Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kozminski's Brother (recovered thread)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    .
    baron
    8th December 2007, 08:47 AM
    22 Batty Street was the address of "the Lodger" from the story regarding the middle-aged, German woman who told of the missing tenant. If Mrs. Roth lived there in 1888, she would be 33-34, hardly middle-aged today, but perhaps, considering the possible life a Polish immigrant may have undergone, appearing middle-aged wouldn't have been out of the question. A Yiddish speaker is easily mistaken for a German, of course, as the language is derivative of German.

    It does look as if Aaron was sheltered and protected by his people, doesn't it?
    Maybe all of these Kosminskis, and Kozminskys, and Kosminskys were related, even if distantly, and this connection was enough to keep Aaron out of harm's way.

    Chris, I'm very thankful for the information that you have been providing. Your thoughts are not even remotely fanciful and seem to connect many of the vague bits of information we have in a very probable fashion.

    I would say that though you may be right about Anderson making a late suspect fit into an earlier opinion, Anderson may have had that British prejudice that was so Victorian, that all immigrants were of a lower class, and so, any Jewish suspect would have fit into that low-class Jew mold.

    I think the things that you and Rob House (thank you to Rob too) have researched, show the probability that Isaac and, perhaps Woolf were not typical poor immigrants, and that they may have had some means. This may mean they had decent educations too, like many of the immigrants that were members of the Berner Street Club, creating a possible connection in that direction. This also may mean that Aaron, though unemployed for some time, may have had access to some money that would allow him to solicit prostitutes. He also would have had access to clothing through his brother's shop and clean clothing through his sister and other possible relations that helped to take care of him.

    This is all very exciting stuff.

    Thanks again,

    Mike
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .


    .

    .

    .
    robert
    8th December 2007, 01:29 PM
    We don't know Aaron's mental state during 1888, but if his delusion that he knew the movements of all mankind was operative at the time, then it might explain the apparent daring nature of the murders. He would know no fear. Once convinced that he wouldn't be disturbed, he'd feel uncatchable.

    If someone whom he wasn't expecting came along, he would of course rationalise it to preserve his delusion, in the manner typical of the mentally ill

    Robert
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .

    .

    .

    .
    baron
    8th December 2007, 01:53 PM
    Robert,

    Yes! This idea that he couldn't be caught or that he was guided by someone/something, coupled with the protection his relations may have given him, may have actually made him uncatchable to a large extent. If there were Berner Street connections, there may have even been greater feelings of invincibility. Of course, the driving force behind the murders may have had only to do with the imagined guidance.

    I wonder if, in 1888, his family still had hopes that they could nurture him and make him well somehow. Perhaps as many schizophrenics, he had many moments of clarity that gave his family hope.

    All speculative of course, but some good stuff regardless.

    Mike
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .

    .

    .

    .
    Ben
    8th December 2007, 04:45 PM
    but if his delusion that he knew the movements of all mankind was operative at the time, then it might explain the apparent daring nature of the murders.

    He must also have known the bowel movements of all mankind, in Cadosche's case.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .

    .

    .

    .
    cgp100
    9th December 2007, 02:28 AM
    Continuing on the class issue, it might also be said that while Polish sources describe Aaron's father, Abram Joseph Kozminski, only as a tailor, the death certificate of his widow Golda does specify that he was a "tailor (master)".

    And while on two occasions in the 1880s Aaron's brothers made their marks instead of signing their names, I think this must have been because they could write in Yiddish but not (yet) in English. At any rate, this seems to have been the case for their father Abram. On the records of the births of his sons Iciek and Aron - obtained by Rob House and posted here (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1070) - appears his signature in Yiddish (see below).

    Chris Phillips

    9802
    9803
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .

    .

    .

    .
    cgp100
    9th December 2007, 02:53 AM
    The marriage record of the couple known in England as Woolf and Betsy Abrahams has now appeared on the excellent "Jewish Records Indexing - Poland" website (http://www.jewishgen.org/jri-pl/).

    The index entry, for a marriage in Kolo in 1881 (LDS film number 1618502), reads:
    KOZMINSKI, Wolek Lajb, [aged] 21, [son of] Abram Josif [and] Golda, bachelor [of] Klodawa
    KOZMINSKI, Brucha, [aged] 25, [daughter of] Kasriel Szlama [and] Ryfka, maiden

    The bridegroom's age agrees with what English records say about Woolf Abrahams, his parents' names are those of Aaron's parents, and his place of residence is that of Aaron's birth. By a strange coincidence I have recently seen another record of a man who was known in Poland as Wolek Lajb and in England as Woolf Leib.

    Though the estimates of Betsy Abrahams's age vary quite a bit, the age above is consistent with that given in the 1891 census. That she was also a Kozminski is, of course, consistent with the information from the birth certificate of Woolf and Betsy's daughter Matilda (1890), originally published by Mark King. This is what has misled previous researchers into assuming that Woolf was Aaron's brother-in-law.

    In fact, Woolf and his wife must have been cousins (though apparently not first cousins). The records in the index have some puzzling features, but there is a likely marriage for Betsy's/Brucha's father Kasriel in 1849, according to which he was the son of Moszka Kozminkiewicz and Rozalia Blechert of Grzegorzew. Woolf's father Abram also came from Grzegorzew, but his father was named Iciek (or Utski) and his mother Malgorzata (or Malka).

    At any rate, this marriage entry should dispel any lingering doubts that Woolf Abrahams and Aaron were brothers.

    Chris Phillips
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .

    .

    .

    .
    robert
    9th December 2007, 12:29 PM
    And also should settle which woman Aaron allegedly attacked with a knife.

    Robert
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .

    .

    .

    .
    cgp100
    9th December 2007, 12:56 PM
    And also should settle which woman Aaron allegedly attacked with a knife.

    Yes. We know there were at least three other sisters, two of whom survived until 1920 (Bertha Held and Helen Singer), but there's no evidence they were ever in England, and of course Aaron had been living in the same house as his sister Matilda immediately before Jacob Cohen said that he had "[taken] up a knife & threatened the life of his sister".

    Chris Phillips
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .

    .

    .

    .
    robert
    9th December 2007, 03:16 PM
    Was it the dog or the man that should have been muzzled?

    LLOYD'S WEEKLY DEC 15th 1889
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .

    .

    Dan Norder
    Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
    Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

    Comment


    • #17
      .

      .

      .
      cgp100
      9th December 2007, 03:37 PM
      Was it the dog or the man that should have been muzzled?

      LLOYD'S WEEKLY DEC 15th 1889

      That's an excellent find! I think I'm right in saying that it's the only known mention of Aaron between his birth in 1865 and his first visit to the workhouse in 1890.

      Obviously it tells us several interesting things about him ...

      Chris Phillips
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      robert
      9th December 2007, 03:45 PM
      Thanks Chris. I'd searched that database before and found mostly Martin and Jessie. Suddenly it threw up Aaron. He comes across as a devout Jew, certainly not as an atheist anarchist/socialist.

      Robert
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      robert
      9th December 2007, 04:04 PM
      You'll have to tell me if the following is our man, Chris, because every time I delve into the Polish Jew theory I feel in need of a refresher course.

      ILLUSTRATED POLICE NEWS APR 24th 1886
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      cgp100
      9th December 2007, 04:04 PM
      He comes across as a devout Jew, certainly not as an atheist anarchist/socialist.

      Yes, I thought that refusal to pay the fine on the Sabbath was one significant aspect of the report.

      It also sheds light on the question of what surname Aaron was known by. It sounds as though the family preferred to be known as Abrahams, but that Aaron, at least on this occasion, called himself Kozminski. This may explain why he and his relations are called Kozminski in the asylum records, even though the relations generally went by the name Abrahams.

      But maybe the most significant thing (I think) is that this seems to have taken place in the City of London. We still don't know where Woolf Abrahams and - presumably - Aaron were living between July 1887 and May 1890. And of course we have Swanson's reference to surveillance of the brother's house by City CID. So could they have been living within the City boundaries?

      Chris Phillips
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      robert
      9th December 2007, 04:10 PM
      Or maybe they were just walking within the City boundaries, Chris. At any event, Aaron seems to have copped a fine double what they gave other people.

