Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Monty]

Hello, Monty.

Thanks for that. In which case, do we think this was something particularly scandalous, hence wanting to keep it off the record?

My experience with such records is that its rarely kept off the record. We have Hutt dismissed for assaulting a prisoner whilst in the dock of Moor Lane court, little is known about that, yet it is there on his record, and the hearing is mentioned in Police Orders.

One question, which I think is pertinent, is if such a scenario occurred, why didn't Harvey cash is on a newspaper expose in later life?

Harvey mentions no sighting at inquest. Such a sighting would be deemed relevant (see PC Smith and Stride).

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Monty

Given MacNuaghtens comments about a man seen leaving Mitre Court (Sq) on the night of the murder. Do you think it possible the police might have seen something and kept it under there hats without revealing to the press.

And off the top of my head, weren't there also some press reports that hinted at this?

Yours Jeff

Depends on if exposure of the story would be beneficial to the investigation.

I find it hard to believe such a sighting would have been left out of the Eddowes file, and inquest.

Monty

[pinkmoon]

The thing that I can't get my head round is if Kosminski was such a sure bet why didn't we hear anything about him till sir Melvilles memo surfaced decades later and it appears he was just left to rot in an asylum till his death makes no sense if he was such a good suspect.

[Errata]

When we look at the biological and psychiatric models of information organization in the brain (which is a dead boring field of study I must point out), it become pretty clear where the Swanson marginalia would have gone off the rails. And by that I mean veered from memory to conflation.

Which doesn't mean it did. Swanson may have written it exactly as it happened, but if he didn't, we can look at his statement and see where that likely was. The first statement is always going to be the most important, and therefor the most likely to be true. The last statement is the most likely to be false. And because we organize out thoughts in terms of emotional importance and not chronologically or temporally, conflations are most likely to occur with two events where a person experienced the same kind of emotions.

Just because someone screws it up once doesn't mean they do it all the time. He may have conflated once and never done it again. He also may not have ever read the yawnfest that is Anderson's biography again, and so never his his notes again to correct them. There's a lot of ways this story might be wrong, ways we all get it wrong from time to time.

It may all be correct. But it would not at all be surprising if it was wrong either.

[Natasha]

Not if the killer concerned was schizophrenic, Natasha. Read up on the catastrophic cognitive effects of schizophrenia and you’ll understand why.

Hi Garry,

I don't think he was schizophrenic, that is what I meant when I said that doesn't fit either.

I do think he was disorganised with organised traits though.

[curious4]

Hello John

No, I took it to mean that he moved from Ellen street (Berner street) to Backchurch Lane.

Best wishes
C4
(Can't seem to get rid of this, sorry, my phone is not only being uncooperative, it's swapping threads! Grrr);

[Jeff Leahy]

So you think I’m confused as to what constitutes a blitz attack, Jeff?

Frankly it seems like your splitting hairs over some definition that differs from that given by Hazelwood.

The way I've always used it and I presume how Bill Beadle is defining it, is that the women were caught suddenly by surprise when they reached the place they planned to have intercourse having no idea what there client would do. They were jumped. Some being taken from the front some from behind.

I call that a blitz attack even if the killer had used a 'Ruse' as someone else put it, its fairly obvious that this takes no planning what so ever.

I don't plan to get bogged down in some silly semantic debate.

A photograph of Kelly’s injuries does nothing to inform us whether she suffered a blitz attack or was systematically tortured over several hours before being killed.

She wasn't torture for many hours she was attacked through the sheets and almost certainly killed very quickly as were the other victims.

That’s one way of looking at it. The alternative is that the killer deliberately killed in the small hours to reduce the risk of being disturbed or seen by potential eyewitnesses. Equally, the lack of human and vehicular traffic at this hour would have enabled him to hear the approach of patrolling policemen.

What tosh. Are you trying to argue that the average urban fox studied at Cambridge and is this years cox for the boat race.

It was simple opportunity

Some might conclude, therefore, that far from being high-risk, this was a decidedly low-risk strategy.

or simple opportunity.

As for outdoor crimes, Sutcliffe and Bundy are but two organized serialists who committed the majority of their crimes outdoors. Did it ever occur to you that the Ripper might have had no option but to kill outdoors?

