-
And I think that's all of it. It's a shame the images don't come through this way. -
.
.
.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------Leave a comment:
-
.
.
.
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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Leave a comment:
-
.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
cgp100
15th August 2007, 05:15 PM
I can't help feeling there's a more up to date list somewhere - or at least, such a list once existed. The asylum had to contact the family when Aaron died, after all.
That certainly makes sense. Apart from name, year of birth and date of admission, the names and addresses of relatives comprise the bulk of the information in these registers. Yet they didn't look as though they were updated continuously.
I suppose it would be the asylums rather than the local authorities that would really need up-to-date names and addresses, which brings us back to the closed Leavesden records.
In any case, at least this shows the official records relating to Aaron may not have been exhausted yet.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
16th August 2007, 10:56 PM
It may be worth correcting one error that seems to have crept into the literature.
It's been said that when Aaron was discharged after his first visit to Mile End Old Town Workhouse, in July 1890, it was to his brother, whose address was given as 16 Greenfield Street (Begg, The Facts, p. 371). That was the address of his brother-in-law, Morris Lubnowski Cohen.
Unless there's another record not referred to by either Sugden or Begg, this isn't the case. The admission and discharge register (StBG/ME/114/4) and the creed register (StBG/ME/116/5) say only that he was discharged "In Care of Brother" and "To Brother".
As he had been admitted from "3 Sion Square" (the address of Woolf Abrahams, elsewhere described as his brother), the supposition must be that this refers to Woolf. What the records do say is that the following February he was admitted from 16 Greenfield Street. But he may have moved there much later than July 1890.
The significance of this is that when the Swanson Marginalia refer to Aaron being watched by City CID at his brother's house after the supposed identification at the "Seaside Home", and then "in a very short time" being "sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch", then - on the assumption that the brother in question is Woolf - this may have taken place at more or less any time before his final incarceration in February 1891.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cappuccina
16th August 2007, 11:13 PM
...the Ripper was a local Jewish man, severely mentally ill and looked after by family, and may have been a furrier/furrier's assistant....hmmmmmm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
Gill Woodward
3rd October 2007, 05:37 PM
I've been trying to find the other three skin and blisters. I had no joy in 1891 census and I couldn't find a Helen Singer or Bertha Held in 1901. But I found a couple in 1901 that look reasonable possibilities for at least the elder two:
Pauline Roth
born Kalisz Russian subject
age 55
22 Batty Street
husband Joseph Roth, 60, grocery stores
children Sophie, 23, Bertha, 16, born Poland
Helena Key
born Poland
age 54
16 Northamton Grove Islington
widow
children Eva, 21, Arthur, 20, Samuel 13, all born Poland
(NB - a son with a first name beginning with A and not born in England ergo not a British citizen. As she's a widow she could have re-married after this date.)
If Woolf Abrahams' wife's maiden name was Kosminski, and she was survived by a brother according to her gravestone, I wonder which family she comes from? By my reckoning she's just about the right age to be a younger sister of Martin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
4th October 2007, 12:52 AM
I've been trying to find the other three skin and blisters. I had no joy in 1891 census and I couldn't find a Helen Singer or Bertha Held in 1901. But I found a couple in 1901 that look reasonable possibilities for at least the elder two:
Thank you for posting those details.
My own feeling is that Helen and Bertha may have been in America, as the death notice requests that the information be copied by American newspapers.
If Woolf Abrahams' wife's maiden name was Kosminski, and she was survived by a brother according to her gravestone, I wonder which family she comes from? By my reckoning she's just about the right age to be a younger sister of Martin.
That's a very good question. I don't think there's necessarily any implication that the brother was in England - but even if he was, there were a number of Kozminski families in the country by that time, the surname not being a particularly rare one in Poland.
I think the likeliest possibility is that Betsy may have been a cousin of Woolf, and may therefore have come from the Kolo area. I don't know of any other Kozminskis in England that came from that area. But then again, we know the place of origin for only a minority of the English Kozminskis.
Rob House is pursuing further searches in Polish records, and I hope that may shed further light on Betsy's identity.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
snelson
4th October 2007, 08:09 PM
But I found a couple in 1901 that look reasonable possibilities for at least the elder two:
Pauline Roth
born Kalisz Russian subject
age 55
22 Batty Street
husband Joseph Roth, 60, grocery stores
children Sophie, 23, Bertha, 16, born Poland
Interesting. The Polish BMD records show that there was a Mortke Kosminski, b. 1844 in Kolo, Poland (mother's maiden name - Taube).
