Kosminski, Aaron (recovered thread)

[Dan Norder]

hzl
13th March 2007, 06:40 PM
Prince Albert?
Lewis Carroll?
The Easter Bunny?
Dr. Neill Cream?
Montague Druitt?
James Maybrick?
Donald Duck?
Walter Sickert?
Porky Pig?
R. D. Stephenson?
F. Tumblety?
or
Betty Boop?


4. Which suspect(s), if any, do you believe are most likely to have been the murderer, and why?

Begg :

Robert Anderson, the Assistant Commissioner C.I.D. at the time of the murders, three times stated that the identity of Jack the Ripper was known - it was 'a definitely ascertained fact' - and that the murderer was a Polish Jew who escaped being brought to justice because he was committed to a mental institution. Chief Inspector Swanson, who had overall responsibility for the Ripper investigation, gives tacit support to Anderson and identified Anderson's suspect as a man called "Kosminski". I am convinced that "Kosminski" was Aaron Kosminski - in my opinion a decisive pointer to that identification is Anderson's statement that the suspect indulged in 'utterly unmentionable vices', which corresponds with the 'self-abuse' referred to in Kosminski's medical notes (and, incidentally, to the 'solitary vices' attributed to 'Kosminski' in the Macnaghten Memorandum).
There are problems in accepting that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper, notably the fact that he appears not to have been identified until 1891 and also his non-violent behaviour in the asylum. Neither really gives me a problem. As discussed in an IRC session in December 1996, is there any reason for supposing that a serial killer has to be violent when in prison or in an asylum? And, while the date may devalue the worth of an eye-witness identification, I'm sure that point would have been fully appreciated by Anderson and Swanson at the time. Also, we don't know what other 'evidence' the police had against the suspect - and they obviously had 'evidence', because they wouldn't have taken him for identification without a reason for doing so.
So, here we have the head of the CID and the senior investigating officer both saying that the Ripper's identity was known - was 'a definitely ascertained fact'. I think their suspect has to be top of the suspect list, *has* to be the prime candidate for further research. I don't know whether he was Jack the Ripper, but Anderson clearly thought so. We may never know why he was so certain, but Anderson probably knew more about this case than I or anyone else does, so I think we should listen to him with care and consideration rather than flippantly dismiss him as a liar or wishful thinker.
What is very important for me is the consideration that Anderson and Swanson would have known the evidence against *all* the most serious Police suspects. They'd have known the evidence against Ostrog, Tumblety, and even George Chapman (assuming he was ever a real Police suspect). Now, both men thought that Kosminski was the most likely candidate. If you think about it, even if they were wrong, even if their conclusion was based on flimsy evidence, what does their conclusion say about the evidence against other suspects? I mean, if Anderson knew all about the evidence against, say, Tumblety, he still thought Kosminski was more likely to have been the Ripper. This inevitably devalues Tumblety as a suspect. Anderson may have been wrong about the Polish Jew, his evidence may have been no good, but he nevertheless thought it better than the evidence against other suspects.

.

.

.
Simon Wood
13th March 2007, 06:46 PM
Hi HZI,

It's a matter of record that Anderson was an accomplished liar. As a member of what could loosely be termed the Security Services, it was an essential part of his job description.

Simon

.

.

.
Natalie Severn
13th March 2007, 08:16 PM
The important question here for me is why did Anderson decide to kiss but not tell?
"I know who the Ripper was" boasts Anderson in his autobiography ,but then, rather unsportingly , whispers "Ah! but mum"s the word"-fingers on lips !--- teasingly he gives a few clues---"The Ripper-he was a low level Jew who resided among his people ... was caged in an asylum where he had been taken with his hands tied behind his back [because he indulged in "solitary vices"?] and he died soon after ".

Next we have Macnaghten- and he really takes the biscuit too! He "knew the identity of the Ripper" - hints it was Druitt and not Kosminski,[or Ostrog or Cutbush]----and actually he had it from "private information".OK, so it arrived some time afterwards and what could Macnaghten do-being mindful of the hurt it could cause his family not to mention "the public good" - he burnt it- !

Well- it seems pretty clear what was going on actually because if you think about it, it really wasnt going to look too good to the public or to anyone else , that these Police Chiefs, one of them in charge of the Investigation at the time, hadnt any more idea who the Ripper was than you or me.
Put yourself in his shoes.If you were Anderson,in particular, how do you justify your autobiography if you were in charge of the Ripper Investigation at the time of the murders and yet you never caught him?
Best say you knew all along but couldnt tell!
Natalie

.

.

.
cgp100
11th September 2007, 09:31 PM
I've finally managed to clarify some of the ancestry of Zena Shine, the lady who has been suggested as a possible great niece of Aaron Kozminski.

I don't want to post any details relating to living people, but from the information about Mrs Shine on Richard Jones's DVD "Unmasking Jack the Ripper" (2005), together with data from the civil registration indexes and personal announcements in the Jewish Chronicle, it's clear that Zena Shine's mother, Tillie or Tilly, was one of at least four Kosminsky siblings:

(1) Michael, born 22 February 1896, death registered March quarter 1977.
Married, June quarter 1919, Kate Sorsky, who died 14 January 1974.