Well actually he did kill in doors on one occasion and may have attack so on another. However it never required any more planning or thinking than simply going for a walk and asking the question 'How much fror a shag"

Some years ago I was in regular contact with a prominent British psychologist who told me that Roy Hazelwood had informed him that serialists never kill whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. I presented the psychologist concerned with a fairly lengthy list of offenders who confounded that dictum. I even cited the defence case of Jeffrey Dahmer which stated that Dahmer only ever killed whilst intoxicated.

No-one is infallible, Jeff. Not even those you cite as being ‘experts’.

Well i site experts because that is how a producer produces a documentary, we don't have the luxury of wittering on as so many authors do… But yes experts can and do contradict each other, its the nature of the beast.

However if Hazelwood stated this i would have no hesitation disagreeing with him. Most of the expert advise I received suggested that if the killer were schizophrenic you could expect that a catalyst would be involved.

However I was quoting Hazelwood from the recent 'Scotland Yard Prime Suspect' where he writes the forward and there is nothing in that book where i find myself in strong disagreement with what he says

I’ll say it again: Jack the Ripper remained unidentified.

KOZMINSKI WAS THE SUSPECT

If you believe otherwise show me the official documentation relating to the identification. You might be convinced by Anderson’s ‘definitely ascertained fact’, but the reality that no other senior policeman came out in support of the Kosminski-as-Ripper scenario is significant. That Macnaghten thought the case against Druitt more plausible than the Kosminski ‘identification’ is telling. The fact that Smith and Abberline dismissed the identification claim out of hand is damning.

Only Anderson/Swanson and arguably Monroe knew about the ID. MacANughten didn't have a clue, thus he favoured Druit

Anderson himself tells us that the identification was all he had against Kosminski. Swanson confirms this as having been so. This is why Anderson spoke in terms of his ‘moral certainty’ on the issue. Without the identificational evidence of Anderson’s witness the case against Kosminski collapsed. We also know that Major Smith mounted a round-the-clock surveillance operation on Kosminski. Given the police strategies of the period we may be certain that Lawende was called in to have a look at Kosminski. Despite all of this, however, Smith later stated that there was no evidence to connect any Jew to the murders. Palpably, therefore, the surveillance operation coupled with Lawende’s presumed input came to nothing.

We don't know that Major Smith was talking about kozminski. Its possible that Sagar's accounts allow for a later investigation. Cox accounts pretty much end by March 1889

Interestingly enough, if Lawende failed to identify on behalf of Major Smith, he is hardly likely to have been the witness who fingered Kosminski unhesitatingly at the Seaside Home – which leaves us with Schwartz. And if Schwartz was Anderson’s witness, Kosminski must have been identified as the broad shouldered character who manhandled Stride shortly before her death. If so, the Seaside Home identification was almost certainly an irrelevance since there is nothing about the Stride murder that is consistent with the Ripper’s established method of operation. The throat wound was different in character to those inflicted upon Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Unlike the other victims Stride’s death was not instantaneous. There was no abdominal mutilation, no lifting of the skirts, and Stride was found on her side rather than on her back as was the case with each and every known Ripper victim.

I've never believed Lawende was the witness at the ID. I personally have always favoured Schwartz but there are other possibilities.

Nowadays no competent crime analyst would attribute this killing to the overall series. So the irony of the Seaside Home identification is that it may have linked Kosminski to the one canonical murder not actually committed by Jack the Ripper.

And this I say with absolute confidence based upon Anderson’s principle of ‘moral certainty’.

Stride almost certain was a ripper victim in my opinion. The murders are far to close together both in timing and location for there to be any real doubt. Most of the arguments put forward to dismiss her tend to be in err, and I tend to quote Tom Wescott when claims like a different knife was used are raised.

