Plausibility of Kosminski

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Abby,

One further point to consider is that according to the FBI's profile, Jack the Ripper would probably have:
•had poor hygiene
•been disheveled in appearance
•behaved erratically.

Yes, but the FBI are so woefully wrong in the profiles they create for modern serial killers, that they can only be hopelessly lost with JTR. Any one of us on this thread, maybe even Trevor, knows more about these crimes that Douglas, Hazelwood, and Canter combined. If the Green River Killer investigators had taken John Douglas' profiile and decided to look for a guy the exact OPPOSITE of what Douglas suggested, they might have caught their man 20 years earlier.

Serial killer profiling is a fad relic of the late 20th century.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

The best description of the killer is of a young, Gentile-fearured man dressed as a proletarian, one seemingly putting an exhausted middle-aged woman off her guard with an easy manner.

The first publication of the description of the man seen by Lawende was in 'The Times' on 2 October - "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

This does not sound like a dishevelled, dirty or dodgy figure as might have been expected of Aaron Kosminski -- but then neither does his appearance in court for the canine offence.

I still argue that the description, though generic, fits Druitt hand-in-glove. I think this was Macnaghten's [veiled] opinion too.

[Jonathan H]

To Garry

You make a really good point about how come other police did not know about this and that.

How serious and definitive can this all be?

I would defend Anderson on the basis that when he first learned of Aaron Kosminski -- as Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' -- which I believe happened only in 1895, he forthrightly disseminated this opinion to the public via Major Griffiths.

At that time Anderson mentioned no positive eyewitness identification because his memory had not faded to the point where he conjured up this confusion with Lawende's 'no' for Sadler and 'yes' for Grant. Also this arguably redacted element is after Sims' 1907 opus, in which a cop allegedly sees a man who resembles 'Kosminski' with the fourth victim -- and later sees this man again and thinks the resemblance is strong but inconclusive.

I would defend Macnaghten on the basis that Druitt being an entirely posthumous suspect he told nobody at the Yard about him. When he disseminated this story to Griffths, and then Sims, the suspect was so disguised that Littelchild thought, understandably, that this was some garbled version of Tumblety.

Consider that in 'Aberconway' Macnaghten gives the wrong date for the start of 'The Sun' articles about the un-named Cutbush. The majority view is that this is just the sort of error you make in a draft, and then correct in a final version.

I think, on the contrary, that this is a backdated rewrite from 1898 and, in this instance, Mac wanted to remind Griffiths and then Sims of the delicate nature of what they were dealing with in 'Jack' identified as a member of the 'better classes':

'The Sun' 14 Feb 1894

"But at this moment our readers must be satisfied with less information than is at our disposal. Jack the Ripper has relatives; they are some of them in positions which would make them a target for the natural curiosity - for the unreasoning reprobation which would pursue any person even remotely connected with so hideous a monstrosity, and we must abstain, therefore, from giving his name in the interest of these unfortunate, innocent, and respectable connections. We are the more resolved to do so at the moment as a pathetic point in this otherwise hideous and awful story is the tenacity with which some of his relatives have clung to this awful type. They have tended him, nursed him, watched for him, borne with him with a patience that never tired, with a love that never waned. While he has been out through the watches of the night on his fiendish work, one of them has sat up, waiting anxiously for his return - frightened at every noise - apprehensive of every possible form of mishap; in imagination picturing this tiger who marched from crime to crime as some innocent, harmless, and helpless child in need of protection from the violence of others. In human history there is not a more remarkable case of the difference in the view between the relative of a human being and the world generally."


Of course, Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog were unrecognisable too, but they were, arguably, mere window-dressing.

[lynn cates]

Nfl

Hello Greg.

"The question is, would someone this sloppy and disorganized have gone undetected in Whitechapel 1888?"

I would say, "Not for long." Maybe the first 2 kills.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

One further point to consider is that according to the FBI's profile, Jack the Ripper would probably have:

• had poor hygiene
• been disheveled in appearance
• behaved erratically.

Rob

Hi Rob
Thanks. But i find it hard to beleive at the height of the ripper scare that someone who appeared strange or acted erratically would have been able to pull off what the ripper did.

But then agian I guess those above characteristics might have been fairly common in whitechapel in 1888!

[Abby Normal]

Yes, possibly. But Chase is only one example. Nor am I really clear if Chase appeared outwardly crazy to those he interacted with. He certainly had bizarre thoughts, and talked about his bizarre delusions. Would this have been immediately apparent? I do not know.

Some people with schizophrenia will appear more crazy... those with disorganized or severe schizophrenia sometimes ramble on incoherently. Others, perhaps those with less severe or paranoid schizophrenia, can appear outwardly more normal. A man who was "gaunt, unkempt and with blood on his shirt" would not have appeared all that out of the ordinary in the East End anyway. Did Robert Napper appear or act outwardly crazy when he was on the prowl?