      Robert
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      cgp100
      9th December 2007, 04:21 PM
      You'll have to tell me if the following is our man, Chris, because every time I delve into the Polish Jew theory I feel in need of a refresher course.

      ILLUSTRATED POLICE NEWS APR 24th 1886

      Brilliant stuff!

      Yes, I'm sure this will be "our" Woolf. According to his naturalisation application (December 1886), he had lived at various numbers in Greenfield Street since his arrival in England in June 1881.

      Probably the "brother-in-law" is Morris Lubnowski Cohen, who was living nearby at 16 Greenfield Street at that time.

      Chris Phillips
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      robert
      9th December 2007, 04:34 PM
      Thanks Chris. Now if we could only pin them all down to exactly the right time...

      Robert
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      Natalie Severn
      9th December 2007, 06:00 PM
      Yes,these are great finds Robert.
      What I also think it tells us is that in 1889 Aaron Kosminski was able to walk his dog in the busy area of the City,attend court etc-----so nothing to indicate he had yet begun to eat out of gutters or draw attention to himself as a well known "barking" character!
      I have begun to think we need to be looking more closely for The Ripper"s haunts "in the City" [whoever the Ripper was]- specifically around Aldgate and the Mitre Street/Mitre Square/Great Synagogue area rather than Whitechapel itself.

      Re this offence involving an unmuzzled dog for which Aaron was brought before the beak---Mitre Square could have been a day time place for walking a dog---its still relatively secluded being mostly free of traffic.
      Also Aaron"s burial parlour was in Aldgate where the sexton lived who was in attendance and The Mitre Square,Gt synagogue was his family"s place of worship.
      Natalie
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      jason_connachan
      9th December 2007, 06:06 PM
      Great finds!

      It may have been Aaron's brother who paid the fine. If so, we cant assume too much about Aaron from the non payment of the fine on the Jewish Sunday.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      robhouse
      9th December 2007, 06:35 PM
      Those are 2 great finds Robert! And another great find by Chris of Woolf Abrahams' marriage certificate. The marriage certificate confirms that Woolf was still in Poland/Russia in 1881, and in my guess it is likely that Aaron was with him there.

      These newspaper articles are fascinating. It is great to see a confirmation in writing of what we already knew... that the whole family was going by the name Abrahams. It almost seems to me that Aaron may been using the name Kozminski out of a sort of stubborn rebellion, or rejection of his family.

      Can someone explain these laws about having a dog muzzled? Does this imply (or can we infer) what kind of dog this would have been? Why would Aaron have had a dog? Which he says was not his own?

      Wow, anyways... this has turned out to be quite a last few days of new finds on this thread.

      Rob H
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      robert
      9th December 2007, 07:26 PM
      Thanks folks. And yes, Chris's find was great. I'm so used to him finding these things that I took it in my stride.

      Rob, I think the muzzling had to do with the dreaded rabies :

      TIMES OCT 2nd 89
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      .

      .
      cgp100
      9th December 2007, 10:11 PM
      What I also think it tells us is that in 1889 Aaron Kosminski was able to walk his dog in the busy area of the City,attend court etc-----so nothing to indicate he had yet begun to eat out of gutters or draw attention to himself as a well known "barking" character!

      Yes, I agree. There's no hint in the report that he showed any sign of insanity (though of course the report is very brief).

      Also Aaron"s burial parlour was in Aldgate where the sexton lived who was in attendance and The Mitre Square,Gt synagogue was his family"s place of worship.

      I have been assuming that Aaron's family most likely did not worship at the Great Synagogue, but - like the majority of the recent immigrants - at one of the small synagogues in the East End, which formed the Federation of Synagogues. These were not part of the United Synagogue, but - if I understand correctly - their members were normally buried in U.S. cemeteries, as Aaron and nearly all his relations were.

      Unfortunately we don't know this for sure, though we do know that Aaron's nephew Mark (son of Isaac) was married at Philpot Street Synagogue, and that another nephew Joseph (son of Woolf) was later a member of the Commercial Road Talmud Torah in Christian Street. Both of these belonged to the Federation of Synagogues.

      Incidentally, I noted elsewhere Robert's suggestion that Anderson's "low-class" description may have referred to Ashkenazim as opposed to Sephardic Jews. This is unlikely, as by the 1880s the Sephardic Jews were in a small minority in London (about 7% in 1883 according to the Jewish Encyclopedia). The United Synagogue, representing the Anglo-Jewish establishment, was a union of the three main Ashkenazi synagogues in London.

      Chris Phillips
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      .

      .

      Dan Norder
      Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
      Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

      Comment


      • #18
        .

        .
        cgp100
        9th December 2007, 10:24 PM
        The marriage certificate confirms that Woolf was still in Poland/Russia in 1881, and in my guess it is likely that Aaron was with him there.

        That's a good point. We know that both Woolf and Matilda's husband Morris arrived in England in June 1881. So this suggests that unlike Morris and Matilda, who had lived in Germany for several years after leaving Poland, Woolf had come directly from Poland soon after his marriage, and probably Aaron came with him.

        Chris Phillips
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        .

        .

        .

        .
        jason_connachan
        10th December 2007, 03:49 PM
        The article mentions nothing about language problems. It mentions nothing of a translator being needed between Aaron and the PC, or Aaron and de Keyer(sp). It seems Kosminski could speak English.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        .

        .

        .

        .
        cgp100
        10th December 2007, 04:22 PM
        The article mentions nothing about language problems. It mentions nothing of a translator being needed between Aaron and the PC, or Aaron and de Keyer(sp). It seems Kosminski could speak English.

        That's another good point.

        The asylum records also give the impression that he could speak English, with comments at one time that he "Answers questions fairly" but at another that he "Only speaks German". The notes refer several times to his "Instinct" and his "instinctive" objection (in quotation marks), and comment that this is "probably aural hallucination". To my mind this makes sense only if "instinct" was the word Aaron himself used.

        Incidentally, Polydore de Keyser was Lord Mayor of London at the time of the murders. Chris Scott has transcribed an interview with him from the Pall Mall Gazette in which, oddly enough, he characterises the Ripper as "a kind of human mad dog":


        A "Spy" caricature of him in 1887 can be seen here:


        Chris Phillips
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        .

        .

        .

        .
        robhouse
        10th December 2007, 07:00 PM
        This is going to be a tough question I think... but does anyone have any idea of what kind of dog we are talking about here? I am not too clear on the historical situation with people having dogs in the Vistorian era, especially in an urban slum. Would people in the East End have kept dogs inside their houses? I would guess there were stray dogs wandering around in the streets. Would aaron have taken a dog like this and tried to make it a pet? Also, I do not imagine that small lapdogs would have existed much in this rough urban environment. I am picturing a larger, and tougher dog. But I really am only guessing.

        This is a long shot, but does anyone know about dogs in the LVP?

        ROb H
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        .

        .

        .

        .
        robhouse
        10th December 2007, 07:19 PM
        It is also interesting that Aaron was fined 10s. while the others were only fined 5s.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        .

        .

        .

        .
        cgp100
        10th December 2007, 07:35 PM
        It is also interesting that Aaron was fined 10s. while the others were only fined 5s.

        I wondered whether the business over the surname might have been viewed as an aggravating factor. I suppose it must have been considered to be significant, as it was discussed in court and reported.

        Chris Phillips
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        .

        .

        .

        .
        Natalie Severn
        10th December 2007, 08:11 PM
        This is going to be a tough question I think... but does anyone have any idea of what kind of dog we are talking about here? I am not too clear on the historical situation with people having dogs in the Vistorian era, especially in an urban slum. Would people in the East End have kept dogs inside their houses? I would guess there were stray dogs wandering around in the streets. Would aaron have taken a dog like this and tried to make it a pet? Also, I do not imagine that small lapdogs would have existed much in this rough urban environment. I am picturing a larger, and tougher dog. But I really am only guessing.

        This is a long shot, but does anyone know about dogs in the LVP?

