Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Scott Nelson]

"The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Does the second mouse believe in the Seaside Home Identification event?

[John G]

Well if MacNaughten is to be believed he was seen leaving Mitre Sq probably by PC Harvey

And if Dr Blackwells estimate of time of death is correct then Schwartz witnessed Strides murder

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Having read the opinion of Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist engaged by Trevor Marriott, it is apparent that estimates of time of death that were made by the Victorian GPs are virtually worthless: see Marriott, 2013.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

Having read the opinion of Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist engaged by Trevor Marriott, it is apparent that estimates of time of death that were made by the Victorian GPs are virtually worthless: see Marriott, 2013.

Then that would make it more probable Schwartz witnessed the murder, surely?

Its probably true that these estimates were shaky, its seems probable that Dr Philips was well out on Chapman and that Cadosh heard the murder.

But those estimates and reports are what we have to go on. And trying to re-invent them because they don't fit one theory or suspect is just bad ripperology in my opinion.

Actually I think we sometimes give the Victorians a hard time. They ran trains better than we do and a postal service that was fast and efficient. Victorian Asylums are often criticised but I'm discovering they were actually fairly well meaning in there original purpose and might question how good we are today of actually dealing with mental health problems.

At least the Victorians tried

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Then that would make it more probable Schwartz witnessed the murder, surely?

Its probably true that these estimates were shaky, its seems probable that Dr Philips was well out on Chapman and that Cadosh heard the murder.

But those estimates and reports are what we have to go on. And trying to re-invent them because they don't fit one theory or suspect is just bad ripperology in my opinion.

Actually I think we sometimes give the Victorians a hard time. They ran trains better than we do and a postal service that was fast and efficient. Victorian Asylums are often criticised but I'm discovering they were actually fairly well meaning in there original purpose and might question how good we are today of actually dealing with mental health problems.

At least the Victorians tried

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Well, assuming that Schwartz wasn't another Violena, who the police also believed initially, we have no idea how accurate his timings were. For instance, Spooner thought he reached Dutfield's Yard at around 12:35, but it was probably half an hour later. And several club members estimated that they were notified of the murder at 12:45, and therefore were probably around 15 minutes out.

Schwartz, therefore, could have witnessed the assault at, say, 12:15, not 12:45. Which in light of PC Smith's evidence...

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

Well, assuming that Schwartz wasn't another Violena, who the police also believed initially, we have no idea how accurate his timings were. For instance, Spooner thought he reached Dutfield's Yard at around 12:35, but it was probably half an hour later. And several club members estimated that they were notified of the murder at 12:45, and therefore were probably around 15 minutes out.

Schwartz, therefore, could have witnessed the assault at, say, 12:15, not 12:45. Which in light of PC Smith's evidence...

We pretty much covered Strides death in detail in the 'Definitive Story' unless anyone has anything new on the subject (And there is a lot) then I can only see it pulling this thread off topic

Thats not avoiding the schwartz/Mortimer/Brown/PC Smith issues. But they have been done to death on casebook

Yours Jeff

[Monty]

Bishopsgate Order Book

PC Harvey never reported seeing anything suspicious, though.

I wonder why he was booted from the force. Do we know?

The following is taken from City Police's Order Book for Bishopsgate No6 Division 1889, and it is that divisions July return. It shows Harvey was dismissed in July, along with Constables O'Kill and Light. There was no hearing noted in the Order Book, like there was when Hutt was dismissed, and there is nothing in the remains of Harvey's file, which suggests he was dismissed in usual circumstances, as Colin states, for minor misdemeanour such as drink, poor time keeping etc..

Harvey saw out his days as a Foreman Dustman, dying in Leytonstone Union Workhouse on 21st April 1903, after settling in the area some years previous. His wife, Clara, was at his side.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Guesses are good. They are useful. Pronouncement are bad. They speak of fact an knowledge we don't have. But it's a practical consideration. If we slap a diagnosis on a suspect, we have to view everything they do through the filter of that diagnosis. If Kosminski is a schizophrenic, then not only does that account for delusions, but we have to assume cognitive deficits even when not delusional. We have to assume some of the physical symptoms. And we have to assume that murders are either a product of his delusions, or in spite of his delusions and other attendant problems that go along with schizophrenia. We get locked in to a bunch of "must" and "must nots" very quickly, and given our lack of information on Kosminski, that paints everyone into a corner very quickly..

Unfortunately the nature of documentary film is often trying to put across complex and difficult subjects in a clear and simple form audiences can grasp. That often involves talking to experts and asking them to explain complex issues in a way ordinary people can grasp (Feynman is an example of someone who does this pretty well)

I went over Aaron's Notes with two experts and in their opinions Aaron Kozminski suffered a form of schizophrenia given the limited information available. Dr Lars Davidson largely reach this conclusion based on Aaron s age and his later decent into burnout, which he believed more constant with schizophrenia than any other form of mental illness.

He caveated and qualified that assessment but thats what we have.

Consider this. If you go into a police station and say that a schizophrenic shoved you in the street, they will arm themselves for bear on their way out the door. If you substitute "schizophrenic" for "some crazy guy", they will barely bother to take a report. Our reaction and assumptions about the specifics of schizophrenia are immediate. And you may do yourself a disservice attaching the label, especially since it IS just a guess. An intellectual exercise to diagnose a long dead patient is one thing, to make assumptions based on that guess of a diagnosis is another.

Yeah I get what your saying. I've become very suspicious of the term paranoid Schizophrenic. It seems to be used in British Media as a generic term for dangerous and violent. A bit like they use the term Psycopath to generally mean a dangerous individual.