Yours Jeff

[John G]

I think that attempts to categories serial killers as organized or disorganized are of limited value: "Challenges to this approach [organized/disorganized], especially as it is applied to human behaviour have been legion over the past century. Indeed, whole areas of statistics and psychometrics have evolved to offer alternative approaches to classification that find more empirical support. In general, these start from the premise that human beings rarely fall into distinct types and therefore any approach that seeks to use such a template for defining the characteristics of a distinct type is not likely to find much empirical support. The general weakness of the topological approach adds further significance to reviewing the organized/disorganized dichotomy in order to establish if it is any more valid than other analogous typologies...that now have merely historical significance." See: Canter, Alison, Alison and Wentink (2004)

And this view is clearly shared by the FBI: "Due to these limitations, applying the organized/disorganized dichotomy to active serial murder cases has limited utility in serial investigations. Further, the NCAVC has not embraced the organized/disorganized dichotomy for over 10 years..." This is partly on the basis that, "Although BSU's earlier research into serial murder was ground breaking in its attempts to provide characteristics of serial murderers, there are serious shortcomings with the research construction." (FBI:Serial Murder, Pathways For Investigations).

[Garry Wroe]

There seems to be some confusion about the use of the word “blitz” in this thread … Blitz was defined as an immediate physical attack, without any verbal interaction.

Precisely, Wyatt. As I said in an earlier post the blitz attack has a precise definition in criminological terms, which is why Bill Beadle’s claim that the Ripper was a blitz killer is demonstrably inaccurate.

[Garry Wroe]

I believe that Castle and Hensley (2002) claimed that there has never been a validated case of a schizophrenic serial killer. Are you aware of any examples?

Richard Chase had been a diagnosed schizophrenic for years when he was finally arrested, John, although he was deemed ‘sane’ when his case went to trial. Herb Mullin also springs to mind. Albert Fish may be another example. I also seem to recall that spree killer Daniel Gonzalez was a diagnosed schizophrenic.

[Garry Wroe]

The problem is they don't take into account that modern serial killers have a mobile bolt hole-a car- that aids in the removal and hiding of the body. The ripper didn't have this option and in lew of that substituted a swift, silent and efficient kill along with the uncanny perception to know when exactly to escape.

This is precisely the point I made in my book, Abby. The Ripper case must be evaluated in its proper historical milieu if the offender’s behaviours and motivations are to be understood. All too often modern observers view the case from a modern perspective, and in so doing lose any sense of context.

[Garry Wroe]

But is it possible that a disorganised killer could develop organised traits, maybe if they were trying to make sense of their confusing state?

Not if the killer concerned was schizophrenic, Natasha. Read up on the catastrophic cognitive effects of schizophrenia and you’ll understand why.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm not quiet sure where your getting your definition from, certainly not the FBI.

So you think I’m confused as to what constitutes a blitz attack, Jeff?

Have you looked at the MJK photograph? How much more appalling do you require?

A photograph of Kelly’s injuries does nothing to inform us whether she suffered a blitz attack or was systematically tortured over several hours before being killed.

But these women took the client to their spot, the blitz attack happening very quickly when they arrived.

That is not a blitz attack, Jeff. If it were, virtually every assault documented in the annals of crime would have been defined as a blitz attack.

The FBI profile of Jack shows he fits the description of a disorganised-type serial killer…"We thought that said Hazelwood"because of the locations where he committed four of five crimes. They were outdoors-they were on the streets or in a court yard- very high risk crime. In other words, whoever this person was, was almost oblivious to the risk"

That’s one way of looking at it. The alternative is that the killer deliberately killed in the small hours to reduce the risk of being disturbed or seen by potential eyewitnesses. Equally, the lack of human and vehicular traffic at this hour would have enabled him to hear the approach of patrolling policemen.

Some might conclude, therefore, that far from being high-risk, this was a decidedly low-risk strategy.

As for outdoor crimes, Sutcliffe and Bundy are but two organized serialists who committed the majority of their crimes outdoors. Did it ever occur to you that the Ripper might have had no option but to kill outdoors?

Hazelwood " I don't see how anyone who knows anything at all about violent crime can say that was an organised crime"

Which crime? And based upon what evidence?

I think thats fairly conclusive that my opinion that Jack the Ripper was a disorganised serial killer using blitz attacks is supported by most experts in the field.

Some years ago I was in regular contact with a prominent British psychologist who told me that Roy Hazelwood had informed him that serialists never kill whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. I presented the psychologist concerned with a fairly lengthy list of offenders who confounded that dictum. I even cited the defence case of Jeffrey Dahmer which stated that Dahmer only ever killed whilst intoxicated.

No-one is infallible, Jeff. Not even those you cite as being ‘experts’.