        ROb H

        I think you are seeing the City area and certain parts of Whitechapel as one and the same Rob.One of the very first things I learnt about the case was from Don Rumbelow who took us to a point in Middlesex Street where the City of London exists side by side with the Petticoat Lane Market.He pointed out to us that this part of London,called the City was rich and affluent and that a whole area existed between Bishopsgate and The Minories where the East End met the City and the contrast he said was immense in certain parts.This is still the case where the rich Livery Companies of the Middle Ages still practise and are housed in palatial type pre Victorian buildings which back onto places like Bevis Marks, Houndsditch etc....
        Not all Whitechapel was a slum.Large parts of it were very poor but respectable,mostly the Jewish parts,other parts such as Flower and Dean St Thrawl St , and ofcourse Dorset street were both poor and slummy.
        To my mind Aaron Kosminski,who incidently is also down as being able to read and write, appears to have come from one of these "respectable" Jewish families and lived close to or in The City so that he could walk the dog in areas that would have been ok.
        In 1889 Aaron Kosminski simply failed to muzzle his dog which could have been because he didnt think it necessary-and he was fined as a result.I doubt very much there were dozens of wild dogs wandering about as the police would have had them taken in if they had seen them on their beat.
        Natalie
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        .

        .

        .

        .
        cgp100
        11th December 2007, 04:37 AM
        This is going to be a tough question I think... but does anyone have any idea of what kind of dog we are talking about here? I am not too clear on the historical situation with people having dogs in the Vistorian era, especially in an urban slum. Would people in the East End have kept dogs inside their houses? I would guess there were stray dogs wandering around in the streets. Would aaron have taken a dog like this and tried to make it a pet? Also, I do not imagine that small lapdogs would have existed much in this rough urban environment. I am picturing a larger, and tougher dog. But I really am only guessing.

        This is a long shot, but does anyone know about dogs in the LVP?

        There's an interesting paper entitled "Mad Dogs and Englishmen: The Conflict over Rabies in Late Victorian England", by John K. Walton of the University of Lancaster (Journal of Social History 13, 219-239, 1979). It's available online through JSTOR, for those who have access to it. The paper discusses dog-owning in general, but concentrates on the muzzling controversy in the 1880s and later.

        Walton says that there was a steady growth in dog ownership in the second half of the 19th century, with the canine population of London estimated at half a million in 1897. He also says that in the 1890s the police seized 20,000 ownerless dogs a year in London.

        He traces the development of "dog fancying", predominantly among the lower middle and upper working classes. By the 1880s this was a full-scale industry serviced by numerous dog shows, periodicals and associated products. Walton says that greyhounds, whippets and terriers were popular among these classes (he also mentions terriers, lurchers and whippets in relation to working men).

        The muzzling of dogs to prevent the spread of rabies first became controversial after the Metropolitan Police imposed a (temporary) muzzling order during a rabies scare in 1885. Following a period of ineffective control by local authorities, the Board of Agriculture was given powers in 1889 to issue muzzling orders, and did so in relation to the City of London and the Metropolitan Police area in July (with a later extension to nine other counties).

        Muzzling was supported by the sporting and dog-breeding establishment, but opposed by animal welfare campaigners and many ordinary dog owners, on the grounds that it was cruel and ineffective and represented unwarranted government interference. Walton traces the later development of the controversy into the 1890s, when an Anti-Muzzling Association was formed.

        He also comments on concerns that the regulations, which exempted sporting dogs, were seen as discriminating against the working class, and quotes the Metropolitan Police Commissioner as warning in 1887 that the supervision of dogs "is most injurious to the efficiency of the police, for it makes them so very unpopular."

        Chris Phillips
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        .

        .

        Dan Norder
        Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
        Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

        Comment


        • #19
          .

          .
          oberlin
          11th December 2007, 05:41 AM
          Hi Rob and Chris,

          To add to what Chris wrote, I found the following in The Daily News, August 15 1889 (notice by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, didn't see one for the City but I'm sure it's around somewhere as the Order applied to it, too). I'm thinking that the local authority set the fine, perhaps the London Gazette published a scale? It might also be worth it to check the Contagious Diseases (Animal) Act.

          THE MUZZLING OF DOGS.

          ACTION BY THE POLICE.

          TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

          SIR,--The difficulties which have hitherto prevented police action in connection with the Rabies (City and Metropolitan Police districts) Order, 1889, having now been removed, I enclose for your information a copy of a notice which is this day being issued by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

          W.M. STAPLES, Chief Clerk.

          4, Whitehall-place, S.W., August 14.

          METROPOLITAN POLICE—NOTICE.

          The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 to 1886, and the Rabies (City and Metropolitan Police Districts) Order, 1889, passed by the Privy Council on the 9th day July, 1889.

          MUZZLING DOGS.

          Sec. 6 of the Rabies Order directs that:

          (1.)“No dog shall be allowed to be in or on any public place unless such dog is muzzled with a muzzle so constructed as to render it impossible for such dog while wearing the same to bite any person or animal, but not so as to prevent such dog from breathing freely or lapping water.
          (2.)“If any dog is found in or on any public place without being muzzled in manner prescribed by this Article the person, for the time being, in charge of the dog, and the owner thereof, and the person allowing the same to be in or on such public place, in contravention of this Article, shall each according to an in respect of his own acts and defaults be deemed guilty of an offence against the Act of 1878.
          (3.)“Provided that the provisions of this Article shall not apply to packs of hounds, harriers, or beagles, or greyhounds, or other sporting dogs, while being used for sporting purposes, or to any dogs while being used for the capture or destruction of vermin, and in charge of competent persons.


          SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF STRAY DOGS AND OF DOGS NOT MUZZLED.

          (Sec. 7.) “The Local Authority of each of the districts to which this Order refers shall cause all stray dogs,a nd all dogs not muzzled in accordance with the provisions of this Order, to be seized, and such dogs so seized shall be dealt with as follows:
          Instructions have been given to police with reference to above Order.
          I. “Dogs seized by police under the provisions of the Rabies (City and Metropolis Police Districts Order, 1889, within the County of London District, will be conveyed to the Home for Lost and Starving Dogs, Battersea-park-road.
          II. “Dogs seized by police elsewhere than within the County of London District will, in the absence of any arrangement to the contrary made by the Local Authority, be conveyed to the premises of the Inspector of the Local Authority for the district within which the dog is seized.”

          R.L.O. PEARSON,
          Acting Commissioner of Police of the
          Metropolis.

          Metropolitan Police Office, 4, Whitehall-place,
          14th August, 1889.
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          Grey Hunter
          11th December 2007, 12:47 PM
          First off I should like to congratulate Robert and Chris for the excellent and relevant research that they are doing on Kosminski. There were many dog muzzling complaints dealt with in the courts at this time.

          Interestingly Kosminski's case was reported in The Times of Monday December 16, 1889, but with the mis-spelling of the name as 'Kosmunski' -

          9826
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          cgp100
          11th December 2007, 02:17 PM
          Interestingly Kosminski's case was reported in The Times of Monday December 16, 1889, but with the mis-spelling of the name as 'Kosmunski' -

          9826

          Many thanks for this. It's interesting to compare (and contrast) the details with those in the report from Lloyd's Weekly.

          Obviously it's useful to know the incident took place in Cheapside - not at all a part of the City where I'd have expected Aaron to be found - and that he claimed the dog belonged to a man named Jacobs.

          If this was reported in the Times, I'd hope we can track down some further reports elsewhere, which may fill in some of the missing details.

          Chris Phillips
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          robert
          11th December 2007, 03:00 PM
          Thanks Grey.

          I cannot think of anyone in the Kosminski story named Jacobs. I suppose it's just possible that Aaron said "It's not mine, it's Jacob's" - meaning Jacob Levy's. But then again, probably not.

          Very interesting that Aaron gave a false name AND address. It's all very confusing, because according to the Lloyd's report, Aaron actually gave his correct name. It seems that if he did eventually give a false name, he was talked into doing it by his brother.

          Robert
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          Clem
          11th December 2007, 03:20 PM
          Hi

          I know this is irrelevant but I wonder if the John Isaacs who burgled Abrahams shop is related to the Isaacs (a Ripper suspect) who stole the watch from Levensons pawn shop?

