Quick Kosminski question (say that 5 times fast)

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388532]

Who, apart from you, has referred to Kosminsky as a dog? Why does eating food in the gutter equate to being a dog?

If Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a mad dog, Kosminsky was a mad dog. Dogs are found in the gutter. Search the British Newspaper Archives for "in the gutter" for 1880-1910 for example and you find dogs together with that expression.

Might I suggest that the link between Kosminsky and a dog has been produced in your imagination due to a 'tendency' on your part because you believe in the idiographic myth of Jack the Ripper as a dog (or 'mad dog') due to the reported comment of the Lord Mayor.

No, you are wrong. I do not "believe in" what the newspapers wrote about what Lord Mayor said. What sort of a very strange suggestion is that?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;388523]

But since it is an issue of a specific type of eating, i.e. a postulated serial killerīs eating - the hypothesis being that this Aaron was the Kosminsky and that this Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper - the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

The specific (idiographic) myth / idea / picture of Jack the Ripper as a dog was already well known in 1888 through the papers where he was described as such. An example is the Lord Mayor who called him "a mad dog".

Another picture is the one I published here in the forum in the thread about the "human tiger".

For Kosminsky, whoever he might have been and whereever he might have lived and whatever he might have done - since no source is giving his first name(s) the picture of the mad creature eating in the gutter is now applied.

And still there is nothing connecting this Aaron Kosminsky to the murders.

Regards, Pierre

Other that is Pierre than 3 senior police officers naming him as a suspect or in the case of Macnaghten as a potential suspect.


One assumes there was some reasoning for this, and some information( possible evidence of some sort) which is no longer available lead them to this line of thinking, of course that does not make him the killer.

However it is probably fair to say that in 1888/89/90/91 there was something which linked him, however it need not have been strong or conclusive.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, 100 percent true, my dear Steve.

Living near to a murder site does not make anyone a killer.

It is an interesting matter of the concept of "connection", and the concept is of course extremely important within ripperology since people struggle to define the concept and use it in their "theories".

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = passing that site on the way to work, we can all see what "significance" it is rendered in the theory of Fisherman (not particularly discussing that theory now, but showing the function of the concept of "connection" for the theory").

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = living nearby, we could make hundreds, perhaps thousands altogether for the five sites, of "suspects" of those who lived nearby.

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = is having been seen by a witness (often no one knows who the person seen is, since he is only described in a source from the past) there are a lot - a lot! - of such sightings.

I will make myself clear in this case. My opinion (!) is that the first two definitions of the concepts are worth absolutely nothing and that the third definition can be useful if there are historical reasons to think so. But sightings are legio and differing so one has to analyse the sources, often in absurdum, hypothesizing and disproving and going back again postulating the same hypothesis and reject it again. One has to scrutinize the sources in detail and look for patterns.

I must say that I am impressed by your critical thinking and reasoning, Steve. It is much needed in this forum and it is certainly helping the case forward.

Best wishes, Pierre

Yes Pierre

The idea of "a connection" is used by many who push there own specific theory, and as you say living nearby or regularly passing a murder site is worthless on its own.

And while the connection pointed out with Berner street is in the same category, it is nevertheless the only example I am aware of where a "suspect" and lets be fair, for some senior officers Kosminski is at least portrayed as a suspect, actually had lived right next door to a murder site, not near, but next door.

However he was not living there at the time of the murders, and the information is a point of interest for those looking at Kosminski no more!

Steve

[David Orsam]

the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

Who, apart from you, has referred to Kosminsky as a dog? Why does eating food in the gutter equate to being a dog?

Might I suggest that the link between Kosminsky and a dog has been produced in your imagination due to a 'tendency' on your part because you believe in the idiographic myth of Jack the Ripper as a dog (or 'mad dog') due to the reported comment of the Lord Mayor. Hence you want to believe that Kosminsky was being pictured in 'the sources' as a dog when no-one was, in fact, doing this.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;388491]

Eating food from the gutter may be (as Paddy suggests) less a sign that he was mentally ill than that he was starving. I doubt if he was the only one driven by poverty to such desperate measures.

But since it is an issue of a specific type of eating, i.e. a postulated serial killerīs eating - the hypothesis being that this Aaron was the Kosminsky and that this Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper - the function of the sources who postulate it (I know nothing about these sources, have never seen them) is to illustrate the serial killer as a dog, eating in the gutter.

The specific (idiographic) myth / idea / picture of Jack the Ripper as a dog was already well known in 1888 through the papers where he was described as such. An example is the Lord Mayor who called him "a mad dog".

Another picture is the one I published here in the forum in the thread about the "human tiger".

For Kosminsky, whoever he might have been and whereever he might have lived and whatever he might have done - since no source is giving his first name(s) the picture of the mad creature eating in the gutter is now applied.

And still there is nothing connecting this Aaron Kosminsky to the murders.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Not 100% true Pierre

At one stage in his life he had lived next door to the Berner street site, but not at the time of the murder, but a connection (tenuous) none the less.

Steve

Yes, 100 percent true, my dear Steve.

Living near to a murder site does not make anyone a killer.

It is an interesting matter of the concept of "connection", and the concept is of course extremely important within ripperology since people struggle to define the concept and use it in their "theories".

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = passing that site on the way to work, we can all see what "significance" it is rendered in the theory of Fisherman (not particularly discussing that theory now, but showing the function of the concept of "connection" for the theory").

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = living nearby, we could make hundreds, perhaps thousands altogether for the five sites, of "suspects" of those who lived nearby.

If a "connection" to a murder site, in this case to anyone of the C-5 = is having been seen by a witness (often no one knows who the person seen is, since he is only described in a source from the past) there are a lot - a lot! - of such sightings.