The 1901 London census shows a Marks Kosminsky, 55, living at 23 Batty St. Occupation: rag sorter, wife, Hannah, 50, daughters Bertha 22, Rachal 18, Rosy 14 and son Leo, 8 (all were Russian subjects). With them was another household head, Harris Cohen, 25, who ran a Baker Shop, and his wife, Annie, 24, both born in Kalish.
I wonder if Marks is any relation to Betsy Abrahams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
8th December 2007, 03:35 AM
There's been an interesting discussion on Howard Brown's website about Anderson's views, touching on - among other things - the relative social status of Lawende and Kozminski.
In this discussion, Chris George referred to "successful businessman and Dalston-residing Joseph Lawende who one should think had raised himself above the level of Jews like Aaron Kosminski".
Of course, in a sense Lawende had raised himself above Aaron's level, because Aaron hadn't worked for some years because of his illness. But it doesn't seem meaningful to me to make a comparison on that basis.
It seems more sensible to compare Lawende with Aaron's known brothers and brother-in-law in England. An objective comparison can be made on the basis of the 1891 and 1901 census returns, which record each person's employment status.
In 1891 Lawende is "employed" as a "Tobacconist & commercial Trav[eller]"; in 1901 he is a "worker" (the equivalent category, as opposed to "employer" or "own account"), being a "Commercial Traveller".
In contrast:
(1) Aaron's more successful brother Isaac really was a successful businessman - thanks to Rob House's researches we know he employed about 14 men in 1888 and made the equivalent of more than ?3,000 a week in today's money in the busiest season. By 1898, in addition to his tailoring business in the East End, he was also the proprietor of a boarding house in Ramsgate.
(2) Aaron's other brother Woolf was a Master Tailor (i.e. self-employed - though without employees of his own) by 1891, and by 1901 he was also classified as an "Employer".
(3) Aaron's brother-in-law, Morris Cohen was still "employed" (as a "Boot Laster") in 1891, but by 1901 he was a self-employed greengrocer.
So I don't think Joseph Lawende can be judged by any objective criterion to be of higher status than Aaron's immediate family.
Exactly what Anderson really meant by "low-class [Polish] Jews" is difficult to determine, given the general difficulty in making any sense out of his prejudiced reasoning. But it's worth bearing in mind that he claimed to have decided that the Ripper was a "low-class Jew" before ever hearing of Aaron Kozminski. So in claiming that his prophecy had been fulfilled he may well have been forcing a square peg into a round hole, without enquiring too closely into Aaron's background.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
cgp100
4th August 2007, 12:16 AM
A word of caution though - Isaac's gravestone says he was mourned by his sisters, no mention of brother. You can allow for shoddy typos in newspaper copy but mistakes on gravestones are pretty serious.
As I mentioned, to a degree the evidence is contradictory. Maybe it would help to summarise the main points pro and con.
Evidence in favour of Woolf being Aaron's brother
(1) On 12 July 1890, Aaron was admitted to Mile End Old Town workhouse from 3 Sion Square (Woolf's address) on the information of "Brother". Three days later he was discharged "In Care of Brother/To Brother" [StBG/ME/114/4, 116/5].
(2) On 4 February 1891 he was again admitted, this time from 16 Greenfield Street (the address of his brother-in-law Morris Lubnowski Cohen), on the information of "Brother" [StBG/ME/114/4, 116/5]. Three days later he was transferred to Colney Hatch, the "statement of particulars" specifying "Wolf Kozminski Brother 3 Sion Square" as a relative and the person to whom notice of death should be sent [StBG/ME/107/8, no 1558]. This was miscopied (the address becoming 8 Lion Square) into the Colney Hatch Case Book under the heading of "nearest known Relative" [H12/CH/B13/39].
(3) The death notice of Aaron's brother Isaac in the Jewish Chronicle (9 July 1920) refers to his four children and "also brother Woolf and sisters Helen Singer, Matilda Cohen, and Bertha Held". Note that no in-laws are listed. Matilda's husband was dead; Helen and Bertha may or may not have had husbands living; at least one of his children had a spouse living - probably more than one did (all had been married).