          In effect criminal brothers

          Clem
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          jason_connachan
          11th December 2007, 03:28 PM
          Where in the city is Cheapside?
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          Sam Flynn
          11th December 2007, 03:39 PM
          Where in the city is Cheapside?
          Just round the corner, and running East, from St Paul's Cathedral.
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          robert
          11th December 2007, 03:43 PM
          Navigate with the blue arrows.
          http://www.multimap.com/maps/?title=Twickenham&hloc=GB|TW2%205NT#t=l&map=51.513 34,-0.09503|17|4&loc=GB:51.51837:-0.08845:15|EC2|EC2

          Don't let the Twickenham bit confuse you.
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          Grey Hunter
          11th December 2007, 03:59 PM
          A view of Cheapside in Victorian days -

          9827
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          Grey Hunter
          11th December 2007, 04:25 PM
          Flower girls in Cheapside -

          9829
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          .

          .
          Grey Hunter
          11th December 2007, 04:26 PM
          Cheapside on a rainy day -

          9830
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          .

          .

          Dan Norder
          Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
          Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

          Comment


          • #20
            .

            .
            Ben
            11th December 2007, 04:32 PM
            Just round the corner, and running East, from St Paul's Cathedral.

            Interesting, Gareth. I wonder if Carter Lane (home of Jacob Cohen) was in this general vicinity? If so, would it be reasonable to assume that Kosminski engaged in both gutter-feasting and muzzle-free dog walking in the St. Pauls area because that's where he lived at the time of both?

            Best regards,
            Ben
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            Grey Hunter
            11th December 2007, 04:38 PM
            Cheapside shown on a modern map, Mitre Square is at extreme right for ease of locating in relation to the crimes -

            9831
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            cgp100
            11th December 2007, 04:45 PM
            Navigate with the blue arrows.
            http://www.multimap.com/maps/?title=Twickenham&hloc=GB|TW2%205NT#t=l&map=51.513 34,-0.09503|17|4&loc=GB:51.51837:-0.08845:15|EC2|EC2

            Don't let the Twickenham bit confuse you.

            I reckon this would be a bit more than a mile away from Greenfield Street where Woolf, and Aaron's other relations, had been living (and mostly still were living).

            It must be questionable whether Aaron could have walked more than a mile - passing through the heart of the City of London - with an unmuzzled dog before being challenged.

            One interesting point is that Cheapside isn't too far away from the address where Jacob Cohen and a Woolf Abrahams (not proved to be the same one) had business premises in early 1891. That was in Carter Lane, south of St Paul's, opposite the present-day Youth Hostel (marked by a blue triangle on Robert's map).

            Chris Phillips
            ________________________

            Edit: Posted before I saw Ben's comment about Carter Lane.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            Grey Hunter
            11th December 2007, 05:48 PM
            Carter Lane in relation to Cheapside -

            9832
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            robert
            11th December 2007, 05:55 PM
            Thanks for those pics, Grey.

            I groped in the dark and had a look at Jacobs in the 1891 census. There was one in Backchurch Lane and another about three doors from the Nelson. Unfortunately there are enough Jacobs to send me crackers.

            Robert
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            Ben
            11th December 2007, 05:59 PM
            Thanks for that, Grey. The two locations are comfortably within dog-walking distance of eachother.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            robert
            11th December 2007, 07:41 PM
            It might be worth mentioning that Martin Kosminski had a branch in Cannon St at this time, though Martin seems to have become a bit of a dead duck now.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            jdpegg
            11th December 2007, 08:14 PM
            This thread is great, got to be one of the most interesting threads on the boards

            Jen
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            Victor
            11th December 2007, 08:33 PM
            I completely agree, it's a fantastic thread. I've read it from the start this afternoon.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            rjpalmer
            11th December 2007, 08:35 PM
            I agree this is a remarkable discovery (!) It's been an excited couple of years on the Kosminski front.

            I'm not certain, however, about the suggestion that it tells us much about his mental state in 1888. Surely a schizophrenic can walk a dog? The Colney Hatch admission papers are consistant that Kosminski's insanity dated to 1888 or earlier. Then, as now, the mentally ill have their good and bad days.

            It does, however, raise some doubt as to whether there was any intrigue behind the Abrahams/Kosminski/Cohen name changes; or, at least, Aaron's own explanation seems to point to it being just a matter of convenience.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            Natalie Severn
            11th December 2007, 09:17 PM
            Carter lane was once "The City"s" main thoroughfare.Its famous for having a pub in it,The Hart"s Horn Tavern,where Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators used to meet.
            One of the most noticeable things about it now is that it still sports several "barber"s poles, the old red and white ones indicating surgery+ hairdresser/barber skills skills which used to advertise Barber"s shops.
            Its a fascinating area ,with several beautiful 17th century squares leading off this narrow lane.Its very upmarket with a passage called "The King"s Wardrobe" leading off into one of these very grand squares,presumably this is where the traditional costumes for state occasions are made.
            Interesting though, that barber shops prevail there too,maybe Aaron worked in one of them?
            Natalie
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            Grey Hunter
            11th December 2007, 09:35 PM
            Interesting though, that barber shops prevail there too,maybe Aaron worked in one of them?
            Natalie

            Only trouble is his medical certificate, of February 1891, states 'He has not attempted any kind of work for years.'
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            cgp100
            11th December 2007, 09:37 PM
            Very interesting that Aaron gave a false name AND address. It's all very confusing, because according to the Lloyd's report, Aaron actually gave his correct name. It seems that if he did eventually give a false name, he was talked into doing it by his brother.

            Yes. The Lloyd's Weekly report says that he gave the name Kosminski, but the Times report seems to imply that he gave the name Abrahams. The Lloyd's Weekly report is more detailed on the question of the surname, so I'd be inclined to accept that, but it would be nice to have some confirmation from other sources.

            The additional report of a false address is interesting too. I suspect there's something more complicated behind it than a straightforward lie, but with the information we have it's difficult to be sure.

            Chris Phillips
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            robert
            11th December 2007, 09:41 PM
            Somewhere or other (was it the 1901 census?) I've read the phrase "Hebrew hairdresser" beside Aaron's name. Could this be a reference to a specifically Jewish style of hairdressing? I'm thinking of the ringlets etc of the Orthodox. Would there have been "Hebrew barbershops" catering specifically for this?

            Robert
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            cgp100
            11th December 2007, 10:03 PM
            Somewhere or other (was it the 1901 census?) I've read the phrase "Hebrew hairdresser" beside Aaron's name.

            I can't find this phrase anywhere in my notes. In the census returns he is just described as a hairdresser. The workhouse and asylum records often have the words "Hebrew" and "Hairdresser" close to each other. I wonder if this could be what you're thinking of?

            Chris Phillips
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            robert
            11th December 2007, 10:19 PM
            Hi Chris

            I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, but I've checked the 1901 and it just says hairdresser. It may be from a book where someone has used the phrase as a substitute for a hairdresser who happens to be Jewish.

            Anyway, I haven't found any reference to a specifically Hebrew style of hairdressing.

            Robert
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            Sam Flynn
            11th December 2007, 10:36 PM
            Hi Robert
            Anyway, I haven't found any reference to a specifically Hebrew style of hairdressing.
            It takes the form of a parting followed by an enormous wave.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            .

            .
            robert
            12th December 2007, 12:11 AM
            Very good, Gareth.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            .

            .

            Dan Norder
            Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
            Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

            Comment


            • #21
              .

              .
              rjpalmer
              12th December 2007, 06:36 AM
              Rereading over the Lloyd’s Week report, I’m not getting the impression that Kosminski is very functional in December, 1889. Am I alone in this?

              As opposed to Rudd, Paget, Hathaway, etc., it seems as if it was necessary for Kosminki’s brother to accompany him when addressing the court, almost as if Aaron were mentally deficient. Why else would the brother be reported as taking such a significant role in the summons?

              “When asked his name gave that of Aaron Kosminski which his brother said was wrong.”

              “[Aaron] said that the dog was not his, and his brother said it was found more convenient to go by the name of Abraham...”