I will make myself clear in this case. My opinion (!) is that the first two definitions of the concepts are worth absolutely nothing and that the third definition can be useful if there are historical reasons to think so. But sightings are legio and differing so one has to analyse the sources, often in absurdum, hypothesizing and disproving and going back again postulating the same hypothesis and reject it again. One has to scrutinize the sources in detail and look for patterns.

I must say that I am impressed by your critical thinking and reasoning, Steve. It is much needed in this forum and it is certainly helping the case forward.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

And, last but not least, nothing connects him to the murder sites.

Regards, Pierre

Not 100% true Pierre

At one stage in his life he had lived next door to the Berner street site, but not at the time of the murder, but a connection (tenuous) none the less.

Steve

[GUT]

Given that this was the East End it surprises me that there was ever any food in the gutter.

Actually I suspect there be a lot around the markets.

Not what you and I'd be likely to eat. But what could pass as food if you were disturbed enough or hungry enough.

[Wickerman]

Eating food from the gutter may be (as Paddy suggests) less a sign that he was mentally ill than that he was starving. I doubt if he was the only one driven by poverty to such desperate measures.

Given that this was the East End it surprises me that there was ever any food in the gutter.

[Bridewell]

Eating out of gutters etc. is really sort of unusual enough to be both noticeable and a very good clue that something is desperately wrong.

Eating food from the gutter may be (as Paddy suggests) less a sign that he was mentally ill than that he was starving. I doubt if he was the only one driven by poverty to such desperate measures.

The fact that Woolfe accompanied Aaron to court in 1889 shows slight weakness as he had to talk for Aaron.

This still happens today and may be an example of what is now known as a "McKenzie's Friend" - someone who assists another at court in a non-professional capacity. It doesn't necessarily mean that Aaron was showing signs of mental illness (although he may have been).

[Scott Nelson]

Also consider the possibility that Jacob Cohen lied or exaggerated Aaron's delusions - eating out of gutters, hearing voices, etc. - just to have him out of the house and away from Jacob's sister, Betsy (married to Aaron's brother, Woolf), as Pat suggests above (where have you heard this before)?. Aaron may have been deemed mentally unstable enough for confinement in the asylum in February 1891, but that doesn't mean he exhibited any of signs of psychosis in 1888-89.

[Pierre]

Hi

Agree 100%

One of the problems here are the often repeated statements such as he was showing signs of illness in 1888.

There is no evidence to back this up at all, in the sources. Indeed the lack of information is very restrictive in looking at AK

The comments about not working for years, are made several years after the C5 and should not be taken to say he was not working in 1888.

And again the comments about eating out of the gutter are a description from 1991, and cannot be realistically be applied to his behaviour or demeanour in 1888

None of the above however addresses the possibility that any illness he may have had could had be sporadic with periods of apparent normal behaviour.

Indeed his attendance and behaviour in court in late 89 do not indicate an individual who was obviously unwell.

And as Scott has pointed out there is indeed the possibility that AK is not the Kosminski


Regards


steve

And, last but not least, nothing connects him to the murder sites.

Regards, Pierre

[Errata]

I bring it up because I think that Kosminski specifically (as opposed to a generic mentally ill subject) displayed behaviors that would really make it difficult to get away with murder. Eating out of gutters etc. is really sort of unusual enough to be both noticeable and a very good clue that something is desperately wrong. Fairly benign as far as unusual behaviors go, but still something people would see and back away from. So his bad days had the potential to be very obviously bad days. If he is killing on his worst days, that requires a whole bunch of conditions to be met for him to get away with it, where if he is killing on one of his better days those obstacles aren't in play.

And Paddy is right. It is not as clear cut as I'm making it seem. Not just because of coping mechanisms and general inabilities, but also because delusion is not light a light switch. It's more like a dimmer. And we know Kosminski was capable of delusion, and on a scale of 1-5 it definitely got to a five at least once. But he could have been at a like a two, where the delusion is taking up about as much brain space as a song thats stuck in your head. Noticeable, but you can function around it. Then you have to guess how influential that delusion is and it gets messy, but generally doable. And it's neater for the purposes of simple discussion to break it down into ok and having a noticeable problem. Which has nothing to do with Kosminski's actual state of mental health, just his presentation.

[Mayerling]

Hi

Agree 100%

One of the problems here are the often repeated statements such as he was showing signs of illness in 1888.

There is no evidence to back this up at all, in the sources. Indeed the lack of information is very restrictive in looking at AK

The comments about not working for years, are made several years after the C5 and should not be taken to say he was not working in 1888.

And again the comments about eating out of the gutter are a description from 1991, and cannot be realistically be applied to his behaviour or demeanour in 1888

None of the above however addresses the possibility that any illness he may have had could had be sporadic with periods of apparent normal behaviour.

Indeed his attendance and behaviour in court in late 89 do not indicate an individual who was obviously unwell.

And as Scott has pointed out there is indeed the possibility that AK is not the Kosminski


Regards


steve

Well put Steve. Although he may be the "Kosminski" on Macnaughten's memorandum we can't be sure. But even if we were the most recent discussion of that memorandum made it clear that Druitt was the one Macnaughten felt was the real Ripper, and when he mentioned the killer's mind gave way after the Kelly murder, Macnaughten is laying the groundwork to connect the collapse of the killer's mind more with Druitt's suicide in the Thames than with Kosminski or Osrog's mental instabilities.

Jeff

[Wickerman]

I think we can say he was at least as presentable as any underemployed Whitechapel resident in 1988.

And again the comments about eating out of the gutter are a description from 1991

Sounds like a remarkably tough old boy.

Rumors that he died in lock-up were obviously false.
It looks like he outlived the asylum....