(4) Both the death notice of Aaron's sister Matilda in the Jewish Chronicle (24 March 1939) and her monumental inscription at Plashet Cemetery imply that she was survived by a brother (Woolf Abrahams died in 1944).
Evidence against Woolf's wife Betsy being Aaron's sister
It has been known for some time that Betsy's maiden name was Kozminski [Mark King, Ripperana, no. 11, 1995, p. 12-14], and for that reason it has been assumed that she was Aaron's sister, and therefore that Woolf was Aaron's brother-in-law (not his brother). However:
(1) Both Betsy's death notice in the Jewish Chronicle (23 August 1912) and her monumental inscription at Plashet Cemetery imply that she was survived by a single brother. But if she were Aaron's sister, she would have been survived by (at least) two brothers, Aaron (d. 1919) and Isaac (d. 1920).
Evidence that doesn't fit with Woolf being Aaron's brother
(1) Aaron's monumental inscription at East Ham, though badly worn, does appear to imply that he was survived by a single brother. If Woolf were his brother, he would have been survived by both Isaac (d. 1920) and Woolf (d. 1944).
(2) Isaac's monumental inscription at Plashet (unlike his death notice in the Jewish Chronicle, mentioned above) makes no reference to a surviving brother.
(3) Morris Cohen's death notice in the Jewish Chronicle (7 June 1918) mentions "his brother[-in-law] and sisters-in-law". If Woolf were Aaron's brother, he would have been survived by three brothers-in-law, Aaron (d. 1919), Isaac (d. 1920) and Woolf (d. 1944). His monumental inscription at Plashet makes no reference to in-laws. Note that, even discounting Woolf, he would have been survived by two brothers-in-law, so there seems to be an error in any case. (Though Robert suggests that Aaron may have been omitted because he was in an asylum.) A further question is whether in this context brothers-in-law would include the wife's brothers, or whether it might be limited to the sisters' husbands.
I think that's all the relevant evidence, unless someone can spot some more. From the Polish end, Rob has previously obtained birth records for Aaron himself and Isaac, but Woolf and Matilda definitely seem to be missing. There is a "Blimbe" in 1857, whom we have previously assumed to be Woolf's wife Betsy - it would fit the age given for her in the 1891 census, but would differ by about 4 years from that in the 1901 census and her age at death.
My feeling is that the evidence in favour of identifying Woolf as Aaron's brother is much stronger than the evidence that doesn't fit that conclusion. The latter consists of one occurrence of "brother" rather than "brothers" (Aaron's gravestone), one omission of a reference to a brother on a gravestone, even though it is explicitly stated in the corresponding death notice (Isaac) and one occurence of "brother[-in-law]" rather than "brothers-in-law (Morris's death notice) which it seems to me must either be an error in any case or be referring only to the husbands of sisters, rather than including the brothers of the wife.
I think in a sense the strongest evidence is that of the official documents concerning Aaron's commitment to Colney Hatch. I think it's been far too readily assumed that there was a casual misunderstanding over Woolf's relationship, and that his surname was guessed at on the basis of that misunderstanding. That seems unlikely to me, given the circumstances. It seems likelier that Woolf Abrahams, presenting himself as Aaron's brother, deliberately gave his surname as Kozminski (for whatever reason), in just the same way that the surname of Aaron's mother Golda Abrahams was given as Kozminski in another official document three years later.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
robhouse
4th August 2007, 06:11 AM
An excellent post Chris. I concur fully with your conclusions.
Rob H
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
15th August 2007, 01:48 PM
Just to add a further record in which Woolf is described as Aaron's brother (I don't think this one has been seen before).
The Mile End Register of Lunatics in Asylums, 1917-1927 [LMA StBG/ME/109/06/1] includes a list of all those in asylums on (according to the catalogue) 12 September 1917.
Aaon's entry gives the following, under "Name and Address of Relatives":
Brother.
W. Kozminski,
5a Canon Place,
Mile End, E.
and
Mother.
Mrs. Kozminski,
63, Newark St.,
Mile End, E.
Obviously these aren't the details appropriate to 1917 (by which time Golda had been dead for five years), but clearly they have been updated since the latest ones we've seen (1894), because New Street wasn't renamed Newark Street until c. 1896 (it is still New Street in the 1896 P.O. Directory, but Newark St in 1897).
