Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Errata]

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

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.

2: One of the things that people sort of forget about the knife incident is that he threatened her with a knife (which I find plausible). He didn't stab her with it. And when talking about people with mental illness that's a huge difference. Because impulse control is a big problem with those with mental illness. 98% of mentally ill people will never pick up a knife. But the ones who do, they will lash out with one like a slap. Which he didn't do. Which is very interesting from a mental health angle, less so from a ripper one. But there's really only one reason a person picks up a knife they do not intend to use. And that's to force someone to do something. He wasn't violent, he was using the threat of violence. And maybe he robbed her of her milk money, but more likely he forced her to back off or let him leave. He defended himself with the threat of violence. And he may have been defending himself from her fine cooking and pleas for him to eat, but it was defense, not attack.

So in a way the knife threat could prove he wasn't violent. Because god knows he wasn't in a position to control himself if he was a violent person. Food for thought.

3: As far as anyone else was concerned, even if he just wept and rocked back and forth in a corner singing "My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean" he would have been considered a dangerous animal ready to strike at any time. They couldn't treat mental illness back then, they couldn't predict it. They couldn't even reliably describe it. They would have treated him the way you would treat a cobra. Even in captivity it would still require intense caution and special handling. So if they stuck him in a carriage to bring him to an ID, they did it in full restraints and at least three guards/cops. If he had been hospitalized for like a decade already, they might choose to dispense with such caution. But he hadn't been, so as far as they knew, he was liable to lunge at someone and eat them as equally as he might thank someone for opening the door for him.

[Paddy]

Naturally, Pat, I know that you are not given to flights of fancy and probably never intended to attribute to Aaron something for which we have no evidence. I'm simply making the point for those who have a tendency to produce mountains from molehills. Apologies, therefore, if you feel I'm being a little pedantic over this issue.

Hi Gary, No worries, point taken, we dont know. I too think she probably was trying to help a very sick man. I am sure she would have perceived it as an attack though.

Note for anybody in England : You can sign in online with a library card and get free access to old newspapers. I have Times online and 19th century british newspapers in the west country. I believe London libraries have British Library Newspapers and possibly more.

Pat................

[S.Brett]

Sorry to interupt Karsten… But does this 'Time Zone' references intersect with Martin Fido's timings for David Cohen?

Yours Jeff

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.

[Jeff Leahy]

@Paddy:

It appears that there were two incidents! A second outrage in the night after the Farmer incident.

Evening News, London, U.K. 22 November 1888

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881122.html

YESTERDAY'S OUTRAGE and THIS MORNINGS ARREST

"The Central News says the following is the true account of the captured effected this morning: After an exciting chase he was captured and taken to Commercial-street Station. The report that he tried to injure his pursuers with a knife is contradicted by the police.

The Central News says: The man who was taken into custody near Brick-lane early this morning was simply arrested for assaulting a prostitute, and will be charged with that offence before the magistrates this morning. The case has no connection whatever with yesterday's outrage. On later inquiries at the Commercial-street Police-station the Central News was informed that the man wanted for the murderous assault on Mrs. Farmer had not yet been apprehended."


???
"The man arrested late last night in connection with the outrage on the woman Farmer, at George-street, Spitalfields, is still in custody at Commercial-street, Police-station, but the police decline to say whether they attach any importance to the arrest. George-street is perfectly quiet this morning, and the excitement seems to have already died out. No arrests have been made beyond the one last night."

East London Advertiser, Saturday, 24 November 1888.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_advertiser/ela881124.html

"The intended victim in this case is a woman known indifferently as "Tilly" and "Flossie." "

No "Matilda" in this case!

In other press articles her (Farmer) age varied. About 30, 38, about 40.

Unfortunately I do not have time to read all the article carefully.

Sorry to interupt Karsten… But does this 'Time Zone' references intersect with Martin Fido's timings for David Cohen?

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

@Mr. Nelson!