Often stories are dished up about Paraniod Schizophrenics and their is no medical assessment or diagnosis covering the story. And as you know people covering the news like a good story.

I just think we should be careful. But its just the nature of the beast that generalisations will be used. I guess as ripperologist we have to dig a little deeper.

I absolutely forgot that the IDC has different terms. Yes, Axis II is Cluster B generally. We have more disorders in Axis II, but no subcategories which Cluster B does. It comes out flush in the end.

There are all kinds of inequalities in the mentally ill. Bipolar is mostly predominant in Eastern Europeans, ADHD is predominantly in American and British populations, far less common in Continental European populations, and nigh unheard of in Asia and Africa. And OCD rarely appears east of Italy.

Schizophrenia is different though. It's pretty equal everywhere, the only differences are in the qualities of the delusions, which do differ according to culture. It is not surprising that more American schizophrenics believe they are Superman, more Brits think they are royalty, religious people have religious delusions, and cultures with possession tend towards a belief in possession. The biology of the disease does not dictate the scope of the delusion. The person suffering does. It's why some schizophrenics appear to "correct" their lives with their delusions. The mechanism of delusion is the same in everyone, whether schizophrenic or insomniac. But no content comes with it. The content of the delusion come from culture, religion, surroundings, mostly emotions. A person who has a delusion while feeling good will have grandiose delusions. If they also come from a culture with active gods, they may become a god. If the area of the brain that controls elevated mood is compromised and always triggers with the delusion, they will always think they are a god. And people remember their delusions. When they start feeling it again, they remember the last time, so often as not pick up where they left off. It's pretty mundane really. It's as if you were going to write a story. The story you write depends on the same things a delusion depends on. And if you were going to write a second story, it's as likely to be a sequel as not.

Yeah some great stuff here…a documentary in itself.

The problem is how much detail and space can be given in a documentary on Jack the Ripper?

My main interest at present is moving on the debate from simply schizophrenia to a more rounded idea of Cluster B personality disorder and the effects of social stress and drugs in general.

I've always seen it as a cocktail of factors coming together, but perhaps opening that up a little in a way the public can understand is required and I will certainly take what you have said on board.

Oh no offense taken. And I'm not entirely sure why offense is ever taken, but it is, so I thought it fair to warn you. I was a little kid when I was diagnosed. When I was 8 I was diagnosed with Manic Depression. At 36 I'm Bipolar. By the time I die I may have been two other things. The title doesn't matter. Or at least, it doesn't matter to people who understand that there are real problems in the world, and the actual disease rather than the name it goes by is one of them. I mean, it's not Crazy Bitch Syndrome. That I might find offensive. Occasionally accurate, but offensive.

And I don't think for a second that you are maligning the mentally ill. My objection is that a diagnosis is bad for thinking, not bad for mentally ill people. The way to avoid offense is that if someone who is in a better position to know than you says something is or is not so, believe them. No offense can be given that cannot be completely undone by the offenders willingness to learn. Since you have never been other than willing to learn, whether from me or from experts or books, we have no problems. If you listen to what mentally ill people have to say, really listen, then even if you disagree in the end you should be fine. It's the judgement that bothers us. Not reasoned and considered disagreement. Just like you would listen to me about Judaism because I am Jewish over some guy who read a book once.

Um.. I'll think on this, my partner believes actually talking to people who suffer schizophrenia might be a good idea. I'm not so certain.

I've been very careful to avoid anything that directly links Jack the Ripper to various mental illnesses where it might send the wrong message about serial killers. As we are both agreed schizophrenics are not dangerous.

Also there is still a hell of a lot we don't know about these conditions. I've been interested in some scientists taking about syndromes rather than the old categories. I think we will find out more in the coming years and this sort of New thinking probably interests me more.

Those things might inform his delusions. Of course tanning chemicals and adhesives can also cause delusions. Either as a result of damage from ingesting toxic chemicals or even just from inhaling. It would be very hard to rule out environmental factors as the cause of his problems, not just as something that informed his delusions.

And we are back to the Social Historical environment and world that Kozminski inhabited. Its not like the world today. While modern ideas, science policing etc are always fun because they by there nature through up new ideas…We are still dealing (peddling?) in History. While these areas interest me as science and technology, the reality is that I'm producing a history program.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

The following is taken from City Police's Order Book for Bishopsgate No6 Division 1889, and it is that divisions July return. It shows Harvey was dismissed in July, along with Constables O'Kill and Light. There was no hearing noted in the Order Book, like there was when Hutt was dismissed, and there is nothing in the remains of Harvey's file, which suggests he was dismissed in usual circumstances, as Colin states, for minor misdemeanour such as drink, poor time keeping etc..

Harvey saw out his days as a Foreman Dustman, dying in Leytonstone Union Workhouse on 21st April 1903, after settling in the area some years previous. His wife, Clara, was at his side.

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

[John G]

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."

[Harry D]

The following is taken from City Police's Order Book for Bishopsgate No6 Division 1889, and it is that divisions July return. It shows Harvey was dismissed in July, along with Constables O'Kill and Light. There was no hearing noted in the Order Book, like there was when Hutt was dismissed, and there is nothing in the remains of Harvey's file, which suggests he was dismissed in usual circumstances, as Colin states, for minor misdemeanour such as drink, poor time keeping etc..

Harvey saw out his days as a Foreman Dustman, dying in Leytonstone Union Workhouse on 21st April 1903, after settling in the area some years previous. His wife, Clara, was at his side.

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?

[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

[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

[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’.

[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]

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.