So the details of the mother apparently date from between c. 1896 and early 1901 (by which Golda and the Cohens were at 64 Wellesley Street). I would guess that the details for Woolf are from the same period (if so, they must also be earlier than mid-1900, when his son Harry was born in Manchester).
Cannon Place is off the south side of Whitechapel Road, a bit to the East of the London Hospital. Unfortunately Woolf doesn't appear on the electoral registers there for 1897-1900. In 1897 and 1898 there is a John Marini at no 5 (with a lodger Anthony Marini in 1897); in 1899 and 1900 no one is registered there. (If Woolf had been living there in 1897 or 1898 he might have been prevented from appearing by the rule that only one voter could be registered at each house. Or he may have lived there only a short period, not including the qualifying date for any of these registers.)
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
robert
15th August 2007, 03:22 PM
Good find, Chris.
I can't help feeling there's a more up to date list somewhere - or at least, such a list once existed. The asylum had to contact the family when Aaron died, after all.
Robert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
.
snelson
30th July 2007, 09:38 PM
I certainly concur with Chris's contention that Woolf Abrahams was, in fact, Woolf Kozminski, Aaron's elder brother. And to think that Woolf was staring me in the face all these years and I would have never suspected the name change, even after it had been established that some Aaron's family had changed their name to Abrahams.
This should end the speculation that the Woolf Kozminski who shows up in the 1901 census at 26 Batty Street was Aaron's brother. But it strikes me that Aaron's family was fairly well off - not that Aaron "and his people were low-class Jews" as Anderson had said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
30th July 2007, 09:47 PM
And to think that Woolf was staring me in the face all these years and I would have never suspected the name change, even after it had been established that some Aaron's family had changed their name to Abrahams.
To be fair, it's been staring all of us in the face since we knew about Golda's change of name a couple of years ago, and it never occurred to me either until I found it spelled out in black and white in the Jewish Chronicle.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
jdpegg
30th July 2007, 10:15 PM
why did he have to marry someone called Kozminski - thats just going to confuse people like me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
jason_connachan
31st July 2007, 12:17 PM
I certainly concur with Chris's contention that Woolf Abrahams was, in fact, Woolf Kozminski, Aaron's elder brother. And to think that Woolf was staring me in the face all these years and I would have never suspected the name change, even after it had been established that some Aaron's family had changed their name to Abrahams.
This should end the speculation that the Woolf Kozminski who shows up in the 1901 census at 26 Batty Street was Aaron's brother. But it strikes me that Aaron's family was fairly well off - not that Aaron "and his people were low-class Jews" as Anderson had said.
The family were recent immigrants living in the heart of the East End. Hard work and business accumen seem to have improved the family finances year on year. In that case, low class may have been used deliberatley by Anderson to distinguish them from rich moneyed Jews of popular culture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
Gill Woodward
31st July 2007, 01:28 PM
I realise I'm new here and a bit out of my depth (you guys are amazing!). But just one thought re the controversial signature 'H W Abrahams, brothers'. Might it actually read 'I + W Abrahams, brothers' (with only one of them having room for his address)?
A word of caution though - Isaac's gravestone says he was mourned by his sisters, no mention of brother. You can allow for shoddy typos in newspaper copy but mistakes on gravestones are pretty serious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
robhouse
2nd August 2007, 01:53 PM
The "HW Abrahams" signature is still a bit of a mystery... it is an interesting sugestion that it might read "I & W Abrahams", or that it may actually read something else and have merely been mis-transcribed. Neither Chris or I has seen this document, which is supposedly in Aaron's Leavesden file. It is unclear to me who in fact has seen it, apart from Paul Begg. I have personally contacted Begg about this, and he never responded to my email. I also wonder if Scott Nelson may have seen it. In any case, I think it is time that someone gets a photo or a scan of this document, so we can see what it actually says.
The comment about Isaac's memorial inscription not mentioning a brother is a valid comment... I am not sure if I noticed this before. Chris?
As far as the Kozminski's not being "low-class" Jews... I agree that Anderson may have been generally making a distinction between the low-class east end (recent immigrant) jews, and the better off west end Jews, who had been in London for some time and were pretty well integrated into English life, politics, etc. The fact that Isaac was apparently prosperous tailor, does not mean that Aaron's other siblings were as well off as he was. Woolf was a journeyman tailor in 1888, and lived in Sion Sq, which I believe on Booth's earlier map, was marked black. There was generally high unemployment and competition between London's jewish tailors, and although these families seem to have eventually prospered, the early years in London were probably difficult and rough. Also, Isaac had been in London for a decade before the arrival of Woolf, Morris, Aaron, Matilda, etc. So I think Anderson's "low-class" comment is probably still valid and correct essentially. It is also possible that any people of the working classes, would have been considered low-class by Anderson.