              The mental image I have of one of Aaron being confused and/or “slow” when addressing the court, and giving inappropriate answers, which his sane brother then ‘corrects,’ and explains.

              For me, this is an account of a mentally deficient man who is reliant on his older brother, which is entirely compatible with the asylum records.
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              robert
              12th December 2007, 11:57 AM
              Hi RJ

              It's difficult to make out which bits happened in Cheapside and which in the court. Surely the PC asked his name and the brother corrected Aaron in Cheapside? Then it becomes a question of whether the brother goes with Aaron to court, or whether we're still back in Cheapside with PC Bore.

              Robert
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              cgp100
              12th December 2007, 01:22 PM
              It's difficult to make out which bits happened in Cheapside and which in the court. Surely the PC asked his name and the brother corrected Aaron in Cheapside? Then it becomes a question of whether the brother goes with Aaron to court, or whether we're still back in Cheapside with PC Bore.

              I agree it's not very clear, and it's a shame the Times report doesn't mention the brother.

              I read it (probably) as implying that Aaron gave his name as Kozminski in Cheapside, and that his brother corrected him there (and maybe corrected him about the address too). So, as giving a false name and address would be a serious matter, the brother was called to give evidence, and that's when he gave the explanation about Abrahams being a more "convenient" name (though the Times report reads as though that explanation was given by Aaron).

              Incidentally, Woolf Abrahams was apparently still a journeyman tailor - not a self-employed master tailor - at this time (according to the birth certificate of his daughter Matilda, May 1890). That may tell us something about the likelihood of his being a partner in Jacob Cohen's small business in Carter Lane, or of his having the leisure to go for a mile-long walk with Aaron and his dog (or rather Mr Jacobs's dog).

              Chris Phillips
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              robert
              12th December 2007, 02:48 PM
              Just a small point Chris : I too originally assumed that the brother was Woolf, but it could, I suppose, have been Isaac?

              Robert
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              cgp100
              12th December 2007, 02:55 PM
              Just a small point Chris : I too originally assumed that the brother was Woolf, but it could, I suppose, have been Isaac?

              Yes - I agree it's important not to assume anything.

              I do think Woolf is much more likely, though, since we know that Aaron was living with Woolf the following year. My guess is that Aaron's association with Isaac - nearly 15 years his senior - was more distant. Records are sparse, but the only record of Aaron that (apparently) mentions Isaac is the one relating to his burial in 1919, and perhaps Isaac's involvement then was a financial one.

              Chris Phillips
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              robhouse
              12th December 2007, 07:19 PM
              The false address is a mystery, but it seems clear that the "false" name he gave was Kozminski, and this was later shown to be "incorrect" as his family name had changed to Abrahams. There is nothing suggestive of any intrigue or conspiracy in this, as it was very common for Jews from Russia to anglicize their names. The entire Kozminski family seems to have used the name Abrahams, probably from the time of their arrival in 1881. Isaac had been using the name Abrahams for years before this.

              It is not clear to me if Aaron's brother was with him when he was with the dog in cheapside... I interpreted it that his brother showed up in court as a sort of witness, and probably to assist in that he knew Aaron was mentally unstable, and would not be able to defend himself or behave in court.

              It is intriguing that he was in Cheapside. To me this suggests that there was some connection to this area, but that's only speculation. Perhaps he had a relative (Woolf?) who worked or lived there. Or perhaps he was just walking around there.

              Rob H
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              Natalie Severn
              12th December 2007, 07:49 PM
              Skimming through some of the reports that we now have from Colney Hatch and Leavesdon,it seems as though an ongoing trait of Aaron"s was his "obstinacy".It seems possible to me that he knew of the new law pertaining to dogs needing to be muzzled and ignored it-maybe even refused to obey it.We dont get a clear idea of how he behaved when the policeman who gave him the summons.He may have shrugged sullenly or obstinately refused to cooperate, resulting in them doubling the fine.Jacobs seems as though he was fed up with his indolence,stressing he refused to work.Maybe he dog walked to keep his family off his back but refused to keep the dog under proper control.
              He seems to me to have been not unintelligent when he was well, discussing his hallucinations in fairly good English and concocting concepts such as his " universal guiding instinct" for his doctors to try to work on!He could also read and write in English.
              Apparently as his illness progressed he lapsed into his mother tongue,German/Yiddish but spoke in English to Doctors when he arrived at
              Colney Hatch .By the time he went to Leavesdon his condition had detiorated so much that he had become incoherent although some time later he was able to make himself understood again.A very sad case really by the sound of it.

              Natalie
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              Victor
              12th December 2007, 08:09 PM
              The impression I have formed is that Aaron's obstinacy extended to going by the name of Kosminsky when the rest of his family had been using Abrahams for some time, and that the false name he gave was Kosminsky.
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              Natalie Severn
              13th December 2007, 12:00 AM
              In addition to Aaron being obstinate and having aural and visual hallucinations,his medical notes clearly state that he was not considered dangerous to others. Nor do they ever claim,that I could find anyway,any "sexual mania" or satyriasis as described by Robert Anderson and Macnaghten.
              The medical notes refer to "self abuse" but only briefly and in the main over the many years he was incarcerated they make no reference whatever to it.Certainly they do not refer to him as ever having "publicly" masturbated.But his obstinacy is referred to a number of times,his hallucinations, his tendency to become exciteable from time to time,his total lethargy , his refusal to work and his preference for speaking German-from time to time he refused to speak English.
              It seems to me that Aaron Kosminski must either have undergone a complete character change during the years he was incarcerated,surely most unlikely, or this person was not Jack the Ripper.
              His notes refer to a mostly mild mannered man suffering from delusions about food, supernatural instincts and indolence,there is no reference whatsoever to him having any deep loathing or hatred about women or obsessions about them.
              Natalie
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              robhouse
              13th December 2007, 12:15 AM
              The fact that Aaron displayed no homicidal tendencies while in the asylum does not (in my opinion) indicate whether he was homicidal when he was freely roaming the streets. I think it is not uncommon for serial killers to be sedate and well behaved after being incarcerated. And we do have McNaghten saying that he had "homicidal tendencies" and a "great hatred for women". True, we cannot take this at face value necessarily, but the fact that there are no other mentions of this does not negate its value.

              Victor, yes I agree with you. I think Aaron was obstinately using his Polish name Kozminski, possibly as a snub to his family. It is certainly not the same as saying it was a false name though.

              Rob H
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              .

              .
              Natalie Severn
              13th December 2007, 12:35 AM
              Sorry but I dont accept this.There are numerous examples of violent paranoid schizophrenics having had to be restrained in straight jackets during their incarceration.Also, for the safety of nurses and other medical staff reading his medical notes later, there would have surely been a duty of care not to have written down in those notes ,in response to the heading "DANGEROUS TO OTHERS"------ NO.
              This makes it quite clear they didnt consider Aaron dangerous.Well now if he really was Jack The Ripper does that sound likely in all honesty?
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              .

              .

              Dan Norder
              Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
              Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

              Comment


              • #22
                .

                .
                Ben
                13th December 2007, 12:50 AM
                Ed Gein was about as passive as Kosminski during his incarceration, but "dangerous to others" he certainly was!
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                robert
                13th December 2007, 12:56 AM
                Nats, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I take the view that if a JTR suspect is incredibly violent just after admission to an asylum, then all the better for that suspect's supporters. But as I understand it, some serial killers of the paranoid schizophrenic variety do suffer burnout and relapse into a trancelike state - maybe Aaron or indeed Thomas Cutbush were like that.

                Robert
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                Natalie Severn
                13th December 2007, 01:07 AM
                Ed Gein was about as passive as Kosminski during his incarceration, but "dangerous to others" he certainly was!

                I am not disputing this about the serial killers both you and Rob House quote.I am talking about the case notes on Aaron Kosminski.There was a heading requiring information for medical staff on whether the patient, Aaron Kosminski was "dangerous to others".This was in both Colney Hatch and Leavesdon and in both cases the answer was clearly written as "NO".
                My main point is that medical staff, even then , were entitled to be informed about whether a patient was likely to be dangerous to others or not and the doctors considered that Aaron Kosminski was not.And he wasnt according to their records , not in 29 years -except for a single occasion when he picked up a chair and threatened someone---
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                Ben
                13th December 2007, 01:10 AM
                My main point is that medical staff, even then , were entitled to be informed about whether a patient was likely to be dangerous to others or not and the doctors considered that Aaron Kosminski was not.