"... will be charged with that offence before the magistrates this morning" (The man who was taken into custody near Brick-lane early this morning)

You wrote:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8271

“KEEPING A BROTHEL IN WHITECHAPEL
Gertrude Smith, a well-dressed middle-aged woman of 254 High-street (sic-Whitechapel Road), Whitechapel, surrendered to answer a charge preferred against her by Mr. Metcalf, vestry clerk of St. Mary, Whitechapel, on behalf of the overseers of the parish, for unlawfully keeping her house as a brothel. Uriah Harvey, who was specially engaged by the vestry of Whitechapel, owing to gross immorality taking place in certain houses, to keep a watch, gave evidence of the number of both sexes which entered and left the defendant’s house. On Saturday night, the 24th November, ten men and as many well-known prostitutes infesting the neighbourhood entered and left defendant’s house; Sunday, the 25th, twelve couples; Monday, the 26th, three couples; Saturday, December 1st, eighteen couples. It was ostensibly a cigar shop, and when the parties entered, the defendant was at the door letting them in. When Inspector Ferris (sic - Metropolitan Police Inspector Arthur Ferrett) entered, he found two well-known prostitutes in bed. In answer to Mr Lushington, Inspector Ferris said there had been no complaints of disturbances or robberies at defendant’s house. Mr Lushington convicted the defendant in taking part in keeping a brothel and fined her Ł10 and Ł5 costs, or one month. The money was paid.”

Reynolds Newspaper 9 December 1888

Gertrude Smith and Mary Jones were accused of brothel keeping and Ellen Hickey ("a prostitute who started a fight in the course of the brothel closure") for assaulting N. Cohen. An Aaron Davis Cohen should also appear. N. Cohen did not appear before the Court.

So, I read 24th, 25th,26th November and 1st. December 254 Whitechapel Road. Okay, this address is a “few metre away” from (near) Brick Lane. Watching the brothel already on 21/22th November 1888? What do you mean?

I know it is crazy but there were two Cohen (N. Cohen and Aaron Cohen) and it is possible (as theory) that a "Matilda" had been attacked by a man (her brother Aaron?) who carried a large knife at the time as the brothel was already watched.

“The man who was taken into custody near Brick-lane early this morning”

“He was pursued through several streets by the police and detectives who have lately been concentrated in considerable numbers in the neighbourhood, and was captured near Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton’s brewery”

It seems there were many policemen and detectives at the scene...

Again, I know it is crazy but I think of N.Cohen/ Aaron Cohen and Matilda Kozminski/Aaron Kozminski. Okay, N. Cohen is not M. Cohen.

Pat´s post about the Huddersfield Newspaper:

“but, like a woman, she became sorry after”, N. Cohen did not appear before the Court…

[S.Brett]

@Paddy:

It appears that there were two incidents! A second outrage in the night after the Farmer incident.

Evening News, London, U.K. 22 November 1888

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881122.html

YESTERDAY'S OUTRAGE and THIS MORNINGS ARREST

"The Central News says the following is the true account of the captured effected this morning: After an exciting chase he was captured and taken to Commercial-street Station. The report that he tried to injure his pursuers with a knife is contradicted by the police.

The Central News says: The man who was taken into custody near Brick-lane early this morning was simply arrested for assaulting a prostitute, and will be charged with that offence before the magistrates this morning. The case has no connection whatever with yesterday's outrage. On later inquiries at the Commercial-street Police-station the Central News was informed that the man wanted for the murderous assault on Mrs. Farmer had not yet been apprehended."


???
"The man arrested late last night in connection with the outrage on the woman Farmer, at George-street, Spitalfields, is still in custody at Commercial-street, Police-station, but the police decline to say whether they attach any importance to the arrest. George-street is perfectly quiet this morning, and the excitement seems to have already died out. No arrests have been made beyond the one last night."

East London Advertiser, Saturday, 24 November 1888.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_advertiser/ela881124.html

"The intended victim in this case is a woman known indifferently as "Tilly" and "Flossie." "

No "Matilda" in this case!

In other press articles her (Farmer) age varied. About 30, 38, about 40.

Unfortunately I do not have time to read all the article carefully.

[Jeff Leahy]

Naturally, Pat, I know that you are not given to flights of fancy and probably never intended to attribute to Aaron something for which we have no evidence. I'm simply making the point for those who have a tendency to produce mountains from molehills. Apologies, therefore, if you feel I'm being a little pedantic over this issue.

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

[Garry Wroe]

To me it seemed likely to be Jacobs sister/ Woolfes wife that was attacked ...

With respect, Pat, I would urge caution here. We have no evidence that Aaron attacked anyone. It was said that he used a knife to threaten the life of his sister, but this is hardly the same thing. For all we know the sister may have been attempting to encourage Aaron to eat at the time. Perhaps he was delusional, perceived a threat that wasn't there, picked up a blunt butter knife and attempted to keep her at a safe distance by waving the knife in her direction.

