Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

How on earth...

...
It was not a mystery to Macnaghten. The element Mac concealed from Bradford and Asquith, though they never saw the 'Report', was that the fiend was long dead before the poilice had ever heard of him. And, it was all handed to Macnaghten on a plate -- it was not a field investigation.
...

How on earth can you say 'they never saw the 'Report'.'?

It was never intended for transmission any further than internally at New Scotland Yard to the Commissioner. Given all the known facts surrounding this memo it seems pretty obvious, to me anyway, that Bradford (it was for his information) saw it and it was laid by.

Having received this information regarding the murders, suspects, and the status of Cutbush, Bradford would be in a position to respond to any Home Office query. And he may well have done, verbally, at a briefing session.

It amuses me how non-police oriented commentators get involved in wild theorising about these documents and speak as if what they preach is gospel.

[PaulB]

I tend to exclude Macnaghten from the equation, Paul, because he had no direct involvement in the investigation. Anderson, on the other hand, made statements which clearly imply a collective thinking with regard to the killer’s social status, ethnicity, religion and mental state. For example: ‘And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews …’ Also: ‘And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.’

Hi Garry,
Macnaghten was not directly involved in the investigation, but you appeared to be arguing that the investigation was misled by Anderson's belief that the murderer was a "sexual maniac". I was merely pointing out that Macnaghten also thought Jack the Ripper was a "sexual maniac" and I suggested that this it may have been the general police view at that time of what a serial killer was.

That it was assumed that the Ripper was a poor immigrant Jew may have misdirected the investigation, but it remains to be seen whether that was Anderson's conclusion or one reached by others during his absence abroad and adopted by him when it proved correct. It is also unlikely to have been the exclusive view of the police, but just one of many suggestions.

So either Anderson misrepresented the situation, or two or more senior investigators analysed the crimes and formulated a number of definite conclusions regarding the killer. But frankly, Paul, I’d be astonished if they hadn’t. This was (and is) standard police procedure, and despite some of the criticisms that have been levelled at them, these men were not incompetent. They were simply hunting a quarry who was beyond their collective experience.

I don't see that we disagree about any of that, but as Stewart has made clear with regard to Massey, Anderson does not appear to have been above misrepresentation.

Macnaghten said a lot of things, Paul, most of which were either conjecture or blatantly untrue. But he did name three men whose details were clearly contained within the case files. And what do we find? Whilst two were incarcerated lunatics, the third was a suicide who was thought to be going mad. The two lunatics, coincidentally, were said to have been misogynists. The suicide was described as having been ‘sexually insane’.

Yes.

But that is precisely my point, Paul. The best that can be hoped for is that a micro-analysis of Anderson’s written output will result in one of two conclusions. Either Anderson probably told the truth, or Anderson probably lied. In other words, it will provide no definitive answer. Even if Anderson probably told the truth, where does that leave us? It certainly does not confirm that Kosminski was the Whitechapel Murderer. He might have been the victim of misidentification, for example, perhaps even a malicious identification. If nothing else, we know that the identification was crucial in the case against Kosminski. It must have been, otherwise all hopes of a conviction would not have been lost when the witness refused to sign a statement. Thus if the identification was flawed, so was the case against Kosminski.

History is all about probabilities, but analysis of what Anderson said is not intended to confirm that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, it is intended to help us understand why Anderson thought he was.

Again, I applaud you for the work you have done in attempting to resolve the Anderson issue, but at the same time I do feel that it is a lost cause. Rightly or wrongly, Paul, I feel that psychology is key in any evaluation of Kosminski’s suspect status. And on that basis, Kosminski is a nonstarter.

Well, it depends on what the cause is that is lost. You might be right if I was arguing that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper, although without knowing the reasons why Anderson believed what he did we can't say whether they might necessitate a revision of the psychological profile of "Kosminski" (indeed, it is not 100% certain that Aaron Kosminski was the "Kosminski", so we might be discounting Anderson because we've wrongly identified his suspect) . However, I am not claiming that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper, I am trying to learn why Anderson thought he was. Likewise why Macnaghten thought Druitt was the murderer, why anyone thought Ostrog was, or why Tumblety was suspected.

That Aaron Kosminski is a non-starter on the basis of his psychological profile is also why Martin Fido, way back in the mists of time of 1987, dismissed him, concluded that Anderson would never have suspected him, and stayed with his original conclusion that Anderson's suspect was David Cohen. I disagreed with Martin that Anderson wouldn't have suspected a "harmless lunatic"; I think he could have done and thus been wrong in his claim that Jack the Ripper had been identified.

[robhouse]

Hello Tom,

It is one thing to say Hollywood presents a distorted image of schizophrenia... fair enough. But it is no better to counter such an impression with equally distorted notions about schizophrenia (or specifically, schizophrenic serial killers).