Rob House
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
jdpegg
2nd August 2007, 08:47 PM
Hiya Rob,
any chance you could access the file yourself (elves)?
Jenni
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
robhouse
2nd August 2007, 09:43 PM
Hi Jenni,
I think the file should be open to the public (?) and I believe it it at the LMA. If someone manages to get over there, it would be very useful to try to get a scan on this document... I would love to see it.
I personally won't be back in London until the fall, so it's a bit difficult for me to get this file.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
2nd August 2007, 10:43 PM
I think the file should be open to the public (?) and I believe it it at the LMA. If someone manages to get over there, it would be very useful to try to get a scan on this document... I would love to see it.
This is something I do intend to try to follow up. However, it's unlikely to be straightforward, partly because we don't have a precise reference for the document in question, and the description given by Paul Begg could fit several of those held at the LMA. (The Leavesden documents had not been catalogued when Sugden saw them, and perhaps had still not been catalogued when Begg did.)
On top of that the asylum records held at the LMA are in principle closed for 100 years after the date of the latest entry, and furthermore nearly all the candidate records from Leavesden are marked "unfit for production" in the catalogue.
I hope this will be treated as a special case, as these records have previously been made available to JTR researchers, and as a consequence of the new information there's an obvious possibility that the signature has been misinterpreted. But special arrangements will have to be made before these documents can be consulted.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.Leave a comment:
-
.
.
.
.
robhouse
21st July 2007, 01:04 AM
Chris,
Great work. As you point out, this has implications for our interpretation of the various references to "Anderson's suspect", the Swanson marginalia, etc. It does seem to me, more likely that Aaron was living with Woolf (rather than Isaac, or Morris). I am still unclear on the exact wording of his discharge from MileEnd in July 1890, that says he was released to his "brother" of 16 Greenfield St (assume this is Morris Cohen). However, on all these various admission records, it seems likely that Woolf is the brother referred to (as he is explicitly referred to on his Colney Hatch admission, as Woolf Kozminski). In other words, it seems that it was Woolf who took charge of Aaron, and handled all this business. As such, it seems most likely that Aaron was living with Woolf most of the time, although he may have been shuffled around. In fact this may correspond with Cox's statement about a suspect who "occupied several shops in the East End".
All this makes it much more important to find out where exactly Woolf Abrahams was living in 1888 (Butcher's Row perhaps??)
It is interesting how this all fits together, and makes sense. Woolf's change of surname to Abrahams was simply consistent with the change of surname by his older brother, and later his mother Golda. It is interesting how he is on the asylum record as Woolf Kozminski... it seems that he may have wanted to distance himself from Aaron perhaps, and thus reverted to the old name..??
In any case .. excellent work Chris. This is, in my opinion, one of the more significant recent discoveries in regards to the suspect Aaron Kozminski, and indeed in ripperology in general.
Rob House
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
21st July 2007, 01:50 PM
It is interesting how this all fits together, and makes sense. Woolf's change of surname to Abrahams was simply consistent with the change of surname by his older brother, and later his mother Golda. It is interesting how he is on the asylum record as Woolf Kozminski... it seems that he may have wanted to distance himself from Aaron perhaps, and thus reverted to the old name..??
In that context, it's interesting that in just the same way, in 1894 Aaron's next of kin is given as "Mrs Kosminski", not Mrs Abrahams [Sugden, pp. 404, 405].
Perhaps this is just the result of an assumption that Aaron's mother and brother would have the same surname as he did, or perhaps there's something more to it than that.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
dougie
21st July 2007, 02:15 PM
Chris,
As someone who is new to the Casebook, I am simply dazzled by the quality of the work you have all contributed to this thread. It is a fine example of why I keep coming across references on the net extolling the quality of the Casebook.