                In which case, that's a very reasonable point, Nats.
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                Natalie Severn
                13th December 2007, 01:21 AM
                Nats, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I take the view that if a JTR suspect is incredibly violent just after admission to an asylum, then all the better for that suspect's supporters. But as I understand it, some serial killers of the paranoid schizophrenic variety do suffer burnout and relapse into a trancelike state - maybe Aaron or indeed Thomas Cutbush were like that.

                Robert
                Good point Robert but at twenty five or so Aaron wouldnt have been a candidate for burn out!But anyway his "deterioration" is documented in his case notes.At first he speaks English and answers questions about himself fairly well,later he refuses to speak English and only uses German.By 1894 he cant talk sensibly any more in either language and is incoherent / stares into space a lot etc----burnt out.

                Natalie
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                jason_connachan
                13th December 2007, 09:01 PM
                Sorry but I dont accept this.There are numerous examples of violent paranoid schizophrenics having had to be restrained in straight jackets during their incarceration.Also, for the safety of nurses and other medical staff reading his medical notes later, there would have surely been a duty of care not to have written down in those notes ,in response to the heading "DANGEROUS TO OTHERS"------ NO.
                This makes it quite clear they didnt consider Aaron dangerous.Well now if he really was Jack The Ripper does that sound likely in all honesty?

                I am surprised that neither gossip or official warning was mentioned in Aaron's medical notes. Even the most professional staff at Colney Hatch would be tempted to write "considering patient is suspected of being JtR he shows no violent tendencies" or "rumours are rife about this patient".
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                cgp100
                13th December 2007, 10:49 PM
                I paid a trip to the Newspaper Library at Colindale today, and checked about two dozen other newspapers for reports of the summons relating to Aaron and the dog.

                Only one one of them (the City Press), reported Aaron's case, though three others had reports of similar cases heard by de Keyser on the same day (the Illustrated Police News, Reynolds's Weekly News and the Daily Chronicle).

                I think the City Press report evidently comes from the same source as the one in the Times (already posted by Grey Hunter), but fortunately it's a bit more detailed, and gives us (purportedly) some of Aaron's own words.

                Chris Phillips
                _______________________________________________

                CITY POLICE SUMMONS COURT.
                SATURDAY.
                [Before Alderman Sir POLYDORE DE KEYSER.]
                THE RABIES ORDER. - [Others cases reported.] AARON KOSMUNSKI also appeared to a summons for having a dog unmuzzled in Cheapside. When spoken to by the police he gave a wrong name and address. Defendant: I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell. (Laughter.) The defendant called his brother, who corroborated that part of the evidence which related to his name. The Alderman said he would have to pay a fine of 10s., and costs. Defendant: I cannot pay; the dog belongs to Jacobs; it is not mine. The Alderman: It was in your charge, and you must pay the fine, and if you have no goods on which to distrain you will have to go to prison for seven days.
                [City Press, Wednesday 18 December, p. 7]
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                robert
                13th December 2007, 11:19 PM
                Thanks for that, Chris. It now looks as though the brother wasn't with him in Cheapside, but was with him in court.

                The fact that Aaron needed on occasions to have his name spelled correctly, suggests that he wasn't living in some twilight world of withdrawal - he was interacting with society to some extent at least.

                Robert
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                robhouse
                14th December 2007, 12:51 AM
                Wow, that's great Chris. This is I think the first time we have an actual quote from Aaron Kozminski. And it gives a sense of his speech... it is almost sad in a weird way, especially this: "I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell. (Laughter.) "
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                .
                cgp100
                14th December 2007, 01:22 AM
                Thanks for that, Chris. It now looks as though the brother wasn't with him in Cheapside, but was with him in court.

                It seems he was in court, anyway. I still feel the Lloyd's report reads as though he was in Cheapside too, but nothing is very clear. It only goes to illustrate the danger of placing too much reliance on a single uncorroborated press report!

                Given that the case was reported in the Times, I was a bit disappointed not to find a report from a source independent of the ones we've seen, that might have resolved some of the uncertainties. Just in case anyone has any suggestions about where else to look, these are the newspapers I've checked without success:

                Daily Chronicle
                Daily News
                Daily Telegraph
                East End News and Advertiser
                East London Advertiser
                East London Observer
                Eastern Post and City Chronicle
                Echo
                Evening News and Post
                Evening Standard
                Graphic
                Guardian
                Illustrated Police News
                Jewish Chronicle
                Morning Advertiser
                News of the World
                Reynolds's Weekly News
                Star
                Sun
                Sunday Times
                Weekly Herald

                Unfortunately, from what I've read it seems there's not much likelihood of getting any more useful information out of surviving court records. But I'll make a note to have a look when the London Metropolitan Archives finally reopens after its prolonged closure.

                Clearly muzzling orders were a hot political issue at the time (I did come across correspondence and reports about lobbying on the issue, even though I was looking only at the issues covering the events of 14 December). I assume this was why these minor offences received such wide press coverage.

                One other possibility that occurred to me was that such cases might have been reported in the "dog-fancying" press. According to the article by John Walton, there was a flourishing market in specialist publications aimed at the dog enthusiast (and even - briefly - a journal devoted to "rabbit, cat, cavy and mouse fanciers"). Given the depth of feeling, it seems they would have been interested enough to cover such cases, though whether they'd have had the resources to do so, I don't know.

                Chris Phillips
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                .

                .

                .

                Dan Norder
                Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
                Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

                Comment


                • #23
                  .
                  robhouse
                  14th December 2007, 01:25 AM
                  So I am wondering... how are we to reconcile the known facts about Kozminski with the articles that speak of a suspect who was admitted to Broadmoor Asylum?

                  See excerpts below:

                  New York Times, Sept 1, 1895
                  Dr. Forbes Winslow refers to a "medical student suffering from homicidal mania" who was incarcerated to "a county lunatic asylum in England". He says the authorities "hushed up the case". He also says the Ripper was a "medical student of good family." He was "a young man of slight build with light hair and blue eyes. He studied very hard and his mind, being naturally weak, gave way. He became a religious enthusiast and attended early service every morning at St Paul's. His religious fervor resulted in homicidal mania toward the women of the street and impelled him to murder them. He lodged with a man whom I knew and suspicion was first directed toward him by reason of the fact that he returned to his lodgings at unseasonable hours; that he had innumerable coats and hats stained with blood."

                  "I notified the Scotland Yard authorities, but at that time they refused to co-operate with me. Subsequently the young man was placed in confinement and removed to a lunatic asylum, where he is today."

                  "It was deemed desirable, however, to hush the matter up. The details were too horrible to be made the subject of a public trial, and there was no doubt of the man's hopeless insanity."




                  New York Times, March 20, 1910
                  Robert Anderson:

                  The murderer was "an alien of the lower, though educated class, hailing from Poland, and a maniac of the most virulent and homicidal type"

                  "But the most important point of all made by Sir Robert is the fact that once the Criminal Investigation Department was sure that it had in its hands the real perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders, it procured from the Secretary of State for the Home Department a warent committing the man for detention "during the King's pleasure" to the great asylum at Broadmoor five or six years ago".

                  "'Jack the Ripper' was consigned to Broadmoor by virtue of a warrent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, acting in the name of the sovereign, and not by means of any judicial process".

                  "The power of committal is a prerogative of the crown. But the perpetration of any abuse of these royal 'lettres de cachet" (such as was in vogue in the days of the Court of Versailles when the Kings of France were able to consign to lifelong captivity in the Bastille nobles guilty of no other offense than that of having spoken slightingly of the monarch's fair favorite of the hour) is guarded against by the fact that it is the Secretary of State who signs the warrant of committal, and that he is responsible in his, as for all his other official acts, to Parliament."


                  Also many other details are in the Qu'Appelle Progress, Ontario, Canada, 29 March 1894. This is apparently taken from an article that appeared in the London Sun.