Naturally, Pat, I know that you are not given to flights of fancy and probably never intended to attribute to Aaron something for which we have no evidence. I'm simply making the point for those who have a tendency to produce mountains from molehills. Apologies, therefore, if you feel I'm being a little pedantic over this issue.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ok Jonathon before you give yourself a heart attack I will re-address your points in further detail. However please remember to me this is really old info covered in detail many times. If you had of been at the Wolverhampton Conference in 2007 you might have noted it was me that filmed and questioned Stewart Evans on some of the miss identification theories first raised in Scotland Yard Investigates.

And please note that I am as thick skinned as a concrete elephant, I've simply been called far worse by many people and it simply never distracts me from cutting to the truth.

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.

If you would just read this, Jeff, you would (might) discover that Sudgen -- argued later by Evans and Rumbelow--is

not

accusing Anderson of lying or making stuff up, just of having a lousy and therefore unreliable memory.

Yes but when it is analysed it doesn't hold any water. this is done in detail on page 20 of the A to Z. The problem with all the people you quote and most of the great ripper authors on the subject to date is they have all tried to make sense of Anderson, Swanson and MacAnughten by believing they are remembering or talking about he same events.

If you work from this stand point in soon becomes apparent that they hold contradictions and all these authors have set out to try and figure out why this is so… Thus the various charges are laid at Andersons door, he's lying, over imaginative, forgetful or going senile… Yet despite years trawling through archives there is very little evidence to support the claim. The A to Z says 'in criminals and crime 1907 he repeated verbatim what he had said in the ppemolgical article of 1901' In other words in a six year period before the references given by Sugden, Anderson memory had been perfectly agile

You need to retire your 'straw man' of Anderson the liar, though you think now he did lie, by omission to Macnaghten, which does a disservice to Anderson. I don't think Anderson was ever knowingly deceitful and I never have.

'Anderson would Not lye for personal kudos'

This is your last chance and if you don't deal with it that's your prerogative but I have nothing more to say until you do:

Well its tempting to take you up on this… However your simply incorrect. There is know evidence that Andersons would lie, indeed it was against the religious beliefs he practiced which again has been covered over and over by Paul Begg.

And there is no real hard core evidence that he had ever done anything other than muddle the odd name up when talking from memory to a reporter. On one occasion he openly caveated what he says by saying its late I'm tired..

This is something we all suffer from. I opening put my hand up and admit small errors when working from memory late at night. Thats why by and large I use reference books for detail.

The 1908 interview in "The Daily Chronicle", with Anderson proves that the aging, retired chief--who had been sacked in 1901--was capable of the most grotesque, partisan and self-serving conflations and confusions. Perhaps some people have not seen the pertinent quotation as it is not on this site:

''In two cases of that terrible series [the Ripper crmes] there were disticnt clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin. In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fireplace, and smashed it beyond recognition. In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognized as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated ... I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes, for the reasons, among others, that I have given you.'

All you really have is someone muddling the names of the Home Secretary… Actaully I think its fairly impress to remember the name of any home secretary, I wonder how many people here can tell me who is the current Home secretary? or who was the Home Secretary in 1895 (At a guess of me head Jack Staw)

But this is all irrelevant as I have pointed out because in would make an assumption that Anderson wrote YLSOMOL entirely from memory. And not only is there no evidence for this but there is some evidence that he worked from notes and possibly a diary.

As the late Philip Sudgen cogently wrote about this primary source:

Yes but like almost every other ripperologist writing to date he was trying to figure out conextural errors between Andreson and MacNAughten believing that they were remembering the same event.

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.

You simply have to read what they said.

'Even in the brief allusion to the Ripper case there are two glaring errors. Sir William Harcourt ceased to be Home Secretary in 1885, three years before the murders began. The man with whom Anderson dealt with in 1888 was Henry Matthews. The reference to the pipe is also incorrect. Anderson's mention of a fireplace clearly indicates that he had the murder of Mary Kelly in mind for this was the only one in the series committed indoors. Dr. Phillips, the divisional police surgeon, was called out to the scene of the crime. And a pipe belonging to Joe Barnett, Kelly's lover, was found in Mary's room. But this was not the pipe that was smashed. Anderson was confusing the Kelly murder with that of Alice McKenzie in Castle Alley about nine months later. A clay pipe found with Alice's body was thrown to the floor and broken. However, this incident occurred at the mortuary, during the post-mortem examination, not at the crime scene, and the culprit was one of the attendants, not Dr. Phillips. So here, two years before his memoirs appeared, and speaking of investigations for which he bore overall responsibility, Anderson was confounding officials and running quite separate incidents together in his head.'

