Plausibility of Kosminski

[mariab]

Mr Twibbs:
My reasoning is that Kosminski was not JTR and it was not he that was identified in 1890 but someone else?
Mr Twibbs, you mind consider reading this dissertation posted on casebook http://www.casebook.org/suspects/davidcohen.html, and perhaps Martin Fido's book.

[Chris]

According to the Swanson Marginalia this took place at a Police Seaside Convalescent Home (probably Brighton, definitely after 1890).

It is worth bearing in mind that the marginalia don't actually specify which "Seaside Home" the identification was supposed to have taken place at. So there is no certainty about the date.

[Rubyretro]

pobably, Hove.

[mariab]

Oh wow, I've been at the computer for about 22 hours non stop (partly working and partly maniacally posting), and the only thought I can come up with is, I wish I were at a seaside house right now.
I promise to research the details on Kosminski upon my ressurection...

[Chris]

pobably, Hove.

The question is, why send the suspect, "with difficulty," all the way to Hove? Why couldn't the identification just have been carried out in London?

[Phil H]

Chris,

It is the phrasing that Swanson uses that convinces me that (whether he muddled details or not) was recollecting a real incident related to the Ripper.

There are various possible explanations for the use of the Seaside home for the identification, including (but not necessarily exclusively):

* the witness was resident there as a result of an injury and could not be moved (on the whole I think this least likely);

* the suspect was a policeman being held there pending charges (again not high on my list, and a non-starter if the suspect was indeed Kosminski!);

* the SH constituted a very good venue for an incognito, unofficial and off the record attempt to get an identification. There would have been pretty frequent arrivals and departures (residents, staff and visitors) so a few more might not have attracted to much outside attention. [Do I not recall an entry in the annual report of the SH, or some such, or two special guests - unnamed?]

* it was one way of using "police-controlled" property, for a complicated operation having to take into account two forces (Met and City) which could not be on the territory of either.

I suspect that the "difficulties" alluded to by Swanson were more about getting hold of suspect and witness than actually the journey to Brighton/Hove and back.

There is what I think a very good dissertation on all this by Stewart Evans, which I read recently and felt presented a good explanation of what might have happened:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

Whatever the problems some have raised, I think that the Swanson Marginalia have to be taken at face value. WHY they were written is perhaps another question - I am prepared to believe that Anderson and Swanson were trying to shift the interest of posterity away from someone onto Kosminski.

But on the whole, the scribbled notes are quite consistent as a man in retirement fleshing out Anderson's inexplicit tale with details that maybe few apart from Swanson knew. (He may, even in the 1890s have been confused about who Kosminski was, but what he said happened, happened.)

I say this because from my first reading of the marginalia they struck me as exactly what a man might write, in brief space, as he recalled what may have been one of the most memorable, frustrating, historic and difficult, even tense, days in his career. And, albeit in phrases that might mean less for us, sets it all down - the venue, the difficulties and the eventual failure.

We may not like it, may not understand it, but I believe it happened.

Phil

[MrTwibbs]

Mr Twibbs:
My reasoning is that Kosminski was not JTR and it was not he that was identified in 1890 but someone else?
Mr Twibbs, you mind consider reading this dissertation posted on casebook http:///davidcohen.html, and perhaps Martin Fido's book.

Thank you for the link but I have read this and my opinion is that the Kosminski/Cohen/Kaminsky theory is full of so many holes

See below(an example) of this with Swanson's comments.

"On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by the police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his backs, he was sent to Stephney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"

The above clearly indicates "Kosminski was the suspect". If of course you then go and assume he made a mistake and made a spelling mistake, then it is very coincidental that both Kosminski and Cohen were both at Colney Hatch within a few years of each other. But then if the real killer (i.e. Cohen/Kaminsky) was their man then why didn't MM mention he died(as you will remember MM written in 1894 and Cohen died 1889)


Going back to Swanson's comments above quoted, you then have to ask if this Kosminski was actually Kaminsky, then did he also have a brother living in whitechapel?

The entire theory rests on Cohen being Kaminsky, Swanson either misspelling or misremembering (yet he just happened to pick a guy who was also at colney hatch and lived in Whitechapel) and had paranoid dellusions.

The behaviour of Cohen in Colney hatch comrprised of spitting out food, rambling in yiddish, kicking strangers. Hardly the MO for a homicidal maniac. kaminsky may have dissapeared off the face of the earth but that could have been for many reasons, but to assume kaminsky was Cohen and then come up with the theory that he was JTR....well it's just too full of contradictions.