There are many examples of schizophrenic serial killers, but I do not think any consistent rule can be applied to their appearance or behavior. Even if the Ripper did "act crazy" or look unkempt and disheveled, would this have been immediately obvious, and would it have stopped the victims from going off with him as a client?

Moreover, it is not clear to what extent Kozminski's schizophrenia had manifested by 1888. Certainly there is no mention of Kozminski looking or acting crazy during his court appearance in 1889.

Rob H

Thank you sir.

I guess my thought was that if the crime scenes/victims showed enough evidence for one to draw the conclusion that it was perpetrated by someone who was a schizophrenic then the schizophrenia must be so advanced in the individual at the time of the crime that the suspect would also have the outward appearance of schizophrenia (i.e. strange appearance or behavior).

[robhouse]

... would it stand to reason that JtR also appeared strange or out of the ordinary at the time of his crimes?

Hi Abby,

One further point to consider is that according to the FBI's profile, Jack the Ripper would probably have:

• had poor hygiene
• been disheveled in appearance
• behaved erratically.

Rob

[robhouse]

Hi Rob
If JtR's victims/crime scenes show similarities to other known schizophrenic serial murderers (thus implying that JtR may have been schizophrenic) and other known schizophrenic serial murderers had the appearance of being "crazy" or strange in appearance (as Hunter pointed out in his example of Richard Chase), would it stand to reason that JtR also appeared strange or out of the ordinary at the time of his crimes?

Yes, possibly. But Chase is only one example. Nor am I really clear if Chase appeared outwardly crazy to those he interacted with. He certainly had bizarre thoughts, and talked about his bizarre delusions. Would this have been immediately apparent? I do not know.

Some people with schizophrenia will appear more crazy... those with disorganized or severe schizophrenia sometimes ramble on incoherently. Others, perhaps those with less severe or paranoid schizophrenia, can appear outwardly more normal. A man who was "gaunt, unkempt and with blood on his shirt" would not have appeared all that out of the ordinary in the East End anyway. Did Robert Napper appear or act outwardly crazy when he was on the prowl?

There are many examples of schizophrenic serial killers, but I do not think any consistent rule can be applied to their appearance or behavior. Even if the Ripper did "act crazy" or look unkempt and disheveled, would this have been immediately obvious, and would it have stopped the victims from going off with him as a client?

Moreover, it is not clear to what extent Kozminski's schizophrenia had manifested by 1888. Certainly there is no mention of Kozminski looking or acting crazy during his court appearance in 1889.

Rob H

[Abby Normal]

Hello Greg,

I am not familiar with Shawcross either, and perhaps someone who has read about him will be able to post some info. From what little I have read:

At his trial it was apparently concluded that he was not psychotic. Earlier a prison psychiatrist concluded that he was "a dangerous schizophrenic pedophile and had an oral-erotic fixation" and who heard voices when depressed. Despite this, I think he apparently faked insanity to get better treatment while in prison. There was also some discussion about whether or not Shawcross had brain damage, an extra Y chromosome, or some "epilepsy" related illness.

But this is only from what little I have read on the internet. I do not know anything about the character of his murders, or the extent of mutilation on his victims.

Certainly, there are cannibalistic serial killers and lust murderers (post-mortem mutilators) who are not schizophrenic. (Dahmer for example.)
I have not actually researched any of this extensively... I have only scratched the surface.

RH

Hi Rob
If JtR's victims/crime scenes show similarities to other known schizophrenic serial murderers (thus implying that JtR may have been schizophrenic) and other known schizophrenic serial murderers had the appearance of being "crazy" or strange in appearance (as Hunter pointed out in his example of Richard Chase), would it stand to reason that JtR also appeared strange or out of the ordinary at the time of his crimes?

[GregBaron]

Too disorganized?

Good one Hunter, thanks for that. I remember reading about this character now that you mention it.

It appears he's a classic schizo killer.

In fact, she had known him from school and had been shocked by his appearance- gaunt, unkempt and with blood on his shirt. He was Richard Chase.

The police found Chase's home not far from where one of the last victim's car had been abandoned. He was twenty-eight, lived alone in a filthy apartment and there were dishes in the refrigerator containing human body parts.

The question is, would someone this sloppy and disorganized have gone undetected in Whitechapel 1888? I expect opinions will differ on this...


Greg

[Hunter]

Richard Chase was classified as a paranoid psychotic serial killer.

In 1978, he killed a young pregnant woman at her home near Sacramento, California. She was shot with a .22 caliber weapon, then mutilated 'Ripper style' and organs were removed.

Just four days later, he killed again at a home within a mile of the first. Four people were victims. One, a twenty-two month old child was missing from the scene; the partially consumed body was found months later. The victims were shot with a .22. This time the mutilations were even more intense.