What you have here is Anderson mis remembering the name of the home secretary… As almost certainly didn't write TLSOMOL entirely from memory, and he was a respected commentator on penal reform when he retired in 1901 (I hope I've spelled that correctly) and wrote many books even today considered master pieces in certain circle.

The idea that he made everything he said in the LSOMOL up or miss remembered events is so ludicrous that I predicted that ripperologist in the future will find it as laughable as they will the diary Hox.

Now i don't intend to say anything more on the matter as this is the thread about the ID… and I want to move on to Harry Cox, and I have some work to get on with..

Yours jeff

[barnflatwyngarde]

To Jeff

No, I didn't think you would have the courage to answer me because you are a fraud through and through: a hypocrite, a thief and a liar.

Oh come on, this is just getting ridiculous!

When debate degenerates into personal insults it is time for everyone to step back and move on.

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

No, I didn't think you would have the courage to answer me because you are a fraud through and through: a hypocrite, a thief and a liar.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just as an outside general thought there is a third person of interest the other member of the partnership in cheap side. His name was Davies and it seems probable that he is a close relation of Jacob Cohen.

If we are to discover more about a man who occupied several premisis in the East End then the next important stage of Ripperology is understanding the wider Kozminski family its groupings and connections in the Eastend, where they lived and worked.

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

And "nearly related" seems more likely a sister in law than a "related" sister. But I could be wrong !

Hi Pat!

That is it how I see it, too. However:

“She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age”

Matilda Lubnowski was married and 34 years of old in 1888. Do you know the photograph of her at about that time? She was of good appearance in my opinion.

I did find your post interesting though and shall have a look at the newspapers.
Pat............

Thank you! A look at the newspapers, great... a mate will also do that. We are also members of the forum in Germany (Thomas Schachner).

Karsten.

[Paddy]

You know, there were two others sisters, Helen Singer and Bertha Held. Do we know where they were living in the years 1888-91? Remember Ripperologist 128, New light on Aaron Kozminski, Pat Marshall/Chris Phillips.

Hi there, I am sure one sister Helena was in America and Bertha I cant find anywhere, unless she had not married Mr Held yet and went under a different name.
To me it seemed likely to be Jacobs sister/ Woolfes wife that was attacked, hence Jacobs involvement. I would have thought if it was Matilda her husband Morris would have been involved? And "nearly related" seems more likely a sister in law than a "related" sister. But I could be wrong !
I did find your post interesting though and shall have a look at the newspapers.
Pat............

[Jonathan H]

If you would just read this, Jeff, you would (might) discover that Sudgen -- argued later by Evans and Rumbelow--is

not

accusing Anderson of lying or making stuff up, just of having a lousy and therefore unreliable memory.

You need to retire your 'straw man' of Anderson the liar, though you think now he did lie, by omission to Macnaghten, which does a disservice to Anderson. I don't think Anderson was ever knowingly deceitful and I never have.

This is your last chance and if you don't deal with it that's your prerogative but I have nothing more to say until you do:

The 1908 interview in "The Daily Chronicle", with Anderson proves that the aging, retired chief--who had been sacked in 1901--was capable of the most grotesque, partisan and self-serving conflations and confusions. Perhaps some people have not seen the pertinent quotation as it is not on this site:

''In two cases of that terrible series [the Ripper crmes] there were disticnt clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin. In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fireplace, and smashed it beyond recognition. In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognized as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated ... I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes, for the reasons, among others, that I have given you.'

As the late Philip Sudgen cogently wrote about this primary source:

'Even in the brief allusion to the Ripper case there are two glaring errors. Sir William Harcourt ceased to be Home Secretary in 1885, three years before the murders began. The man with whom Anderson dealt with in 1888 was Henry Matthews. The reference to the pipe is also incorrect. Anderson's mention of a fireplace clearly indicates that he had the murder of Mary Kelly in mind for this was the only one in the series committed indoors. Dr. Phillips, the divisional police surgeon, was called out to the scene of the crime. And a pipe belonging to Joe Barnett, Kelly's lover, was found in Mary's room. But this was not the pipe that was smashed. Anderson was confusing the Kelly murder with that of Alice McKenzie in Castle Alley about nine months later. A clay pipe found with Alice's body was thrown to the floor and broken. However, this incident occurred at the mortuary, during the post-mortem examination, not at the crime scene, and the culprit was one of the attendants, not Dr. Phillips. So here, two years before his memoirs appeared, and speaking of investigations for which he bore overall responsibility, Anderson was confounding officials and running quite separate incidents together in his head.'