                  A few excerpts:

                  "The man is now a hopeless lunatic in Broadmoor asylum."
                  "He always exhibited a strong love for anatomical study, and he spent a portion of the day in making rough drawings of the bodies of women, and of their mutilation, after the fashion in which the bodies of the women murdered in Whitechapel were found to be mutilated."
                  "Jack the Ripper, at the asylum in which he is at present incarcerated, is just over 33 years of age. " (written in 1894)


                  Many of the details in these articles could (theoretically) fit with what is known and what was said about Kozminski, But many do not seem to fit.

                  The ones that could fit include:

                  medical student (possible)
                  the case was hushed up by police and officials
                  homicidal mania
                  removed to a lunatic asylum, where he is today (written in 1895)
                  "the details were too horrible to be made the subject of a public trial, and there was no doubt of the man's hopeless insanity"
                  "an alien of the lower, though educated class, hailing from Poland, and a maniac of the most virulent and homicidal type"
                  "Criminal Investigation Department was sure that it had in its hands the real perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders"
                  "procured from the Secretary of State for the Home Department a warent committing the man for detention"
                  Also, the part about France matches up with what Anderson wrote about in other sources.
                  "He never speaks now," said the medical superintendent, "and he is in the final and most troublesome stage of lunacy, having lost all his self-respect." - Qu'Appelle Progress


                  What does not match up:
                  Broadmoor
                  Committed 5 or 6 years ago - written in 1910
                  "He studied very hard and his mind, being naturally weak, gave way. He became a religious enthusiast and attended early service every morning at St Paul's. His religious fervor resulted in homicidal mania" - this whole thing does not seem to fit Kozminski. I cannot imagine him being a hard worker, nor going to church service at St. Pauls.
                  "He lodged with a man whom I knew" - doesn't sound right.
                  He "is just over 33 years of age."
                  This man was born in 1863 in London.

                  etc.

                  Most of the obvious contradictions are in the Winslow account, and the Ontario account. But both the Times and the Ontario account refer to Broadmoor.

                  Notably, the Ontario account also says: "The police who have been interested in the Whitechapel murder cases are not disposed to give much credit to the Sun's story, which is generally regarded as sensational, and open to grave suspicions as to its veracity."

                  I am not sure what to make of all this. Any thoughts?
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  .

                  .

                  .

                  .
                  Glenn L Andersson
                  14th December 2007, 01:26 AM
                  Indeed, a fascinating find. And I agree, quite a sad and pathetic picture it paints of the man in its own way.
                  Well done, Chris.

                  All the best
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  .

                  .

                  .

                  .
                  Natalie Severn
                  14th December 2007, 01:33 AM
                  yes it is a bit sad somehow-and maybe because Aaron appears to be Anderson"s suspect for Jack the Ripper , it made me think of Caliban in the Tempest......"You taught me language and my profit on"t is,I know how to curse.The red plague rid you for learning me your language! "
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  .

                  .

                  .

                  .
                  cgp100
                  14th December 2007, 01:36 AM
                  And it gives a sense of his speech... it is almost sad in a weird way, especially this: "I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell. (Laughter.) "

                  Yes. I can't quite get the sense of the laughter - were they laughing "with" Aaron, because they thought Kozminski obviously was an outlandish name that was difficult to spell? Or (more likely, I'm afraid) were they just laughing at someone they perceived as a stupid Pole who couldn't even spell his own name?

                  Either way, it strikes me that Aaron had the last laugh, considering the newspaper reporter got the spelling wrong!

                  At any rate, Aaron could obviously speak English well enough to make himself understood. This has to be seen in the context of his having lived in Poland and no doubt spoken Yiddish (and learned to read and write using the Hebrew alphabet) until the age of 15 - eight years before. If I understand correctly, many of the Polish immigrants learned little or no English after their arrival in London.

                  Chris Phillips
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  .

                  .

                  .

                  .
                  Sam Flynn
                  14th December 2007, 01:39 AM
                  Hi Chris,
                  If I understand correctly, many of the Polish immigrants learned little or no English after their arrival in London.
                  Now there'll be trouble...
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  .

                  .

                  .

                  .
                  Natalie Severn
                  14th December 2007, 01:58 AM
                  With regard to the chap quoted above, the wording corresponds exactly with the articles on Thomas Cutbush in the Sun in February 1894, which can be found on the casebook.We know the articles refer to Thomas Cutbush through the famous memoranum of Macnaghten in 1894 where he names him as being the suspect the Sun wrote about at length in February 1894.He died in Broadmoor in 1903------and he was able to be placed there by just such a method as described above.
                  What is most interesting is Anderson"s reference to the Cutbush suspect here. Cutbush certainly was not Polish ,so was this Anderson"s way of concealing the suspects identity by subterfuge, while letting people know he knew the identity of the Ripper?
                  BTW it would have been in Anderson"s interests to conceal the identity of Thomas Cutbush as he was the nephew of one of his most senior policemen,the very able Superintendant Charles Cutbush, who initially had been part of the investigation into the Whitechapel murders.Supt Cutbush became extremely ill not long after these "exposures" in the Sun and eventually took his own life.I doubt Anderson would have been wishing to rake all that up so he seems to have simply changed the identity!He becomes a low, class anonymous Polish Jew instead!
                  P.S.
                  ---added to which Thomas was violent,had carried out a homicidal attack ,was paranoid and did study medicine out of books.His uncle became ill in the 1890"s and may have been in the seaside home recuperating from one of his psychotic episodes when according to his Times orbituary he believed Catholics were poisoning his water.
                  Natalie
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  .

                  Dan Norder
                  Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
                  Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    .

                    .

                    .
                    robert
                    14th December 2007, 02:02 AM
                    Aaron's English certainly seems to have been good, which to me is a further indication that he had been going out and mixing, even if he hadn't attempted work for years.

                    Rob, some of that stuff pertains to Thomas Cutbush, but with him it was Her Majesty's, not His Majesty's, pleasure because he went to Broadmoor in 1891 and died there in 1903.

                    Robert
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    robert
                    14th December 2007, 02:06 AM
                    Hi Nats

                    Just seen your post. Anderson may, for all I know, have believed that Thomas was Supt Cutbush's nephew, but I don't see how he could have been.

                    Robert
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    Natalie Severn
                    14th December 2007, 02:14 AM
                    Hi Chris,

                    Now there'll be trouble...
                    Well its also the case that there were special schools set up by the Jewish community to take care of the language and Literacy needs of new arrivals and since it is recorded in both asylums

                    a]that Aaron ,on admission spoke and understood English fairly well, and

                    b] that he was literate ie they wrote that he could "R&W",

                    it seems likely that he attended such a school.

                    Natalie
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    Natalie Severn
                    14th December 2007, 02:17 AM
                    Hi Nats

                    Just seen your post. Anderson may, for all I know, have believed that Thomas was Supt Cutbush's nephew, but I don't see how he could have been.

                    Robert
                    Well it was Macnaghten who states quite clearly that Thomas Cutbush was their superintendents nephew so maybe Anderson looked no further!

                    Robert-it almost looks like Sir Robert may have deliberately stolen Aaron"s identity ! Like he knew both Thomas and Aaron were incarcerated for life so he swapped them over!
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    robhouse
                    14th December 2007, 02:36 AM
                    Thanks for the clarification re: Cutbush. I am not very familiar with him as a suspect.

                    So it seems this Times artoicle from 1910 may be a sort of combination of the Kozminski and Cutbush stories. I am not clear where the mix up came... the article was presumably in response to Anderson's statements about the Ripper in Blackwwods magazine and in his autobiography. I can't imagine Anderson himself would have confused these 2 cases, so I assume the mistake was on the part of the newspaper, that may have assumed Anderson was referring to Cutbush (or something of that sort).

                    Does that sound about right?
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    jason_connachan
                    14th December 2007, 02:40 AM
                    Well its also the case that there were special schools set up by the Jewish community to take care of the language and Literacy needs of new arrivals and since it is recorded in both asylums

                    a]that Aaron ,on admission spoke and understood English fairly well, and

                    b] that he was literate ie they wrote that he could "R&W",

                    it seems likely that he attended such a school.