As someone, who once made a living by making maps, I tend, very often, to think in terms of maps. I notice that maps crop out here on the Casebook with great frequency. They generally tend to illustrate one category of interest at a time. I believe that it would be a marvelous contribution if someone could pull together the info people in the Casebook have managed to compile, to date, on a map of the area. This would be your base map for the area. Extraneous items could be removed, so as not to distract from what is important to the Casebook. This base map might include such items as pertinent bldgs, police stations, constables's routes, when known, known lodging houses, and other data. It would be color-coded like a geologic map and it would be permanent. If for example, someone wanted to know about lodging houses or work houses, they could look at the map key, find the pertinent color or pattern, then go to the map. It would be quite an undertaking to construct such a map, make no mistake, but it might be highly useful. From this base map, investigators could plot out their info about certain suspects, and or victims, etc. It could be used for whatever angle of research you needed a map for. And like all maps, it can be updated at any time.
Just a thought.
Best Regards, C
actually celesta thats prob best suggestion put forward on here, ive heard.im gonna award you a green badge for that....what is almost as interesting is the response you got,im sure you can guess why
regards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
robert
21st July 2007, 03:27 PM
This is complicated stuff and I hope I'm following it right, but there seems to be an argument against Woolf's being Aaron's blood brother. In the 1918 Jewish Chronicle announcement for Morris, mention is made of his "brother and sisters-in-law" i.e. brother-in-law and sisters-in-law (since his blood brothers have already been mentioned). Now, discounting Aaron for obvious reasons, we have Isaac still alive in 1918, so he is one brother-in-law for Morris. Surely if Woolf was a second brother-in-law to Morris, then the JC announcement would have said "brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law"?
Robert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
21st July 2007, 04:18 PM
This is complicated stuff and I hope I'm following it right, but there seems to be an argument against Woolf's being Aaron's blood brother. In the 1918 Jewish Chronicle announcement for Morris, mention is made of his "brother and sisters-in-law" i.e. brother-in-law and sisters-in-law (since his blood brothers have already been mentioned). Now, discounting Aaron for obvious reasons, we have Isaac still alive in 1918, so he is one brother-in-law for Morris. Surely if Woolf was a second brother-in-law to Morris, then the JC announcement would have said "brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law"?
That's a good point, and there is also the question of Aaron's own monumental inscription, which is badly worn but does seem to refer to his "brother" rather than his "brothers".
However, I'd be hesitant to rely too much on singular versus plural either on a gravestone or in a death announcement. For example, there seems to be a discrepancy between Morris's MI and his death notice, the former referring to his "brother, sister" and the latter to his "sisters brothers" (and there seems to be a comma missing).
I'm also doubful whether Aaron would be discounted just because he was in an asylum, though it's difficult to be sure.
It could perhaps be argued that in all four records (the record of Aaron's commitment, Isaac's death notice, Matilda's death notice and Matilda's gravestone inscription), "brother" means "brother-in-law" (and I have seen one or two of these death notices where son and daughter-in-law are referred to simply as son and daughter, though obviously this isn't generally the case).
But this seems much less likely to me than that "brother" was accidentally substituted for "brothers" in two other places.
I'm hoping that we'll be able to find some further evidence to confirm Woolf's identity definitely. For example, Rob is pursuing some further searches in Polish records. There is also the question of the "H. W. Abrahams" signature on the Leavesden document concerning Aaron's burial. This raises the possibility that it was Woolf's signature after all, though the address given is that of Isaac and his son Mark, with which Woolf had no connection as far as we know.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
robert
21st July 2007, 06:32 PM
Hi Chris
Yes, it's tricky - we have virtually simultaneous versions of 97 and 101st year for Golda's age.
I'm sure Poland will provide more info.
Robert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
robert
21st July 2007, 07:46 PM
I suppose Woolf's Nightingale Home application form would be off limits, even if it's survived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
21st July 2007, 07:55 PM
I suppose Woolf's Nightingale Home application form would be off limits, even if it's survived.
That's something I do intend to look into. Some administrative records for the home have been deposited at the LMA, but I'd be surprised if personal information from such a recent period were accessible.
Chris Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
cgp100
22nd July 2007, 09:32 PM
As Robert says, the picture is now fairly complicated, so I'm posting a chart pedigree showing how we now think the people mentioned in these documents - including the two "new" sisters - fit together.
Chris Phillips
8122
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
robert
22nd July 2007, 09:58 PM
Thanks Chris, that's a useful reference point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
jdpegg
22nd July 2007, 10:01 PM
Hi Guys,
you should write this lot up and send it somewhere,
i think
Jenni
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: