Plausibility of Kosminski

[Scott Nelson]

That's obviously the 'inserting himself into the police investigation' bit.

Who? Sergeant White or Le Grande? Or both?

[Stewart P Evans]

Obviously

...
If Le Grand was the Whitechapel murderer and Sergeant White wasn't talking out of the back of his hat, it means that Jack the Ripper and his accomplice took Matthew Packer to Scotland Yard to see Commissioner Charles Warren.
Discuss.
...
Simon

That's obviously the 'inserting himself into the police investigation' bit.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

If Le Grand was the Whitechapel murderer and Sergeant White wasn't talking out of the back of his hat, it means that Jack the Ripper and his accomplice took Matthew Packer to Scotland Yard to see Commissioner Charles Warren.

Discuss.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

And Le Grand's 'prior record' is precisely why he wasn't and couldn't have been mentioned in the memoranda. This isn't conspiracy, just common sense. Most of us will agree that the negative press attention of the Sun (re Cutbush) is what sparked the production of the memoranda. Therefore, the inclusion of a suspect still alive and not in an asylum, who had in the past publicly stated to the press to have been employed by the police, the Times, George Lewis, and the vigilance committee, would not only have completely defeated the purpose of the MM, it would have sparked a public and press backlash against the police and other major institutions the likes of which we've never seen.

This is a jest, yes?

[Tom_Wescott]

Now if we are to take Macnaghten as a serious source, and given that he himself having stated that there were many such characters around.. not even dear old Le Grande gets a mention.. and he is head and shoulders above these three in terms of his past record of violence and criminal record. When Macnaghten wrote his memoranda, Le Grande was safely locked away too.. so he could easily have quoted him. And Le Grande is just one person.... think of all the loonies, violent jailbirds etc he could have picked from?

Hi Phil. You're preaching to a deaf choir here. The old schoolers have no intention of acknowledging Le Grand was a suspect, and the suspect theorists on this thread will find him very inconvenient. And Le Grand's 'prior record' is precisely why he wasn't and couldn't have been mentioned in the memoranda. This isn't conspiracy, just common sense. Most of us will agree that the negative press attention of the Sun (re Cutbush) is what sparked the production of the memoranda. Therefore, the inclusion of a suspect still alive and not in an asylum, who had in the past publicly stated to the press to have been employed by the police, the Times, George Lewis, and the vigilance committee, would not only have completely defeated the purpose of the MM, it would have sparked a public and press backlash against the police and other major institutions the likes of which we've never seen.

Keeping this in mind, it should be clear to all who allow themselves to see it that the MM in absolutely no way represents the 'top three' Ripper suspects as of 1894, but instead talks of three obscure guys who conveniently are unavailable for comment. Ostrog, who wasn't even a suspect, is them inbued with certain details that fit only Le Grand, to beef up his candidacy, and get nosey reporters to look in a different direction when they hear tales that the Ripper was a foreign born conman with a knife collection and a violent history towards women.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Agreed. There was nothing in his medical notes, nor any indication of such contained within the testimony of Dr Houchin. It was Macnaghten, in fact, who stated that Kosminski ‘became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices.’ Whilst this might have been a veiled imputation that Kosminski liked to look at pornographic pictures, it seems likely that it was indeed a reference to masturbation. If so, there must be an awful lot of insanity amongst fourteen year old boys.

There again, Macnaghten is not the best source in any serious attempt to determine Kosminski’s psychopathology. As I have stated repeatedly on this thread, the contention that Kosminski was a misogynist with ‘strong homicidal tendencies’ is supported neither by the medical nor any other evidence.

The fact that Kosminski was never convicted of any violent offence speaks volumes,

in my view, and very much undermines Macnaghten’s vilification of him, as well as the negative connotations borne of the Seaside Home identification.

Hello Garry,

Yes, well written. If I may use a line or two of yours..

The fact that Kosminski was never convicted of any violent offence speaks volumes...

The fact that Druitt was never convicted of ANY offence, let alone a violent one, ever, speaks volumes...

The fact that Ostrog was a thief, happened to be abroad, and in a jail cell at the time, speaks volumes...

and very much undermines Macnaghten’s vilification of him (

That applies to all three as well, does it not?

...as well as the negative connotations borne of the Seaside Home identification.

Which as we all know one man's scribble is responsible for. Alone. Without any sort of proof from anyone else, ever. You know, the place where suspects are brought to meet their indentifying accuser.. instead of the normal way around.. where the suspect stays put and the accuser is taken to them. Yup, Jack the Ripper is taken 60 miles to meet a man who said it was indeed he who disembowelled and slashed a host of women. Very sensible action by the authorities to let this type of person be sent away fro a safely locked cell. Not to mention that the Seaside Home is unidentifiable with certainty, and we can only assume at which one Swanson meant. (No disrespect meant here for Don Rumbelow at all)
And then we look at the factual errors in the rest of these scribbled notes.. and we are to assume, again, that Swanson's information is reliable? If he can't get some of the facts right, what price the scant details?

There was nothing in his medical notes, nor any indication of such contained within the testimony of Dr Houchin.

If an historian is looking for qualified medical opinion to back up a person's proposed conduct, sanity or insanity, violent conduct and women-hating thoughts.. SURELY it would have been here.. or are we going to dream up excuses for Houchin and Co. not having to put such stuff in their notes on their patient?..for I can see that excuse being brought out now too.... erxcuses for Victorian tardiness in the medical profession. When Victorian Society in general is praised for them keeping abundances of notes down to the smallest detail of almost every subject under the sun.
Do excuse my incredulity.. but I personally find it frankly silly at times.

It was Macnaghten, in fact, who stated that...

1) And from what medical reference does Macnaghten base his accusation of Kosminski on? None. Unsubstantiated claims are worthless, especially as Macnaghten was in no way a qualified medical man himself.More private info perhaps? You know, the reliable stuff we can be sure of.. the assumed hush hush "I've had a word with his family" sort of thing probably.

2) And what basis does Macnaghten base his accusation of Druitt's state of mind upon?.. oh yes.. private info... unsubstantiated claims. That is tantamount to saying that it was believed that John Lennon was actually a homosexual, based on private info gained from close friends within the music industry. But Druitt.. well, HIS reputation doesn't matter one iota, so it's ok to accept this man's (Macnaghten's)word on face value... because he was a high ranking policeman. Utter poppycock. The man can't even get the facts right when writing about his three suspects! So how is it reasonable to accept HIS word that HE knew from "private info"? It is simply not reliable.. and it is not backed up in any way. Sims, it seems, was just a Macnaghten voice puppet after the fact, so he cannot be relied upon either.

3) And what basis does Macnaghten base his Ostrog accusations upon? A "get out of jail free" card that Ostrog was given because the Continental way of housing thieves is different to the English way perhaps? Or was it from more private info.. you know.. the sort that turns a common thief into a murderer. Macnaghten's sources, if any, are very unreliable if he actually listened to someone about the possibility of Ostrog being the Whitechapel murderer.

I have said this before and I will say it again, please forgive me. Of the thousands of villains in London, all the woman haters, violent men, wife beating and life threatening men in London.. Macnaghten picks three people that are apparently HARMLESS, or ABROAD, or have NO criminal record. And this is a source we should take seriously? I don't care whether Macnaghten is the nicest chap with the best police record on the planet.. we cannot ASSUME that he must have had good reason for his choices..not when they are proven to be completely unsubstantiated and have no basis in criminal, medical or known fact.

Now if we are to take Macnaghten as a serious source, and given that he himself having stated that there were many such characters around.. not even dear old Le Grande gets a mention.. and he is head and shoulders above these three in terms of his past record of violence and criminal record. When Macnaghten wrote his memoranda, Le Grande was safely locked away too.. so he could easily have quoted him. And Le Grande is just one person.... think of all the loonies, violent jailbirds etc he could have picked from?

I personally conclude that the MM is worthless as a source document if it doesn't contain, nor lead to, any evidence of violence when naming a suspect being linked to violent misogynistic murder....when there were hundreds, nay thousands he could have picked from with far more menacing antecedants than these three.

No doubt we should be looking at this with a more methodological viewpoint.. and ignore plain old common sense and logic. No doubt we should consider these two men's (Macnaghten and Swanson) sources from an historically important stance because of whom they were and the position they held within the police force... I will be told..well..

Not if the stuff they dish up is factually flawed and is unreliable. It doesn't matter what rank of policeman they are. A policeman investigating a crime would not accept that sort of statement from a witness as reliable, even if he was a local dignitary, in any crime investigation..... so why should we accept their flawed statements as a basis of fact?

It is time to stop the Merry-Go-Round. It has got us absolutely nowhere and clouds the issue.
Or are some afraid that the great Ripper machine will grind to a halt if we dismiss Macnaghten and Swanson once and for all? I wonder...

The answer to that is simple. Research other areas. This well is dry.

Cue the predictable response.


kindly

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

As you say, it beggars belief that Abberline et al would not know about the positive identification, or even that 'Kosminski' was a strong suspect?

Particularly since Abberline and Swanson appear to have remained friendly long after the murders, Jonathan. Wasn’t it Abberline who gave Swanson a personally inscribed copy of Anderson’s book?

This is what leads me to believe that information about Kosminski (and Druitt) entirely bypassed just about eveybody apart from Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson.

Personally, Jonathan, I think it inconceivable that such an important development could have occurred without word of it reaching other senior investigators. If it happened, others would have known about it. That no-one beyond Anderson and Swanson accorded it due significance is suggestive that the identification was not as definitive as Anderson later claimed. That Abberline seemingly dismissed the story in 1903 is similarly salient in my view.

It is why I do not believe that the 'Seaside Home' identification is a true memory but a muddled one of Sadler and Lawende (see Evans and Rumbelow, 2006).

That is a possibility, Jonathan, and an attractive one, though not one that I would embrace without a good deal of supporting evidence.

On the other hand, if Anderson and/or Swanson came across Aaron Kosminski in 1895, long after the murders and long after he was sectioned, and it was just a private interview with a family member or something like that, then the contradictory sources arguably do not beggar belief.

But then the chronology laid out within the Swanson marginalia suggests otherwise, Jonathan. We are presented with specific information concerning the Seaside Home identification and Kosminski’s incarceration, this latter event having been documented in the asylum records. Whilst it is of course possible that Swanson’s recollection of these events was wildly awry, it would require compelling evidence of mental deterioration on Swanson’s part before it could be considered likely.

[PaulB]

Yes, I thought that would be your answer.

How depressing. I'm predictable now!

I couldn't agree less because my hypothesis of the surviving, contradictory sources attempts to explain why Druitt as a suspect, arguably, achieves priority over 'Kosminski' -- at least until something else turns up.

Other interpretations are of course possible. It is in the eye of the beholder which is more compelling, if any.

Not necessarily. Some agreed criteria can be established by which priority can be generally accepted.

Some secondary sources have argued that the Polish Jew suspect is the best, or at least viable, because Anderson and/or Swanson are more reliable sources than they are unreliable.

Not me. Or if I ever said that it then it was thoughtlessly.

I am trying to do the same kind of revisionist take with Macnaghten and thus Druitt.

I know, and I am not disagreeing with that endeavor.

In Aaron Komsinki's medical records, or the scanty scraps given too grand a title as 'medical records', at what date is it mentioned that he is masturbating chronically, or words to that effect?

I don't think anyone has said he was "masturbating chronically" or anything like that. Houchin said he he practiced self-abuse and self-abuse was at some point given as the cause of his insanity in his Colney Hatch admission papers.

[Garry Wroe]

(A)ccording to his known symptoms, Kosminski could have had crippling obsessive compulsive disorder.

Personally, Errata, I see no evidence of OCD either in the statements of Jacob Cohen, Dr Houchin or the asylum patient notes.

Schizophrenia is not a great fit either. It's an okay one, but some some pretty basic symptoms are missing, ones that certainly would have been noted.

The illness of schizophrenia did not exist at the time, Errata. Dementia praecox did (just), but was poorly understood. Those with psychotic disorders were generally labelled as lunatics and left to rot in asylums. Thus the failure to note specific pathologies was neither unusual nor proof of absence.

We know that Kosminski was clearly suffering. He knew something was terribly wrong with him, and he was trying to treat himself in a way that was clearly neither comfortable nor sanitary.

I see evidence neither for Kosminski’s metacognition, nor that he was attempting self-treatment, I’m afraid, Errata.

Personally, I don't see a lot of delusion in Kosminski as much as I see compulsion.

And I see quite the reverse. Kosminski was being ‘guided’ by his ‘instinct’, which ‘told’ him not to wash and to eat only the food he found in the gutter. Clearly, he was experiencing aural hallucinations – the ‘voices’ which drive a proportion of schizophrenics to self-harm or even suicide.

He does not appear to have been noticeably delusional. He certainly believed things that were not true, but did not appear to experience an alternate reality.

Again, I would demur. According to Dr Houchin, ‘He declares that he is guided and his movements altogether controlled by an instinct that informs his mind. He says that he knows the movements of all mankind.’ This latter sentence is typical of the grandiose delusions commonly associated with all forms of schizophrenic illness.

As far as being a compulsive masturbator … There's no way of knowing.

