

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Again I reference you back to the word 'Little' contact which matches what we know and obviously this was the first time he'd met the victim (Although I have no problem that he was known or familiar by site in the area) I think it likely he worked as an odd job man/ night watchman (He occupied several premises)

Hazelwood therefore appears to be using the term Blitz attack as given within the definition provided here by another poster. So i see no error.

Personally I have no problem seeing kosminski able to function and hold down conversation while experiencing some kind of Psychosis (I've spoke to many people on LSD). However he still requires no great sophistication or organisation skills to commit these murders, just the ability to say fancy a quick one and then use sudden and over whelming force.

Leave the body and mess where it was. No forensics to hide. And simply walk away

Yours Jeff

hi jeff
respectfully but totally disagree. And again you left out the part about a blitz style/disorganized killer attacking their victim where they meet. Something obviously the ripper did not do.

And if you want to keep emphasizing the "little" part of "little to no.." contact then go ahead, but I think you are missing the obvious context.

Anyway, I cant even see how you could describe the rippers meeting, talking to, probably schmoozing/charming, walking around with, convincing verbally or non verbally that he was legit, accompanying to a secluded spot for the purpose of sex, with a woman as "little" contact?!?

As for the LSD/Schizophrenic comparison the less said the better.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
"little or no pre crime interaction.."
Obviously in the context they use here the emphasis is on NO pre crime interaction and I notice you also have been leaving out the part where they say the attack is where the subject first meets his victim.

Obviously the ripper used a ruse tactic into luring the victims into a secluded location under a false pretense. The sign of an organized serial killer.

Its more akin to a dahmer, bundy, gacy type tactic Organized serial killer. The disorganized killer who uses the blitz style attack you keep referring to is more like Mullins, berkowitz, Chase type killer all who show signs off a serious mental illness like kosminski.

And as I noted before, as did another recent poster, the so called FBI experts are using a more modern perspective, not taking into account the fact that a Victorian era serial killer does not have access to a car, which would greatly influence a more organized approach, or give the appearance of. Forcing the ripper to not be able to hide or dispose of the bodies.

If kosminski was in the throes of schizophrenia when he encountered his victims do you really think a woman, at the height of the ripper scare would accompany him to a secluded spot? They were expecting a blood thirsty "maniac" at the time and any potential punter who seemed in any way a bit off would have sent them to the nearest PC and/or in the opposite direction.

I think you would be better served to argue that Kosminski as the suspect was in a lucid stage at the time of the murders, was able to act in an organized, planned way and that eventually his illness was what forced him to stop.

Don't get me wrong though-I think kosminski, despite of what I think about Andersons ridiculous claim or the FBI experts mis categorization of the ripper as a disorganized killer, is one of a handful of viable candidates.
IMHO I just think your arguing his case from a wrong angle.

Again I reference you back to the word 'Little' contact which matches what we know and obviously this was the first time he'd met the victim (Although I have no problem that he was known or familiar by site in the area) I think it likely he worked as an odd job man/ night watchman (He occupied several premises)

Hazelwood therefore appears to be using the term Blitz attack as given within the definition provided here by another poster. So i see no error.

Personally I have no problem seeing kosminski able to function and hold down conversation while experiencing some kind of Psychosis (I've spoke to many people on LSD). However he still requires no great sophistication or organisation skills to commit these murders, just the ability to say fancy a quick one and then use sudden and over whelming force.

Leave the body and mess where it was. No forensics to hide. And simply walk away

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Isn't there evidence that he was working as a hairdresser in 1888? I mean, if that was the case wouldn't he have to demonstrate a reasonable level of social skills? And also be reasonably well organized?

We don't actually know when he was working as a Hairdresser, could be that he trained as a barber, Simms says he worked in a Hospital in Poland.

Personally given Iassac's trade in Ladies fashions, I wonder if this was a reference to a more skilled job with ladies hair, possibly wigs and fashion

But the brief response is we don't know for certain

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I strongly agree with this post. In fact, as I noted in my reply to Jeff, I would be interested to know if there is any evidence that Kosminki was seriously mentally ill in 1888. I'm sure Sugden said he was working as a hairdresser, which would presumably require a certain level of social skills.

Moreover, Sutcliffe was also ultimately diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. However, I doubt this was the case during the period he was an active serial killer. Thus, he was clearly able to demonstrate a reasonable level of organizational skill, which extended to luring victims into his vehicle and, on occasion, concealing bodies.

In fact, he even managed to deceive police as to his whereabouts during relevant times, I.e during a number of police interviews. Despite this, he claimed to suffer from bouts of "morbid depression" and even hallucinations.

Thanks JohnG
I think the only evidence we have re his mental health and/or work in 1888 was a note on his asylum records by a friend who said he has not attempted any work for years. But then again kosminski was in court in 1889 I believe for not having his dog muzzled! go figure?

My belief is that if he was the ripper, using your Sutcliff comparison(if Sutcliff indeed was really schizophrenic), that he was already suffering from bouts of schizophrenia in 1888, but still had periods of lucidity, during which he commited the murders.
Its also not lost on me that many people have put forth the idea that the "lame" attempt on Alice McKenzie in 1889 is evidence of a ripper who was ill and not up to his usual efficiency. perhaps he was starting to succumb to it at this point more.

As I stated before, if he was schizophrenic, and the killer, its the illness(and obvious manifestation to friends and family thence to drs/police) that got him off the streets and not any sort of cause.