Using a profile compiled by Robert Ressler, authorities began to query people in the area. A woman was found who had encountered the individual described. In fact, she had known him from school and had been shocked by his appearance- gaunt, unkempt and with blood on his shirt. He was Richard Chase.

The police found Chase's home not far from where one of the last victim's car had been abandoned. He was twenty-eight, lived alone in a filthy apartment and there were dishes in the refrigerator containing human body parts.

Once apprehended, it was found that he had killed even earlier than the first known victim. A man, some distance away from the first two locations had been shot and killed by a .22 caliber weapon several weeks prior. There had been no mutilations. The ballistics matched Chase's gun.

Any of this have a familiar ring?

[GregBaron]

Psychological perspective...

Hi Rob,

Yeah, I consider psychology to be a field in its infancy. There is much to be learned. I too once thought it very unlikely that the murderer was schizophrenic, it seemed too much cleverness was involved. After reading your book I am unsure. I know a bit about both conditions due to significant reading but the co-morbidity idea was a new one to me. I do expect that if the fiend was schizo, the murders were committed while in a lucid state. If you have only scratched the surface then indeed there must be significant material begging for research.

As I think Paul Begg said, we seem to have two approaches on these boards, those approaching the crimes from a CSI cold case perspective and those approaching as a historical problem. Perhaps we can add a third, the psychological perspective – my personal belief is that the last of these may bear the most fruit.

Greg

[robhouse]

Hello Greg,

I am not familiar with Shawcross either, and perhaps someone who has read about him will be able to post some info. From what little I have read:

At his trial it was apparently concluded that he was not psychotic. Earlier a prison psychiatrist concluded that he was "a dangerous schizophrenic pedophile and had an oral-erotic fixation" and who heard voices when depressed. Despite this, I think he apparently faked insanity to get better treatment while in prison. There was also some discussion about whether or not Shawcross had brain damage, an extra Y chromosome, or some "epilepsy" related illness.

But this is only from what little I have read on the internet. I do not know anything about the character of his murders, or the extent of mutilation on his victims.

Certainly, there are cannibalistic serial killers and lust murderers (post-mortem mutilators) who are not schizophrenic. (Dahmer for example.)
I have not actually researched any of this extensively... I have only scratched the surface.

RH

[GregBaron]

Polemicists don your gloves...

Yes, please I would like to engage you in debate. I get the impression that you think that Jack the Ripper was not schizophrenic. Why do you think this? From what I have read about schizophrenic serial killers, I am moving toward the opposite conclusion.

Hi Rob and Garry,

This is secretly what I was hoping for when I posted earlier. I, like Tom, find this area fascinating and I think extremely important on who the murderer or murderers might be. I figured a debate between you two would enlighten us all.

As an aside to Garry, I am only marginally familiar with the Shawcross character sir. I actually quit reading about serial killers while in the middle of a Gacy book, the details were so disturbing and my mind was affected in such a way that I had to quit such reading.

P.S.

It seems we have two discussions going on here. The Anderson, MacNaghten, Swanson debate and the mental state of Koz debate. I’m Ok with this as long as others don’t scream…


Greg

[PaulB]

I understand that, Paul.


I understand that, too. The problem for me is the seeming reality that such names have been proposed for the flimsiest of reasons. And clearly those ‘in the know’ thought so too, otherwise there would have emerged a consensus amongst senior officials as to the killer’s identity. That this didn’t happen is suggestive that there never was a compelling argument against any one individual. Meantime, we are expected to accept that Kosminski, Druitt and others must remain realistic ‘suspects’ merely because they were named contemporaneously by officials who had a great deal more in the way of detailed information than do we. Whilst I can see the sense in such an argument, I cannot ignore the fact that this same detailed information was available to other senior personnel and yet it proved unconvincing.

No, they are not to remain realistic suspects because they were named by contemporary officials. Whay I am saying is that they can't be dismissed as realistic suspects.

But then we have the conflicting information from Macnaghten depicting Kosminski as a homicidal misogynist – assuming, of course, that Anderson and Macnaghten were referring to the same man. We also have the Seaside Home identification corroborated by Swanson. The real enigma, however, is why, given the apparent importance of this event, it failed to convince other senior investigators. I have often wondered if Anderson gave us the whole story in this respect. Let’s imagine that three witnesses were taken to view Kosminski at the Seaside Home. Suppose that Lawende and Long failed to recognize Kosminski, but Schwartz immediately identified him as the man he had seen manhandling Stride in Berner Street. Technically speaking, Anderson would have had his identification and could quite legitimately have described his witness as ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. The fact that he conveniently neglected to mention the two dissenting witnesses might conceivably explain why the identification cut no ice with those senior investigators who must surely have known about it.

Absolutely. Any scenario can be advanced because we don't know the evidence they did have.