Agreed. There was nothing in his medical notes, nor any indication of such contained within the testimony of Dr Houchin. It was Macnaghten, in fact, who stated that Kosminski ‘became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices.’ Whilst this might have been a veiled imputation that Kosminski liked to look at pornographic pictures, it seems likely that it was indeed a reference to masturbation. If so, there must be an awful lot of insanity amongst fourteen year old boys.

There again, Macnaghten is not the best source in any serious attempt to determine Kosminski’s psychopathology. As I have stated repeatedly on this thread, the contention that Kosminski was a misogynist with ‘strong homicidal tendencies’ is supported neither by the medical nor any other evidence. The fact that Kosminski was never convicted of any violent offence speaks volumes, in my view, and very much undermines Macnaghten’s vilification of him, as well as the negative connotations borne of the Seaside Home identification.

[Jonathan H]

To Paul

Yes, I thought that would be your answer.

I couldn't agree less because my hypothesis of the surviving, contradictory sources attempts to explain why Druitt as a suspect, arguably, achieves priority over 'Kosminski' -- at least until something else turns up.

Other interpretations are of course possible. It is in the eye of the beholder which is more compelling, if any.

Some secondary sources have argued that the Polish Jew suspect is the best, or at least viable, because Anderson and/or Swanson are more reliable sources than they are unreliable.

I am trying to do the same kind of revisionist take with Macnaghten and thus Druitt.

However, rather than an analytical stalemate I want to ask you a question.

In Aaron Komsinki's medical records, or the scanty scraps given too grand a title as 'medical records', at what date is it mentioned that he is masturbating chronically, or words to that effect?

[PaulB]

Hi Jonathan,
A reiteration of your hypothesis isn't evidence for why priority should be given to your favoured source. It's why you think it should, but there is a circularity in it, isn't there?

Anderson does not say the house-to-house search confirmed a profile/theory that the murderer was a Jew, he says that the house-to-house search led to the conclusion that the murderer lived with “his people”, from which somebody said the murderer was probably an immigrant Jew because immigrant Jews were reluctant to surrender one of their own to Gentile justice.

There is no reason to suppose from what Anderson writes that the name "Kosminski" emerged from the house-to-house search.

That the "slam dunk witness identification" was the result of a muddled memory is hypothetical and therefore not allowable in any consideration of the primacy of the sources.

And whilst we don’t know when or how Kosminski came to police attention, you don't know how Druitt came to their attention either. You know that somebody, by no means a member of Druitt’s family, supplied information to Macnaghten, but we no more known why he came to be suspected than we know why Kosminski was suspected.

Paul

[Jonathan H]

To Paul

I see what you are getting at, of course, and respect this position.

Yet, I disagree is for the following reasons:

It is not just that the MP source exists as a likely bridge between the sympathetic Druitt obits. and the Macnaghten Report(s) where Druitt is a Ripper suspect -- both minor (official version) and major (unofficial version).

It is that in the latter source, Mac makes it clear that suspicion/belief about Montie begins with his own family, which matches the Farquharson/Dorset source in terms of its location.

We have nothing like that for Aaron Kosminski.

The timing of his incarceration and his surviving medical scraps do not suggest a homicidal lunatic, or one suspected of being such by the authorities.

Anderson refers to a Polish Jewish profile in terms of people harbouring the murderer, and that the house to house search confirmed this profile/theory. As has been speculated by others, Aaron Kosminski's name appeared on a list, some kind of list, from 1888, and this matched suspicions about him once he was sectioned -- or by being sectioned?

For 'Kosminski' we have the slam dunk witness identification, but this is arguably a result of a muddled memory -- or recording a muddled memory -- and still does not explain when or how 'Kosminski' came to police attention, at all.

Also, you often write that Anderson asserted a fact whereas Macnaghten only entertained a conjecture (mis-spelt, deliberately I think, as 'conjections' in 'Aberconway'). I disagree, arguing that Mac's memoirs -- like Anderson's memoirs -- are the definitive Macnaghten-Ripper source.

In that book, Mace is much more certain in his belief: 'certain facts led to a conclusion' about the Ripper as a 'probable suicide'. I laid to rest his ghost 'some years after', and so on, which is much stronger than a conjecture. No other suspects are bothered with, and so on.

This matches his pal Sims' certainty in the Edwardian Era, reflecting's Mac's of course, and matches Mac's 1913 comments -- more candid from the safety of retirement -- which are certainly not qualified by adding that this 'remarkable man' might only be a conjectural suspect. Nothing like it. His memoirs push this notion even harder!