Schizophrenia can manifest gradually, and it often presents different severity of symptoms in different people. Some schizophrenics are comparatively high functioning, some are disorganized and low functioning. People tend to post sweeping generalizations such as "schizophrenic people are not violent." While true in some sense, this is also misleading. This is like saying the vast majority of people are not violent. So what does that tell you? Anyway, recent research suggests a slightly higher rate of violent behavior among people with schizophrenia, especially when there is co-morbidity with psychopathic traits.

I have done a bit of research into actual schizophrenic serial killers. There are many striking similarities between murders committed by schizophrenic serial killers and the Ripper's murders. Most notably these are along the lines of post-mortem mutilation (targeting the sexual organs, abdomen and breasts) and cannibalism.

(Both David Berkowitz and Peter Sutcliffe likely faked insanity.)

Rob H

[Tom_Wescott]

When most people think 'schizo serial killer', I would imagine that David Berkowitz comes to mind, though of course there's also many who believe he was faking. Although not a serial killer, Sirhan Sirhan was, I believe, Schizo.

I sure don't pretend to be an expert of this, and certainly wouldn't suggest Garry doesn't know what he's talking about, but I know Rob has made a specialist study of this particular type of killer, though unfortunately a lot of his material along these lines was necessarily edited from his manuscript for publication. I'd like to encourage him to present more of it to us in one of the journals. I don't know why, but I find it fascinating.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Unfortunately, Greg, Hollywood has presented a very distorted picture of such conditions, even to the extent that many believe schizophrenia to be a Jekyll and Hyde manifestation.

I get the impression that you don't really know what you are talking about, but are just repeating something you have read somewhere. You seem to be suggesting that schizophrenics cannot be serial killers. Can you name one schizophrenic serial killer? Can you tell me anything about schizophrenic serial killers?

[Jonathan H]

To Garry Wroe

The reason for the stall is the Andrew Spallek's breawkthrough 2008 identification of the 'West of England' MP is not understood and appreicated in some quarters.

It means that Druitt precedes the 'memo' as a Ripper suspect; that he was not cobbled together by Constable Magoo.

It also means that the theory that Mac was not involved directly in the invetigation is wrng. As he admitted in his memoirs and 1913 comments, he investigated Druitt 'some years after'.

If Druitt, amongst police, begins with Macnaghten why not Aaron Kosminski who was sectioned two years after he joined the Met?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

An excellent hat-trick of posts.

Regards,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

It's a perfectly reasonably hypothesis, but, alas, like other hypotheses, lacking the evidence necessary for it to be accepted. Yes, Anderson said "the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type", and "sexual maniac" may mean "insane sexual deviant" as you have said, but Macnaghten thought Jack the Ripper was a sexual maniac too. So can we say the "the investigation was fatally flawed by Anderson’s assumption that the wanted man must have been insane and obviously homicidal". Was that really just Anderson's assumption, or was it what the police in general would have thought?

I tend to exclude Macnaghten from the equation, Paul, because he had no direct involvement in the investigation. Anderson, on the other hand, made statements which clearly imply a collective thinking with regard to the killer’s social status, ethnicity, religion and mental state. For example: ‘And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews …’ Also: ‘And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.’

So either Anderson misrepresented the situation, or two or more senior investigators analysed the crimes and formulated a number of definite conclusions regarding the killer. But frankly, Paul, I’d be astonished if they hadn’t. This was (and is) standard police procedure, and despite some of the criticisms that have been levelled at them, these men were not incompetent. They were simply hunting a quarry who was beyond their collective experience.

Macnaghten said that sexual maniacs could be walking among the general population unnoticed, so they obviously weren't regarded as stereotypical drooling madmen with wild eyes and insane grins. So what precisely would the police have been looking for and would looking for a homicidal madman have necessarily led the police to the wrong suspects?

Macnaghten said a lot of things, Paul, most of which were either conjecture or blatantly untrue. But he did name three men whose details were clearly contained within the case files. And what do we find? Whilst two were incarcerated lunatics, the third was a suicide who was thought to be going mad. The two lunatics, coincidentally, were said to have been misogynists. The suicide was described as having been ‘sexually insane’.

Textual analysis won't change the "psychological perspective", nor is it intended to, it is intended only to hopefully help in establishing whether or not the events described by Anderson (and Swanson) actually happened.

But that is precisely my point, Paul. The best that can be hoped for is that a micro-analysis of Anderson’s written output will result in one of two conclusions. Either Anderson probably told the truth, or Anderson probably lied. In other words, it will provide no definitive answer. Even if Anderson probably told the truth, where does that leave us? It certainly does not confirm that Kosminski was the Whitechapel Murderer. He might have been the victim of misidentification, for example, perhaps even a malicious identification. If nothing else, we know that the identification was crucial in the case against Kosminski. It must have been, otherwise all hopes of a conviction would not have been lost when the witness refused to sign a statement. Thus if the identification was flawed, so was the case against Kosminski.