Perhaps then it is possible that MM actually got the ball rolling by getting the name wrong. He wrote Kosminski instead of Cohen/Kaminsky. If that is true then it would go in line with the date March 1889 which is around the time Cohen was sent to colney hatch(please correct me if i'm wrong), but then you then have to deal with assuming Kaminsky was actually Cohen. And why did MM state the suspect was never identified? this contradicts Anderson and Swanson. Even Abberline some years later stated the suspect was never caught.

Given the lack of faith in the police at the time i'm sure they would have wanted it to be known they'd got their man and justice served. It all reads for fascinating reading the Kosminsky/Cohen/Kaminsky love triangle but there's too many assumptions.

[MrTwibbs]

Chris,


Whatever the problems some have raised, I think that the Swanson Marginalia have to be taken at face value. WHY they were written is perhaps another question - I am prepared to believe that Anderson and Swanson were trying to shift the interest of posterity away from someone onto Kosminski.



Phil

Yes possibly...like a certain chap with the initials THC who shared the same surname with a certain high ranking detective who looked after workhouse pensions in the whitechapel area.
Far be it for them to want to tell tales out of school.

[Chris]

It is the phrasing that Swanson uses that convinces me that (whether he muddled details or not) was recollecting a real incident related to the Ripper.

I wasn't questioning whether Swanson was recollecting a real incident - just whether the Seaside Home he mentioned was the one in Hove. I would still question whether any of the reasons you suggest would necessitate a journey as far as the south coast. I don't understand why there should have been a requirement for the identification attempt to take place outside the Met/City area, but even if there were, surely there would have been other premises available closer to London than Hove.

If, on the other hand, it was a different Seaside Home, a couple of obvious possibilities present themselves:
(1) The suspect was sent there as a patient,
(2) The witness was already a patient there.

[Johnr]

A link to lost thread with photos of Hove Police Home

Now I know the 'marginalia' and writing in the back of Detective Swanson's copy of Anderson's biography, only talked of a "Seaside Home".
And not of a Police Seaside home.

Regardless, I thought there may be some who might like to relive a previous discussion of the feasability of a police home at Hove (Brighton) having been used for a police identification 'line-up'.

The thread discusses relevant dates of opening of the two homes.

It also includes some clear photos of the two homes, with indications of the surrounding areas. Albeit, as it looks today. But might suggest just how secure such establishments would have been for holding vital suspects.

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4924/19178.html

JOHN RUFFELS.

[MrTwibbs]

Could someone please clarify this.
The Police seaside home in Hove was opened in 1893(according to my source) which means that neither Kosminski or Cohen/Kaminsky could have gone there for identification because by that point they were already in Colney Hatch?

[Chris]

Could someone please clarify this.
The Police seaside home in Hove was opened in 1893(according to my source) which means that neither Kosminski or Cohen/Kaminsky could have gone there for identification because by that point they were already in Colney Hatch?

As you'll see from the thread John has just linked to, there were two seaside homes in succession - the first was opened in 1890 and the second in 1893. You can find the relevant dates here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=33381&postcount=1

[MrTwibbs]

As you'll see from the thread John has just linked to, there were two seaside homes in succession - the first was opened in 1890 and the second in 1893. You can find the relevant dates here:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...81&postcount=1

Thankyou Chris

Brighton council records office told me that a picture of the Hove seaside home taken in 1908 exists. Has anyone seen this? or know if its available on this website or another?

[mariab]

new interest in Aaron Kosminsky as a suspect

I have the distinct feeling that, thanks to John Malcolm's recent essay in Examiner 3, a new interest in Aaron Kosminski as a suspect is growing on! If that leads into new research and perhaps even new discoveries, it would be of great benefit.

To Mr Twibbs:
Apologies for the delayed response. I don't necessarily suscribe to Mr Fido's theory on Kosminsky/Cohen/Kaminsky (as I've heard, even Mr Fido himself seems to have more doubt in his own theory today than at the time when he wrote his book), but I nevertheless think that his is still a viable theory.
There are many old threads with still very useful and pertinent information discussing Mr Fido's theory on casebook.

[robhouse]

(Photo attached - The Police Seaside Convalescent Home at 51 Clarendon Villas, Hove, circa 1890)

Of course, I agree with Chris that there is no proof of which Seaside Home Swanson meant, and that the identification could have taken place any time prior to Feb 1891.

"I have the distinct feeling that, thanks to John Malcolm's recent essay in Examiner 3, a new interest in Aaron Kosminski as a suspect is growing on! If that leads into new research and perhaps even new discoveries, it would be of great benefit."

I do think new discoveries on Kozminski are possible or even likely in the future. For example, it is possible that Kozminski was entered into a private asylum of some sort, possibly around March 1889. Although various people have tried to discover any records of this, no one has found anything. Another possible avenue of research is the fact that Aaron may have been listed in various documents and records under the name "Aaron Abrahams".

Rob H