It is, after all, only a theory -- perhaps correct -- that Anderson had first-hand knowledge of his Polish Jew suspect. His source may have been just Macnaghten, hence his theory evolving from a 'a perfectly, plausible theory' in 1895 (with the first appearance of 'Kosminski' in 1894) to a 'definitely ascertained fact' by 1910.

It is only a theory -- perhaps correct -- that Macnaghten's information about Druitt was entirely second-hand. For he may have met with not only Farquharson but also a Druitt. Why not? What was to stop the 'action man'? He had M. J. Druitt's name, and the correct date of his body being pulled from the Thames.

Is it really credible that this police chief would leave it at that ...?

Sims' veiled version of this has the pals meeting with the police to discuss their terrible fears about the mad doctor.

Consider also that Macnaghten backdating Aaron Kosminski's incarceration was either by accident or deliberate.

If it was deliberate then all bets are off.

We see evidence from this source of saying and writing things which are not really true:

1. It is never clear in either version of his 'Report' that Druitt was a way-too-late suspect, but this crucial fact is conceded in his memoirs.

2. Griffiths was not privy to a definitive 'Home Office Report' as Sims claimed in 1903. Where did they get that self-serving idea from? Who else.

3. The Druitt family become concerned 'friends' in Griffiths. A 'mistake'? If so Mac not only did not correct it for Sims, but added the detail that these pals were frantically trying to find the missing 'doctor' after the Kelly murder (which matches, at the very least, the 1889 article about the inquiry into Druitt's death).

Therefore, a source known to be running an agenda, to manipulate data depending on whom he is communicating with, cannot be said, so blithely, to not know when a suspect was sectioned -- especially as this actually happened when Mac had been on the Force for nearly two years.

A source who fooled his pals may have been one who did this to his colleagues, too, especially when you factor in that he did not like Anderson.

And, it is not, Paul, that he knew that 'Kossminski' had died but rather that he knew that he lived, an opinion that he pushed even harder with Sims in 1907: eg. the Polish Jew was still alive long after not dead soon after.

But I am, never forget, only a swinish, whipper-snapper!!

[PaulB]

The reason I don't agree is for the simple reason that Druitt, unlike 'Kosminski', begins in the extant record completely independently of Macnaghten (eg. the 'West of England MP' story). Whereas the Polish Jew suspect begins with Mac, who knew he was not dead 'soon after' (yet Anderson and Swanson do not know this critical detail?)

Jonathan, I can't accept that. Because one source mentions something before another is not reason for giving primacy to one rather than the other, especially when one is admitted conjecture based on at best second-hand material and the other is stated to be a fact and to be based on first-hand knowledge/experience. Macnaghten's knowledge about "Kosminski's" death hardly counts either, as he did not know when he was committed.

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

Oh, I agree you could strip Druitt the same way, for sure, and be left with little, or nothing.

That's a fair assessment.

The reason I don't agree is for the simple reason that Druitt, unlike 'Kosminski', begins in the extant record completely independently of Macnaghten (eg. the 'West of England MP' story). Whereas the Polish Jew suspect begins with Mac, who knew he was not dead 'soon after' (yet Anderson and Swanson do not know this critical detail?)

I argue that a full assessment of the sources by Macnaghten, and the ones which are his by proxy, reveal that he, arguably, knew a lot more about Druitt than just PC Moulson's Report -- knew more than just scraps.

'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (1914) reasserted the true nature and length of the police hunt -- eg. clueless for years -- which we do not see in any other memoir, and rarely any other source after 1898.

Even the preface of Mac's memoirs teasingly juxtaposed [the un-named] Druitt with championship cricket, pointedly denied that he, as a police chief, was completely too late to identify the Ripper, and acknowledged that there might be 'inaccuracies' in his account (eg. the fiend who killed himself 'on or about ...' Nov 10th 1888?)

[Roy Corduroy]

Something else to consider, quite diabolical, about Aaron Kosminski's 'plausibility' is that he seems to have been clothed by Macnaghten in details appropriated from the Druitt story: that he died 'soon after'; that his family 'suspected the worst'; that he was some kind of sexual/homicidal maniac; that he was headed for the madhouse; and that he was allegedly sighted by the best witness chatting with Eddowes.

Strip away the elements which can be traced across to Druitt, ...

By the same token, Jonathan, strip away those elements from "the Druitt story" itself and what have you got.

Roy