                    Natalie

                    Does this give any credence to Anderson's claim that the killer came from the educated low class of Jews? Low class they certainly were at one time, no matter how quickly they were moving up the economic order during this period.
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    Natalie Severn
                    14th December 2007, 02:47 AM
                    Yes,either that or Anderson had begun to be forgetful.He did some other rather strange things in 1910 like call a press conference to his house in Notting hIll where he informed everybody he had written lies about the Irish MP Parnell----he said he had penned certain of the famous articles for The Times that were largely made up in order to destroy Parnell"s reputation and with him the chance of Home Rule for Ireland.
                    This caused great embarrassment all round and he nearly lost his pension as a result of this "confession". So maybe he was a bit confused by then?
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    cgp100
                    14th December 2007, 02:47 AM
                    "But the most important point of all made by Sir Robert is the fact that once the Criminal Investigation Department was sure that it had in its hands the real perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders, it procured from the Secretary of State for the Home Department a warent committing the man for detention "during the King's pleasure" to the great asylum at Broadmoor five or six years ago".

                    As has been said, I think some of the reports you quoted must refer to Cutbush.

                    But the part about the perpetrator having been committed to Broadmoor 5 or 6 years ago (in 1910) is difficult to account for. It was discussed in 2003 without anyone getting to the bottom of it (http://casebook.org/forum/messages/4924/6152.html). It seems that no source in the English press has been traced for this assertion. I wonder whether it's just one of the several "Broadmoor" stories that were floating around, which a journalist has for some reason grafted onto Anderson's claims in Blackwood's Magazine.

                    Chris Phillips
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    Natalie Severn
                    14th December 2007, 02:49 AM
                    Does this give any credence to Anderson's claim that the killer came from the educated low class of Jews? Low class they certainly were at one time, no matter how quickly they were moving up the economic order during this period.
                    I suppose it might Jason!
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    caz
                    19th December 2007, 05:18 PM
                    Hi All,

                    Fascinating thread, and thanks to Robert and Chris for the latest discoveries!

                    Chris, that's an interesting question about the laughter when Aaron explains why he sometimes goes by the name of Abrahams.

                    I may be barking up the wrong tree entirely. But I imagine a scene in which Aaron presents himself as one of those 'simple' souls one often sees walking about town (well one does here in Croydon ), looking a bit vacant and in their own little world, and possibly even muttering to themselves. He needs his brother there with him because he has got himself into a bit of bother over the dog he was walking unmuzzled. Then he comes out with the priceless information that he considers Abrahams easier to spell than Kosminski! It reminds me of a joke my late father used to tell, about a man who didn't like his name, so he changed it - from William Smelly to Fred Smelly.

                    So I hear a mixture of amusement tinged with sympathy in that laughter, as they absorb the fact that this simple chap has unwittingly told a joke that works on at least two levels. Obviously he did not choose the name Abrahams himself, or because it was particularly easy to spell compared with Kosminski. (Adams anyone? Or even Smith or Jones? ) But it does come out that way, and maybe some were also pleasantly relieved of their prejudice to learn he could cope with Abrahams well enough! It's even more amusing if they infer that it's because he appreciates how hard others would find Kosminski to spell.

                    I rather like him after this.

                    Pity he was said to have 'homicidal tendencies', which I would love to know more about. How would such a tendency manifest itself? It would seem to imply repeated violent incidents of a potentially lethal nature. Well at least we now know he endangered the public in Cheapside with a potentially rabid dog.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    XX
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    jason_connachan
                    22nd December 2007, 12:08 PM
                    Excellent analysis caz.

                    I think the laughter was both with and at Aaron. Some of the laughter would be at the sheer lameness of his excuse in not giving his real name to the PC. The people laughing (the general public watching proceedings or other defendants) would have been well acquainted with excuses given by defendants - they will have heard it all before.

                    I notice this wasnt too long before Kosminskis mental health went seriously downhill. Seven months later he would be taken to the workhouse.
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    .

                    .

                    .
                    Gill Woodward
                    9th January 2008, 04:58 PM
                    The index entry, for a marriage in Kolo in 1881 (LDS film number 1618502), reads:
                    KOZMINSKI, Wolek Lajb, [aged] 21, [son of] Abram Josif [and] Golda, bachelor [of] Klodawa
                    KOZMINSKI, Brucha, [aged] 25, [daughter of] Kasriel Szlama [and] Ryfka, maiden


                    I believe their first child Rebecca was born in June 81. So it looks like there was a big bad Woolf in the family as well. (this seems to be the closest one of these things to a smutty smirk).
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    .

                    Dan Norder
                    Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
                    Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      .

                      .

                      .
                      cgp100
                      9th January 2008, 07:36 PM
                      I believe their first child Rebecca was born in June 81. So it looks like there was a big bad Woolf in the family as well. (this seems to be the closest one of these things to a smutty smirk).

                      I'm a bit doubtful whether Woolf's daughter Rebecca is the one whose birth was registered at Bethnal Green in the second quarter of 1881. The ages given for her at various times are inconsistent, but the earliest statement I know of is that she was 4 when Woolf applied for naturalization in December 1886. That would indicate she was born in 1882 (or at the end of 1881), though admittedly the ages given in the 1891 and 1901 censuses would be consistent with a birth in the second quarter of 1881.

                      There's also the fact that Woolf and the rest of Aaron's family seem to have arrived in England only in June 1881.

                      I hope we'll be able to get the full details of Woolf's marriage record in due course, which may shed a bit more light on the Polish end of the chronology.

                      Chris Phillips
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Dan Norder
                      Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
                      Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        And I think that's all of it. It's a shame the images don't come through this way.

                        Dan Norder
                        Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
                        Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chris
                          The last location for Woolf that we have before 1888 is 62 Greenfield Street, where he was living in July 1887 (according to the 1888 electoral register).

                          He was previously known to have been at 3 Sion Square by 26 May 1890, when his daughter Matilda was born there.

                          Now in addition we know that Woolf's daughter Rebecca was admitted to the Infants' section of Settles Street School on 6 May 1889, her address then being 34 Yalford Street (which ran between and parallel to Plummers Row and Greenfield Street) [LMA LCC/EO/DIV05/SET/AD/006, no 11544]. Rebecca transferred to the Girls' section on 25 February 1890, by which time her address was 3 Zion Square [LMA LCC/EO/DIV05/SET/AD/001, no 2017].
                          I had suspected for some time that Aaron's brother Woolf and his wife Betsy probably had another child between Milly (b. 1886) and Matilda (b. 1890), who did not survive until the time of the 1891 census. The 1911 census confirmed that three of Betsy's children had died by that time. We knew of one child, Rachel (c. 1883-1887), but not the others.

                          With a bit of persistence, one of the missing children has been tracked down. A son Joseph was born prematurely in March 1889, and lived only 2 days (a transcript of his death certificate is copied below). Woolf's address at that time was 34 Yalford Street. So this information takes us a couple of months closer to the Autumn of 1888.
                          __________________________________________________ _

                          March 1889 1c 323

                          Registration district: Mile End Old Town
                          1889 Birth in the Sub-district of Mile End Old Town Western in the County of Middlesex
                          No.: 172
                          When and where died: Eleventh March 1889 34 Yalford Street
                          Name and surname: Joseph Abrahams
                          Sex: Male
                          Age: 2 days
                          Occupation: Son of Woolf Abrahams a Journeyman Tailor
                          Cause of death: Premature Birth (6 Months) Certified by F W Blackwell L R C P
                          Signature, description and residence of informant: X The mark of Woolf Abrahams Father 34 Yalford Street Mile End
                          When registered: Eleventh March 1889
                          Signature of registrar: John B Ratcliff Registrar

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Chris,

                            Very nice work!

                            Mike
                            huh?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Chris,

                              Wasn't Yalford close to Greenfield? I remember something you may have posted about that with regards to Rob's fine photo collection. If so, the heart of Whitechapel, eh?

                              Mike
                              huh?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Good stuff, Chris. I'm a bit surprised that Woolf couldn't sign his name, given that he was in business.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X