Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jeff Leahy]

I looked at this issue in some detail in my book, Jeff. Whoever he was Jack the Ripper was neither disorganized nor an offender who resorted to what in criminological terms would be considered a blitz-style attack.

Yes , if you check out the 'Definitive Story' we cover this in some detail also, principally using author and expert Bill Beadle (Who prefers Bury as JtR) but certain he entertains the wording Blitz attack, few people have studied The post mortem reports in such detail.

He was able to convey to his intended victims a non-threatening demeanour, perhaps even a sense of affability.

Well we don't know how he conveyed himself. Perhaps he simply appeared a little drunk common with psychosis. And remember the women themselves were desperate and some had been drinking.

He had the clarity of thought to plan and carry out his attacks with some precision.

Plan? Other than knowing his environment very well, I don't see much of a plan. We simply don't know how many failed attacks or non attacks almost happened. If we go back to the attack on Stride by BSM, we simply see someone walk up to her, talk and grab her…not very sophisticated.

He didn’t, for example, attempt to take a victim during daylight hours or the late evening. He waited until the small hours when there would be few potential witnesses about coupled with a readily available source of drunken women in search of one last punter for the night.

This isn't a plan its just opportunity.

Whereas in each of his four definitely attributable murders he killed close to occupied rooms or business premises, he aroused no hint of suspicion in anyone – not even in nightwatchman and former policeman George Morris who was going about his duties just a few yards from the spot on which Kate Eddowes was slain.

Which has always suggested to me that Jack was himself some sort of night watchman, which both Cox and Sagar hint at.

Time and again the Ripper’s victim selection was flawless. He also managed to engage Kate Eddowes in precrime conversation without betraying a hint of what was to come. He possibly achieved the same result with Annie Chapman too.

Flawless? No they were simply on the street and vonerable to attack.

I’m sorry, Jeff, but these are not the behaviours of an individual in the throes of a potent psychosis. This man may have got lucky once, but four times in succession implies organization rather than serendipity.

No different from say someone like Mark Dixie, who attacked two women in one night during a Cocaine and Pot filled psychosis…

I don't see that people who are in psychotic states are complete non functional obviously it depends on the level of psychosis, but as I've said in a previous post serial killers more than likely have a cocktail of mental and personality disorders that lead to murder. And we just don't no the actually level of functionality Aaron had in 1888. We know he was able to stand in court in 1889 and that he was deemed not insane at the work house in July 1890.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

The leading contender according to whom, Jeff? Abberline didn’t express such a view. Neither did Major Smith. Nor Macnaghten. In fact the only person who was there at the time, had access to the case files, was in a position to adequately weigh the evidence, and who still concluded that Kosminski was the killer was Anderson.

Hi Gary

But isn't that precisisely what I am arguing that Abberline, Cox and MAcANughten reach the correct conclusion based on what they knew, the investigation unto March 1889.

If Kozminski was placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey as claimed by Cox at this time then the investigation simply ended here…

They don't know that Kozminski was released and back on the streets.

They thus reach the conclusions they reach based on what they know.

Abberline being transferred (Presumably because the suspects has disappeared) around April 1889.

Yours Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

It's almost as if there's some unintentional trend to mock my publications on this subject. Name confusions can be simple -- they don't need to be elaborate; ie, Kosminski for Cohen.

[Scott Nelson]

Stewart,

Are you refraining from laughter reading some of these posts?

[Errata]

Well I've gone over Aarons case notes with two recognised experts and they both drew (To differing extent) that Aaron was suffering a form of schizophrenia. That said both caveated their opinions that schizophrenics were nomore likely to be dangerous than other people in society' the problem of course as pointed out by Richard Jones is other people in society can and do become dangerous.

To some extent therefore i have shifted my position slightly over the last two years and clear take on board Rob House research into lust serial killers but also our own person experiences dealing with someone suffering bi-polar disorder and personality disorders.

This opens up the whole nature v nurture debate, but it should be considered that people suffering schizophrenia will also score somewhere on the sociopathic scale as all humans do. So why I believe schizophrenia might explain some of the more bizarre elements of these murders, I now know longer believe it to be the sole cause… If anything if Aaron Kozminski was Jack the Ripper it explains what happened later on and his decent into burn out far more than the actual killings.

These I now believe to be more complex and would certain involve other factors including childhood , up bring, social environments etc in other words schizophrenia being part of a cocktail of reasons that come together at a single point in time.

One of the reason we don't see this kind of crime anymore is that that world and environment has chafed so radically. If we witness such murders today they tend to surface as one off spree killing type attacks.

But again i'd urge caution in assuming any form of mental illness was responsible for the Jack the Ripper crimes, so many elements might come into play and that would be as true of any suspect not just Aaron Kozminski. But we know Jack existed so these combinations exist and there are examples of other serial killers that have performed elements similar to this series of crimes.

What I believe modern analysis has shown is that it is at least possible that Aaron Kozminski might have been responsible for these crimes and therefore can not be ruled out with the little medical notes that currently survive.

Whether you believe him to be Jack or not, what schizophrenia would certainly explain is what I'm currently arguing, That people who suffer schizophrenia do so in waves, experiencing 'psychotic episodes' followed by periods of recovery. And this would be consistent with the argument that he may have entered a private asylum at an earlier date to previously thought and later released during a stage of apparent recovery. And this cycle may have taken place over many months possibly years.

Yours Jeff

With all due respect to your experts, they can't tell you that he was a schizophrenic with any more authority than they could predict who is going to win the World Series this year. Both pronouncements require a lot more information than we have. I know what they have to have in order to diagnose schizophrenia. They don't have it. I'm not an expert, but I know the DSM, and if a diagnosis were possible, I would have said. I promise. Any doctor you talk to and give this information to will say Schizophrenia. And not because they know, but because when treating delusions, if there are no drugs and no fever, you treat for Schizophrenia. Which is to say you give them antipsychotics. If it's schizophrenia, that's all you really can do. But if there is still a raging case of Bipolar under the delusions, then the "diagnosis" changes to Bipolar. Or TBI. Or any number of other things. It's schizophrenia until it isn't. My guess is that were we to treat Kosminski, there would be underlying problems under the delusions.

I have been shouting from virtual rooftops that schizophrenics are less dangerous than normal people. I'm pleased as hell you agree. That's actually not my problem with the diagnosis. I have the same problem with schizophrenia that I have with neurosyphilis, that I would have with PTSD or OCD if anyone ever seriously suggested them. Which is that the other symptoms of the disease make for lousy serial killer. Spree killer, fine. Serial killer, especially one requiring very steady hands and nerves, not so great. If he was serially hitting people in the head with a sledgehammer, schizophrenia works. Strangling is fine, even just throat cutting would be okay. But we're talking organ removal in the dark, having to stay with the body for several minutes, it's a really high stress thing, even if done in a completely delusional state. Stress shreds your brain, even if you are perfectly healthy. People who have certain mental illnesses or disabilities take stress about as well as they take shark bites. And even those who can push through, they still have the other symptoms, like shaking hands, dyskinesia, involuntary outbursts, hypervigilance, all of which are liabilities at a crime scene. And there are about 20 other symptoms that make it unlikely they would even get to point where they could kill these women. Word Salad makes it tough to convince someone to go with you. Anhedonia makes it unlikely you bother to even try.

Delusions lead people to think schizophrenia. And delusions alone don't preclude someone from a being a serial killer. But all the other symptoms of schizophrenia kinda do. I really don't like the idea of suggesting a Bipolar serial killer. But if we have a mentally ill suspect, being Bipolar wouldn't rule him out. There are no symptoms of Bipolar disorder that would keep someone from doing what was done here. I mean, a medicated Bipolar person would have problems now, tremor in the hands, dicey attention span, high startle reflex, poor night vision, but medication does that. Not the disease. So unmedicated Bipolar is in the clear to be a suspect.

[Natasha]

I looked at this issue in some detail in my book, Jeff. Whoever he was Jack the Ripper was neither disorganized nor an offender who resorted to what in criminological terms would be considered a blitz-style attack.

He was able to convey to his intended victims a non-threatening demeanour, perhaps even a sense of affability. He had the clarity of thought to plan and carry out his attacks with some precision. He didn’t, for example, attempt to take a victim during daylight hours or the late evening. He waited until the small hours when there would be few potential witnesses about coupled with a readily available source of drunken women in search of one last punter for the night. Whereas in each of his four definitely attributable murders he killed close to occupied rooms or business premises, he aroused no hint of suspicion in anyone – not even in nightwatchman and former policeman George Morris who was going about his duties just a few yards from the spot on which Kate Eddowes was slain. Time and again the Ripper’s victim selection was flawless. He also managed to engage Kate Eddowes in precrime conversation without betraying a hint of what was to come. He possibly achieved the same result with Annie Chapman too.

I’m sorry, Jeff, but these are not the behaviours of an individual in the throes of a potent psychosis. This man may have got lucky once, but four times in succession implies organization rather than serendipity.

Hi Gary,

It did cross my mind about the streak of luck thing, but I think the murders lean more towards him being a disorganised killer. He may have known all the women, which would make it easier for him to kill them, he wouldn't need to gain their confidence, if he was perceived by them as harmless.

People are at ease with other people when they know them.

I think an organised killer would be more likely to kill people he didn't know. The level of premeditation of this killer may require him to stalk his victims before hand. The organised killer knows how to act to gain the confidence of his victims, being charming, appearing harmless maybe pretending to be hurt.

But I think the ripper had more disorganised traits than organised.

I would think that the victims were defo street wise (at least some of them). I'm sure they would act with a bit more caution with a stranger, especially in light of the other murders. Of course they had financial problems, but they still would exercise some caution.

[Garry Wroe]

I'll just add that Jack was a disorganised serial killer it require no skill, just a sudden and violent blitz attack and the ability to run avoiding detection or make a quick get away.

I looked at this issue in some detail in my book, Jeff. Whoever he was Jack the Ripper was neither disorganized nor an offender who resorted to what in criminological terms would be considered a blitz-style attack.

He was able to convey to his intended victims a non-threatening demeanour, perhaps even a sense of affability. He had the clarity of thought to plan and carry out his attacks with some precision. He didn’t, for example, attempt to take a victim during daylight hours or the late evening. He waited until the small hours when there would be few potential witnesses about coupled with a readily available source of drunken women in search of one last punter for the night. Whereas in each of his four definitely attributable murders he killed close to occupied rooms or business premises, he aroused no hint of suspicion in anyone – not even in nightwatchman and former policeman George Morris who was going about his duties just a few yards from the spot on which Kate Eddowes was slain. Time and again the Ripper’s victim selection was flawless. He also managed to engage Kate Eddowes in precrime conversation without betraying a hint of what was to come. He possibly achieved the same result with Annie Chapman too.

I’m sorry, Jeff, but these are not the behaviours of an individual in the throes of a potent psychosis. This man may have got lucky once, but four times in succession implies organization rather than serendipity.

[Garry Wroe]

While I commend your appeal for caution. We are talking about the leading contender to being one of the most brutal lust serial killers that ever existed.

The leading contender according to whom, Jeff? Abberline didn’t express such a view. Neither did Major Smith. Nor Macnaghten. In fact the only person who was there at the time, had access to the case files, was in a position to adequately weigh the evidence, and who still concluded that Kosminski was the killer was Anderson.

And what was the basis for this conclusion?

Fortunately we are in a position to know. It was the identification. Anderson and Swanson themselves tell us that there was nothing else to connect Kosminski to the killings. The case against Kosminski evaporated the moment Anderson’s witness withdrew his co-operation.

As such, Jeff, I would recommend that you look at the psychological studies undertaken to assess the reliability of eyewitness accounts. Should you do so you’ll begin to understand the fragility of a case based solely upon a single eyewitness identification.

[Jeff Leahy]

Btw. Jeff,

- Sagar-

There are many scenarios for surveillance Kosminski. For example after July 1890 (Workhouse) or after Cox ("gave up his nightly prowls", no private asylum) in spring 1889. The Problem with this (after Cox): Kozminski would have changed his residence (from a tailor street to Butchers Row). Sagar´s "removed to a private asylum" would not fit to Colney Hatch (non-private institution) in 1891.

Thank you Mr. Wescott,

A very good book "The Bank Holiday Murders".

Yours Karsten.

Hi Karsten

I think that we can conclude that Cox involvement ended as did MacNaughtens (Sorry if I'm spelling this incorrectly I'm dyslexic) in March 1889.

But considering Sagar's accounts take him far further into 1889 -90

There is a surviving report from September 1889 by Sagar concerning an anonymous letter alleging that a murder had taken place in Great Prescot Street shortly before the discovery of the Pinchin Street Murder. He had shown the letter to Detective Inspector Reid of H Division, who told him that the writer was known to him and was insane[9].

yours jeff

[pinkmoon]

I've decided to simplify what would probley have happened if the police wanted to try and I.D an inmate in an asylum who might well be a multiple murderer I've put it into a simple play format.
SENIOR POLICEMAN.."hello we think one of your inmates might have brutally murdererd five women can we arrange to bring a witness to your asylum to see if we can obtain a positive identifacation"
PERSON AT THE ASYLUM...."yes when you coming"
SENIOR POLICEMAN....."we will be arriving as soon as possible thank you"
Now while my creative juices are flowing I've written another play but this time the inmate is suspected of a petty crime so here we go.
SENIOR POLICEMAN....."hello we think one of your inmates stole some spuds from the local market a while ago can we bring the stall holder to your asylum to try and arrange an identification.
PERSON AT THE ASYLUM...."can't really help we are quite busy and its not the sort of thing we can do goodbye"
SENIOR POLICEMAN....."oh well thank you anyway"

Yes some cracking posts on this thread but I think a lot of people are getting carried away my simple play posted a few days ago summed up what would have happend.

[Bridewell]

Some interesting stuff on this thread but why the repeated mis-spelling of MacNaghten?

[S.Brett]

Btw. Jeff,

- Sagar-

There are many scenarios for surveillance Kosminski. For example after July 1890 (Workhouse) or after Cox ("gave up his nightly prowls", no private asylum) in spring 1889. The Problem with this (after Cox): Kozminski would have changed his residence (from a tailor street to Butchers Row). Sagar´s "removed to a private asylum" would not fit to Colney Hatch (non-private institution) in 1891.

Thank you Mr. Wescott,

A very good book "The Bank Holiday Murders".

Yours Karsten.

[Tom_Wescott]

Some good posts from S. Brett on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[S.Brett]

Sagar said:

Butchers Row, Aldgate High Street!

Cox:

“Day after day we used to sit and chat with them, drinking their coffee, smoking their excellent cigarettes, and partaking of Kosher rum.”

Is that even possible in this section of this street? Drinking coffee, smoking cigarettes, Kosher rum…?

“We told them we were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers who employed boys and girls under age, and pointing out the evils accruing from the sweaters' system asked them to co-operate with us in destroying it".

Sounds like a street with many tailors (Jewish tailors), not butchers. And Aaron´s brothers, Isaac and Woolf, were tailors.

Shortly before Aaron Kozminski went to Colney Hatch Swanson said “he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night “. Sagar was a CID officer.

And Cox:

"...it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail".

Cox: nearly three months... until about March 1889 (Macnaghten)
Sagar: a very short time (Swanson) -at the beginning of the year 1891- ???

On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel does not necessarily mean after the Seaside Home identification. If the asylum used a Seaside Home he might have been there (in the asylum) for months after the ID before his return to his brother´s house in Whitechapel (probably the brother Woolf in Sion Square).

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm wondering if Sagars and Cox's accounts might be different.

Cox is pretty clear about following or saveilance on a suspect after or (until) Kelly's death..

The Sweater investigation given as a cover could not have worked in 1890. The investigation started in March 1888 and was pretty much over by April 1889 with the conclusion published around August 1889. So if the 'Sweat shop' excuse was given by Cox then it dates unto March 1889. And almost everything he says matches what MacNaughten says..the man never being identified or being proved to be Jack The Ripper… So it seems probable that Cox, or at least his teams reports make up the information collected and referenced by MacNaughten in his 1894 memo:

Note, like MacNaughten Cox doesn't know if the suspect is alive or dead!

Note: he claims a private asylum in surrey…Bethlam Asylum would have been close at the time and in Surrey, it had private patients!

A reminder of what Cox Says..

The man we suspected was about five feet six inches in height, with short, black, curly hair, and he had a habit of taking late walks abroad. He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey. While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months.

"was looked upon as a man not unlikely to be connected with the crimes"

He cannot enter into the theories of his brother officers, but he has no hesitation in dispelling certain claims: that the murderer was known to the police and is incarcerated in "one of His Majesty’s penal settlements", that he "jumped over London Bridge or Blackfriars Bridge" (perhaps a garbled reference to the suicide of Montague Druitt in the Thames) and that he is the inmate of a private asylum. Later in the article he also rejects the idea that the murderer was "an educated man who had suddenly gone mad".

He then says that although the police had many people under observation at the time of the murders, it was not until Kelly's death that they "seemed to get upon the trail", when investigations made by "several of our cleverest detectives" indicated that a man living in the East End was "not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes" - a formula similar to the one used at the start of the article. Further on he adds that the opinion of most of the officers who were watching the man was that he "had something to do with the crimes". He is convinced that the motive was revenge on womankind, not "a lust for blood", and that the murderer, like his victims, belonged to the "lowest class".
There follows a description of the suspect: "The man we suspected was about five feet six inches in height, with short, black, curly hair, and he had a habit of taking late walks abroad. He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey."
Cox adds that he was on duty in the street where the suspect had his place of business for nearly three months after the last murder (presumably meaning that of Kelly). The officers allayed the suspicions of the Jewish inhabitants of the street by telling them that they were factory inspectors investigating the exploitation of children by tailors and capmakers. They had the use of a house opposite the suspect's shop, and often visited it in disguise, posing as customers.

Cox comments that the crimes ceased as soon as the man was put under observation, and that he soon "removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls". But then he adds that "not the slightest scrap of evidence" could be found against him, and that the police continued to investigate the crimes long afterwards. He concludes by saying that the crimes are as much a mystery as they were "fifteen years ago", that the theories of amateur detectives are based on nothing more than surmise, and that the murderer will be identified only if he confesses and proves himself guilty, or if he kills again and is caught red-handed. Finally he says that he has no evidence as to whether the murderer is alive or dead.