(2) Tilly or Tillie, born c. 1901, died [8?] March 1968.
Married, September quarter 1923, Nathan Saunders.

(3) Nathan (known as Nathan Kaye), born c. 1905, died [19??] August 1965.
Married Katie.

(4) Rachel, born 3 June 1906, died 23 October 1988.
Married Willie Swayne (Swerdloff).

Beyond that, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that these four were children of Louis or Lewis Kosminsky, a butcher who came to England around the turn of the century. This is mentioned in a letter published in the Jewish Chronicle in 2002, and written by a woman giving only her initial, her maiden name of Kosminsky, and a partial address. This is sufficient to identify her, and her rare forename matches that of one of the daughters of Michael Kosminsky.

According to the letter, the writer's grandfather, Louis Kosminsky, had to fight opposition to get into this country in the 1890s. He was a butcher and his wife kept a sweet shop in Christian Street. They scrimped and saved for the writer's father and his brothers to attend the Jews' Free School. (In fact it seems likely that Louis came to England somewhat later than this, as I haven't been able to find an entry for him in the 1901 census.)

Confirmation that the letter was indeed written by Michael's daughter comes from an entry in the Jews' Free School register (LMA/4046/C/01/002) showing the admission on 1 February 1904 of a Michael Kosminsky, born 11 May 1896, whose parent or guardian was Lewis, of 16 Newcastle Pl. Michael left the school on 13 May 1910. (Note the discrepancy of nearly 3 months between the date of birth given in the register and that above, from the death registration index.)

This is the only one of the children of Louis/Lewis who appears in the admission register (unfortunately there is a gap between 1908 and 1913, which period includes Nathan's likely date of admission).

From this I think we can be reasonably sure that Mrs Shine's grandfather was not a brother of Aaron Kozminski. I should say that from the interview on the DVD she herself struck me as perfectly genuine, but I thought her impressions had clearly been coloured by the suggestions made to her by researchers, which were ultimately based on nothing more than that her grandfather shared Aaron's surname.

Chris Phillips

.

.

.
jdpegg
11th September 2007, 09:38 PM
Hey Chris,

oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted (or not depending on how you want to think about it)

just shows how bad assumption can be

Jen

.

.

.
cgp100
11th September 2007, 09:45 PM
Confirmation that the letter was indeed written by Michael's daughter comes from an entry in the Jews' Free School register (LMA/4046/C/01/002) showing the admission on 1 February 1904 of a Michael Kosminsky, born 11 May 1896, whose parent or guardian was Lewis, of 16 Newcastle Pl. Michael left the school on 13 May 1910. (Note the discrepancy of nearly 3 months between the date of birth given in the register and that above, from the death registration index.)

Incidentally, there is a naturalisation application by an M. Kosminsky, born 10/05/1896, with covering dates 1946 Jan 01 - 1948 Dec 31, which would presumably indicate where Michael was born (National Archives, HO 405/30859). Unfortunately it's much too recent to be accessible.

Chris Phillips

[Chris]

Here is a transcript of Aaron's entry in the 1911 census [of Leavesden Asylum]:

Aaron Kozminski / Patient / [?]46 / Do [i.e. Formerly] Hairdresser /

[RG14/7739, registration district 140, sub-district 4, enumeration district 7, page 7.
The page is stained and difficult to read. The columns relating to details of marriage and place of birth have been left blank. The information in the final column, headed "Infirmity", has been deemed sensitive and will not be released until 2012.]

[Robert]

Thanks Chris. It probably just says "lunatic."

[Chris]

Thanks Chris. It probably just says "lunatic."

Yes - that's what it said in 1891 and 1901. Though "imbecile" is also a possibility, and other records describe him as such.

I should also have thanked Robert for the tip on how to search without specifying a surname, as the website's transcript calls him "Kozminki", which would otherwise have rendered him unfindable.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes - that's what it said in 1891 and 1901. Though "imbecile" is also a possibility, and other records describe him as such.

I suppose it's too much to hope that it actually said "Anderson's Suspect"

[robhouse]

According to Jacob Cohen's testimony which appears on Houchin's certificate, Aaron Kozminski "drinks water from the tap ".

Does anyone have thoughts on what this means. For that matter, what was the state of Victorian plumbing at the time? Was there indoor plumbing in East End residences? What was the "tap"? And why would drinking from the tap be considered support for an insanity diagnosis?

Thanks for any help.

Rob House

[robhouse]

Another question has popped into my head.

In a case note, at Colney Hatch, Sep 18, 1893, is recorded:

Believes he is under protection of [?]Russian [?]Consolate.

But acording to my notes, this entry was deleted. Or perhaps just the words "Russian Consolate" were deleted? I am wondering... why was this deleted? This is the only note that specifically describes one of Aaron's delusions while in the asylum... except for the references to his instinct. Why was it deleted?

I have not seen the original document unfortunately.