I also think that it can be demonstrated that he 'Occupied various premisis' near the murder scenes

Really? Well I for one would like to see the evidence for such.

That is pure opinion on your part NOT fact. The two people in charge of the investigation appear to contradict this statement!

I’ll say it again: Jack the Ripper remained unidentified. If you believe otherwise show me the official documentation relating to the identification. You might be convinced by Anderson’s ‘definitely ascertained fact’, but the reality that no other senior policeman came out in support of the Kosminski-as-Ripper scenario is significant. That Macnaghten thought the case against Druitt more plausible than the Kosminski ‘identification’ is telling. The fact that Smith and Abberline dismissed the identification claim out of hand is damning.

Anderson himself tells us that the identification was all he had against Kosminski. Swanson confirms this as having been so. This is why Anderson spoke in terms of his ‘moral certainty’ on the issue. Without the identificational evidence of Anderson’s witness the case against Kosminski collapsed. We also know that Major Smith mounted a round-the-clock surveillance operation on Kosminski. Given the police strategies of the period we may be certain that Lawende was called in to have a look at Kosminski. Despite all of this, however, Smith later stated that there was no evidence to connect any Jew to the murders. Palpably, therefore, the surveillance operation coupled with Lawende’s presumed input came to nothing.

Interestingly enough, if Lawende failed to identify on behalf of Major Smith, he is hardly likely to have been the witness who fingered Kosminski unhesitatingly at the Seaside Home – which leaves us with Schwartz. And if Schwartz was Anderson’s witness, Kosminski must have been identified as the broad shouldered character who manhandled Stride shortly before her death. If so, the Seaside Home identification was almost certainly an irrelevance since there is nothing about the Stride murder that is consistent with the Ripper’s established method of operation. The throat wound was different in character to those inflicted upon Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Unlike the other victims Stride’s death was not instantaneous. There was no abdominal mutilation, no lifting of the skirts, and Stride was found on her side rather than on her back as was the case with each and every known Ripper victim.

Nowadays no competent crime analyst would attribute this killing to the overall series. So the irony of the Seaside Home identification is that it may have linked Kosminski to the one canonical murder not actually committed by Jack the Ripper.

And this I say with absolute confidence based upon Anderson’s principle of ‘moral certainty’.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi John

Its sort of like saying the higg's boson didn't exist before the experiments at Hern.. People on the front line can see it from the other end by simply dealing with patients on a daily basis. But I do get that its an area where we still know very little about and seems to constantly evolving.

While I've always said that I feel schizophrenia is significant in what we know about Aaron Kozminski's later years. His condition in 1888 has always been speculative, and other factors, personality disorders, upbringing, social conditions all play a part in that mental state.

And as I've always said none of that actually makes him JtR that has to be weighed as a whole with all the other factors.

My opinion is what we know, can't rule him out.

Yours Jeff

Jeff
Whether Aaron Kosminksi was sane or insane there is not one scrap of evidence which would put him in the prime suspect category. Even if the Marginalia is to be believed, then there still is not one scrap of evidence to show that the Kosminski named in that was in fact Aaron.

So why is there the need to keep banging on about Aaron and all these pointless issues surrounding schizophrenia, and what his mental status may or may not have been in 1888. It has already documented that he was suffering from a mental illness, but so did thousands of others at the same time.

Can we drop these schizophrenia issues and get back to the thread topic its becoming boring now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

To be fair there's no bio-medical proof that schizophrenia actually exists, at least as an organic condition, although that's true of most mental health conditions. Nonetheless, this is a complex and evolving area, for example, the latest DSM V has actually removed all sub categories for the condition on account of their "poor reliability and low validity."

Hi John

Its sort of like saying the higg's boson didn't exist before the experiments at Hern.. People on the front line can see it from the other end by simply dealing with patients on a daily basis. But I do get that its an area where we still know very little about and seems to constantly evolving.

While I've always said that I feel schizophrenia is significant in what we know about Aaron Kozminski's later years. His condition in 1888 has always been speculative, and other factors, personality disorders, upbringing, social conditions all play a part in that mental state.

And as I've always said none of that actually makes him JtR that has to be weighed as a whole with all the other factors.

My opinion is what we know, can't rule him out.

Yours Jeff