Again, I applaud you for the work you have done in attempting to resolve the Anderson issue, but at the same time I do feel that it is a lost cause. Rightly or wrongly, Paul, I feel that psychology is key in any evaluation of Kosminski’s suspect status. And on that basis, Kosminski is a nonstarter.

[Garry Wroe]

It is my view that we can not get any more out of this by looking at it as we have. Kosminski has been discussed heavily for so long now. We all know there is no evidence against the MM3. We can turn it around, upside down.. but that is the bottom line. As Stewart has stated...No evidence.

Whilst I would always defend the scholarly, empirical approach, Phil, I certainly share your frustration that we seem to have become bogged down with regard to Kosminski. I have simply suggested that we come at the problem from a different angle, not least because even the most exhaustive examination of Anderson’s writings will never provide a definitive answer as to whether he related the whole truth with respect to the Kosminski identification. Personally, I have no doubt that the identification did take place as he described. The problem for me is the claim that the murderer’s identity was established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’. As such, I incline to the view that he was sincere but mistaken.

[Garry Wroe]

I have no business in this thread but I’m throwing caution to the wind. The following point is directed mainly go Garry Wroe who I believe is a professional in this field (Psychology). His opinion (and others) would be most welcome.

First of all, Greg, you have as much right to express an opinion as anyone. Judging by your previous contributions, I would also say that your input is as relevant and considered as any. Just for the record, though, whilst I am a qualified psychologist, I haven’t been actively engaged in the field for some years.

Rob House’s book makes a compelling case for the schizophrenic serial killer. He discusses something called co-morbidity (I think) which indicates that a person could be both a psychopath and a schizophrenic.

Unfortunately, Greg, Hollywood has presented a very distorted picture of such conditions, even to the extent that many believe schizophrenia to be a Jekyll and Hyde manifestation. In truth, Schizophrenia is one of the psychoses, meaning that the sufferer loses touch with reality. In its worst form it mediates a catastrophic cognitive meltdown. Everyday events are subject to misinterpretation, leading to a confused and often frightened state of mind. Although there are differing types of schizophrenia – these used to be categorized as simple, hebephrenic, catatonic and paranoid – all schizophrenics suffer either aural or visual hallucinations, or both. Language can be affected, as can memory, perception and planning.

Psychopathy, on the other hand, is a personality disorder characterized by extreme narcissism and an almost total disregard for and lack of empathy with others. These elements, coupled with ruthlessness, cruelty and an absence of remorse, mean that the psychopath is able to lie without compunction and justify just about any act so long as it succeeds in attaining a desired result.

I’m wondering what you, Garry, and others think of this idea. My personal belief is that Jack (if he existed) was probably a psychopath more in the Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy mold but I may be dead wrong.

If I were you, Greg, I’d familiarize myself with Arthur Shawcross, a serialist who preyed upon prostitutes and drug addicts. Not only did he inflict the kind of injuries with which we are familiar via the crimes of Jack the Ripper, he also resorted to cannibalism. And Shawcross was a psychopath, not a schizophrenic.

[Garry Wroe]

Excellent post Garry

Many thanks, Trev. Much obliged.

[Tom_Wescott]

innuendo that Keith Skinner stole the material

Keith Skinner may not have stolen research materials, but I do suspect that he was D.B. Cooper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

If you think Paul is lying when he says the owner of the document no longer wants it published on the Internet, why don't you just contact the owner yourself and check?

No doubt if you are right in your claims that the evil (and completely delusory) "cartel" is thwarting Christopher McLaren's wishes, he'll immediately send you a copy so that you can post it here yourself. And what a feather in your cap that will be! What are you waiting for?

For your information I have further contacted Mr. McLaren to which he has failed to respond. I also know of one other researcher who has also made a written request but has not yet received a reply.

It seems like all the outside sources which the cartel seek to rely on to endorse their theories clam up when approached by other researchers. I really have to wonder why the cartel dont want certain things made public.

[Chris]

Yes yes yes is that the best excuse you can come with for all of these shenanegans and the non compliance of a specific request from the current owner which I can tell you was made to the owner after all of this took place.

If you think Paul is lying when he says the owner of the document no longer wants it published on the Internet, why don't you just contact the owner yourself and check?

No doubt if you are right in your claims that the evil (and completely delusory) "cartel" is thwarting Christopher McLaren's wishes, he'll immediately send you a copy so that you can post it here yourself. And what a feather in your cap that will be! What are you waiting for?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you.

Fear naught, I am of stout heart.

Regards,

Simon