Rob House

[Chris]

According to Jacob Cohen's testimony which appears on Houchin's certificate, Aaron Kozminski "drinks water from the tap ".

Does anyone have thoughts on what this means. For that matter, what was the state of Victorian plumbing at the time? Was there indoor plumbing in East End residences? What was the "tap"? And why would drinking from the tap be considered support for an insanity diagnosis?

I can't answer the question about plumbing (though the London Encyclopaedia indicates that in the early 1860s the water supply for a large minority of the inhabitants of Whitechapel was via [communal] stand taps which operated for only a limited period six days a week).

Jacob Cohen said "he goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread out of the gutter, and eats them, he drinks water from the tap & he refuses food at the hands of others." I have assumed that the reason he drank water from the tap (and perhaps the reason he ate bread from the gutter) was the same reason he refused food at the hands of others - that he had some kind of paranoid delusion that people were trying to poison him.

[Chris]

In a case note, at Colney Hatch, Sep 18, 1893, is recorded:

Believes he is under protection of [?]Russian [?]Consolate.

But acording to my notes, this entry was deleted. Or perhaps just the words "Russian Consolate" were deleted? I am wondering... why was this deleted? This is the only note that specifically describes one of Aaron's delusions while in the asylum... except for the references to his instinct. Why was it deleted?

According to my notes it was the whole entry that was deleted.

I can only guess, but perhaps the writer felt he had gone into inappropriate detail about Aaron's delusions. Generally the entries are very brief.

[robhouse]

Chris,

Thanks for your replies. I agree with your interpretation of why Aaron refused to eat food, and why he drank at the tap. It clearly had something to do with his delusions... and apparently he thought he was "ill and his cure consists in refusing food." This could suggest a paranoid fear he was being poisoned.

But I am still unsure what the tap was? If I understand correctly, there would be a public water tap in the street somewhere... was this tap intended for drinking water? Cohen seems to sugest drinking from the tap indicated insanity, so I assume most people did not do this. If not where did the East Enders get their drinking water... assuming they drank water and not just beer etc.

As to the deleted Russian Consolate remark... I was thinking along the same lines... that the notes were intended to be general only. I assume this would be true for all patients, not just Kozminski. But I suppose examing other patient entries might shed some light on this.

Rob H

Rob H

[Rob Clack]

A lot of Horse troughs had a drinking tap on the end of them. Like this example:



There were also drinking fountains in parks and church yards


and there was of course Aldgate Pump.


Rob

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Rob,
I have always thought that it meant he didnt want to drink from cups or mugs.There was a fairly substantial water system in operation by the 1870"s in London and elsewhere but a house in the area we discuss would probably obtain their water from the nearest water pump of which there were large numbers, several of which can still be seen in Spitalfields.People would pull on the pump or turn the tap to draw water into a large jug,sometimes a bucket.Outside Christchurch itself in Commercial Street, there is a spring that served both a Victorian "tap" or water jet from a water fountain,and there is a water trough for horses too near it,which has a feature like a tap to fill the trough.There is also the famous ,and much more ancient Aldwych pump,next to Mitre Street/Mitre Square .Throughout London , a number of " Victorian Urinals" were constructed in the 1800"s usually below street level,one of which still stands outside Christchurch ,[though now recently converted into some kind of meeting room] but which would have then been a basement/Wash Room facing Millers Court/Dorset Street.Such urinals usually contained at least two wash basins with a tap for washing hands as well as the urinals for having a pee.
Aaron would have had a number of water fountains,each with a tap or water jet to drink from in the street.[In Notting Hill some of these original ,Victorian water fountains were still in operation until quite recently,they were clearly linked up to the underground fresh water supply].

Its a fairly common obsession amongst people with OCD to refuse to drink from cups other people have used,so Aaron would not have been on his own "drinking from taps".

Regarding the Russian Consolate remark,is it possible somebody had needed to check this out and later discovered it was just a figment of his imagination?
Best
Norma

I have just noticed my post crossed with Rob"s----good pics there!

[The Good Michael]

I wonder if most adults knew to boil water before drinking, and that would be one reason tea was so popular. I would suspect that Jews with their dietary laws would understand about bacteria, or at least unhealthfulness of not preparing things properly. Perhaps drinking from a tap by adults who should know better, and from a Jew's point of view, would be seen as particularly peculiar.

Cheers,

Mike

[Christine]

One of the reasons people drank so much alcohol was that alcohol kills the bacteria. A lot of what they drank was much less potent than what we tend to drink today so they could take more of it.

I always took "he drinks water from the tap" to mean that he doesn't eat in pubs like most people would. Someone like Mary Jane Kelly didn't have a proper kitchen--she could make tea or cook up something simple, but she did most of her eating in pubs and from takeaway, as did the other victims. I assume a lot of people would drink from the taps, as in those pictures, if they were thirsty.

[The Good Michael]

Christine,

Of course all that is understood. My contention or query is regarding what someone thought of another who drank from a tap, as if in and of itself it was a sign of lunacy. Also if amongst Jews it was even more damning due to their adherence (often) to dietary laws.

Cheers,

Mike