Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[S.Brett]

I've been giving this a lot of thought. Wondering if more searching News Papers around 22dn Novemeber 1888 will turn anything up.

I also wonder if Martin Fido has taken a look at this information?

But just as an out side there are two Davis who enter Bethlam asylum (Which was in Surrey at this period and had a private wing, now the imperial war museum) but not until 1889.

Yours Jeff

In the Kozminski family tree I once saw the name "Davis". That is all I can say about that. Of course there was the company Thomas Davies/ Jacob Cohen/ Woolf Abrahams. But is it important ?

-Brothel 254 Whitechapel Road-

I remember that Inspector Sagar had also been involved in a brothel raid. I think, it took place in Aldgate High Street (Bull Inn Yard) in December 1890 opposite the Butchers Row.

Sagar (everyone knows it):

"We had good reason to suspect a certain man who worked in 'Butcher's-row,' Aldgate," he said, "and we watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities."

[Jeff Leahy]

hi Jeff

"Yes but your adding bananas up and coming up with an Apple Pie.."

Haha, never heard that one before-I like it.

Actually I think its more like adding bananas, more bananas, a touch of boastfulness, a tablespoon of wishful thinking..let stand for a few years, sprinkle with memory loss and Voila! "Definitely Ascertained Fact Pie"!

I'm just saying that when you actually start analysing some of these criticisms laid at Anderson's door, the fairy tale quote for instance they don't really add up to much as Anderson was telling the truth. It would even seem probable that Anderson had in private believed Monroe knew about his various revelations.

If anything TLSOMOL is born out of Anderson sense of moral duty (always dangerous) that the law required change.

However you view Anderson he is a complex character his life as a Spy Master in apparent contradiction of his Milinist religious beliefs. But to invent a detailed and complex story about an ID that is apparently supported or at least NOT contradicted by a capable police officer like Swanson has never made any sense…A deeply intellectual individual simply doesn't make these mistakes.. Besides he almost certainly worked from notes and possibly a dairy….

Besides careful analysis of what Anderson claims from 1892 onwards show that far from changing his story he is TOTALLY consistent simply elaborating on detail.

So its simply more probable to presume the secret ID in the Seaside Home took place… As Begg has pointed out that still doesn't make Aaron Kozminski Jack the Ripper. And Karsten has raised some interesting NEW information that might re-ignite the old Martin Fido confusion conundrum.

But the simplest and most logical way forward is simply to understand that Anderson and MAcNaughten are describing two different events involving the same suspect.

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Yes but your adding bananas up and coming up with an Apple Pie..

Churchhill was NOT referencing Anderson comments on Jack the Ripper, the storm was over revelations about fenien activities and government untruths. An in that Anderson was clearly telling the truth, all rather embracing for poor old Winston…However Anderson kept his pension suggesting that they didn't want to push him to far incase he said more..

But this is all irrelevant because you have to go back to the contextual comments in TLSOMOL and ask yourself 'would Anderson make up such a detailed story' if he thought he was going to get caught out or challenged on it at the highest levels?'

Not only was he not but (From memory) I believe Winston actually said the ripper comments were of little importance.

Surely its just easier to assume that Anderson is not discussing the same event as MAcNaughten

Yours Jeff

hi Jeff

"Yes but your adding bananas up and coming up with an Apple Pie.."

Haha, never heard that one before-I like it.

Actually I think its more like adding bananas, more bananas, a touch of boastfulness, a tablespoon of wishful thinking..let stand for a few years, sprinkle with memory loss and Voila! "Definitely Ascertained Fact Pie"!

[Jeff Leahy]

Bingo.

And even Churchill said he was boastful. Now that's not the same as a lie, but IMHO its a fine line.

Yes but your adding bananas up and coming up with an Apple Pie..

Churchhill was NOT referencing Anderson comments on Jack the Ripper, the storm was over revelations about fenien activities and government untruths. An in that Anderson was clearly telling the truth, all rather embracing for poor old Winston…However Anderson kept his pension suggesting that they didn't want to push him to far incase he said more..

But this is all irrelevant because you have to go back to the contextual comments in TLSOMOL and ask yourself 'would Anderson make up such a detailed story' if he thought he was going to get caught out or challenged on it at the highest levels?'

Not only was he not but (From memory) I believe Winston actually said the ripper comments were of little importance.

Surely its just easier to assume that Anderson is not discussing the same event as MAcNaughten

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Oh, but he did 'lie for personal kudos', in published works - and I proved it, in detail, in a lengthy thread on jtrforums some years ago. And I don't intend to repeat myself. Go and do some research.

Bingo.

And even Churchill said he was boastful. Now that's not the same as a lie, but IMHO its a fine line.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff! See my other post... You know I think the police found David Cohen at the beginning of December 1888 and they thought it is Aaron Cohen, but not for long and they changed his name from Aaron Davis to David ("John Doe"). He was the wrong man. The right man ("Kosminski"), maybe, went to an (private) asylum for a few days.

December 1888

“The Dublin Express London correspondent on Thursday gave as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer, that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who to avert a terribly family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm's way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this story, detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted.”

Perhaps the police did not know where "Kosminski" had been. The family? Maybe they kept quiet. Unless... Matilda ... the Crawford Letter...

But I am sure they found him.

Cox:

"…was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey".

I trust in Cox.

Theories, hypotheses... but we do not know...

Yours Karsten.

P.S.: I have to go to sleep.

I've been giving this a lot of thought. Wondering if more searching News Papers around 22dn Novemeber 1888 will turn anything up.

I also wonder if Martin Fido has taken a look at this information?

But just as an out side there are two Davis who enter Bethlam asylum (Which was in Surrey at this period and had a private wing, now the imperial war museum) but not until 1889.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

My difficulty with Anderson is that he appears to be such an intransigent figure. As I've noted before, he convinced himself that Rose Mylett's death was one of suicide, not murder, and when four doctors disagreed he asked Dr Bond to give an opinion.

Dr Bond decided it was suicide, however, the redoubtable coroner, Wynne Baxter, was having none of it. He was pretty scathing about Dr Bond's conclusions, and the verdict was one of wilful murder.

Nonetheless, years later Anderson was still insisting that it was a case of suicide.

Yes, but thats a long way from memory loss or basically lying. His rather extreme religious views would probably back you up here…

The question then returns to would he have told a detailed story in TLSOMOL, given he believed in the second coming at any time, and risked his immortal soul? Was jack the Ripper more important to him than his eternal soul?

The other problem with the; he simply had a bad memory argument, is that his story is pretty consistent from 1892 onwards when ever he comments simply adding more detail and he almost certainly used notes and possibly a diary.

But frankly I think it all a red herring, as he is simply describing different events to Macnaughten.. While doing some research on Crawford I was stuck by something that relates to what Harry Cox says, and I believe that MacNaughtens file source largely relates to him…I will expand later but must get on with some work.

Yours jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,
, i.e. because their thoughts are too disorganized. .

Please see my previous post relating to spree killings..


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..

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

What on earth qualifies you to assess and judge Philip Sugden, and what the hell is 'an old school ripperologist'? If you are an example of a 'modern Ripperologist' then heaven help us.

What i was drawing is a distinction between Ripperologists who believe that Anderson, Swanson and MacNAughten are discussing the same event. This raises a number of contextual problems as it would appear that they are either making errors or contradicting each other. In order to deal with these problems various authors have come up with theories which include, bad memory, snile debenture to out and out lying.. none of which have ever really made much sense.

I've recently proposed and have been talking to ripperologists who have a new school of 'thought'. This argues what we are actually looking at are two separate events relating to the same suspect. And while the exact facts surrounding those theories may differ slightly from one to another, ity simply allows us to evaluate the sources without clouding the water with personal attacks on men with solid and productive police records.

Trusting that clarifies

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

1: He probably wasn't schizophrenic. Which is not to say he was at all well, it just probably wasn't schizophrenia that was his problem.

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

[John G]

My difficulty with Anderson is that he appears to be such an intransigent figure. As I've noted before, he convinced himself that Rose Mylett's death was one of suicide, not murder, and when four doctors disagreed he asked Dr Bond to give an opinion.

Dr Bond decided it was suicide, however, the redoubtable coroner, Wynne Baxter, was having none of it. He was pretty scathing about Dr Bond's conclusions, and the verdict was one of wilful murder.

Nonetheless, years later Anderson was still insisting that it was a case of suicide.

[John G]

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. If Aaron Kozminski was that person than it seems appropriate to ask some fairly searching questions of what might or might not have been possible for someone going throw schizophrenia at this period of history. How that might effect the family and how they might deal with that. And indeed how the authorities themselves would deal with such events, even the smallest of details like family school records potentially give us much incite into movements and work associated with this enigmatic character..

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

If he was schizophrenic, I think it highly unlikely that he was JtR. It has been argued that there has never been a validated case of a schizophrenic serial killer, i.e. because their thoughts are too disorganized. Robert Napper is probably the best example, although he wasn't technically a serial killer.

[Stewart P Evans]

What...?

...
He was an old school ripperologist (A GOOD Historian) but the way we look at the sources is probably going to change as modern Ripperologist like Rob House have started looking at the problem in different ways and some are coming to the conclusion that they are simply describing different events so there is no need for a character assignation of anyone involved.
...
Yours jeff

What on earth qualifies you to assess and judge Philip Sugden, and what the hell is 'an old school ripperologist'? If you are an example of a 'modern Ripperologist' then heaven help us.

[Stewart P Evans]

And what...?

...
And Like Begg have always quoted Fido (An-expert)….
...
Yours jeff

And what, exactly, is an 'expert' in this field. Personally I don't know of any such expert...

[Stewart P Evans]

Oh, but he did...

...
...
But thats bye the bye, I've never been an Anderson supporter as you seem to claim I simply don't believe many of the various criticisms laid at his door at one time or another hold up to very much scrutiny. And Like Begg have always quoted Fido (An-expert)….'He would NOT lie for personal Kudos' which is all you really require.
...
Yours jeff

Oh, but he did 'lie for personal kudos', in published works - and I proved it, in detail, in a lengthy thread on jtrforums some years ago. And I don't intend to repeat myself. Go and do some research.