Plausibility of Kosminski

[mariab]

By golly, you really have grasped the hang of Ripperology.

Not quite, as I didn't quite get the “Simon Whitechapel“ reference by Scott Nelson. :-)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Maria,

Don't worry, Scott's an old hand. He gets it. Or if he doesn't he should get out of the house more often.

The art of Ripperology is avoiding questions.

Now do you get it?

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Simon ,
It was most unusual for murders to be committed in Whitechapel.A knife attack of which you cite 24 is not the same thing unless it results in murder.Men had gang fights and drew knives then as now all over London from time to time.
Serial killing was almost unheard of, yet in Whitechapel in 1888 a series of at least 7 women were murdered in just three months.It had never happened before.
Apart from the Ripper murders there were perhaps a couple of other murders.

This surely speaks for itself insofar as the murders being related in some way?

You mention the Emma Smith and Martha Tabram murders being totally different.
Did you know Robert Napper,currently in Broadmoor,stabbed one young woman on Wimbledon Common 49 times in a frenzied attack not very different from Martha Tabram's attack except it was in broad daylight when she was walking her dog with her toddler.
His next murder involved another young woman he had stalked,made written plans re the murder of in her flat, forced his way into her flat , killed her little daughter and then carried out a Mary Kelly type murder on her that caused the police photographer to have a nervous breakdown .Very different in execution from the Wimbledon Common one.This was 'mutilation' not stabbing.
So ,to all intents and purposes there were no similarities to link those murders---they were as different as chalk and cheese except that the age of the victims was similar-as with almost all the ripper murders.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

I believe I cited just 12 knife attacks and/or murders.

When did Robert Napper do his stuff?

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

I believe I cited just 12 knife attacks and/or murders.

When did Robert Napper do his stuff?

Regards,

Simon

But Simon-a knife attack on its own does not count as murder.There were no other murders as far as I know-or if there were it was one or two.


Robert Napper began by carrying out a series of rapes [though he was called a 'virgin rapist'].
That was over 17 years ago.His last murder was in 1994 I believe.
Best
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

Mr. Wood, Recently it's been discovered that also a knife was used in the Emma Smith attack.

Seriously, why does the stuff I say to you in e-mails or the boards get regurgitated like this to others? I'm becoming frustrated with you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I'm terribly sorry. I thought it was cryptic enough.

[Tom_Wescott]

To Phil Carter

Well there are fair indications that Isenschmidt could have been responsible for one if not two of the first two. Just because No's 3 and 4 happened doesn't make him not responsible.. it just doesn't make him JTR. Lynn's work on him has impressed me. I am not sure though.

Is Lynn’s work on this public yet? I’m not aware of it, but would be quite interested. I’m also interested in the 12 murders (sans C5) that Simon is talking about where the murderers were undiscovered. I have some thoughts on the Smith and Tabram murders that I’m really still forming. But nobody cares about Smith, which is a shame.

I have an interest in a possible suspect possibly connected to the Tabram murder, and also believe Smith was a gang job.

Now that’s interesting. Why don’t you discuss this stuff? Recent research of mine has led me to suspect the Smith and Tabram murders might be related, and I think a research project on this might produce dividends.

When it comes to Stride.. there certainly is more than meets the eye about her killing. I do not think she was connected with the Eddowes murderer though. Those two killings have, for me, different hallmarks.. but that is the sore point most people have about the Ripper murders, either they think she was the first of two on the night by the same hand, or they don't. But people know this already of me. Nothing new there.

You know what a personal argument that is for me, but honestly, I would not have a problem with someone dismissing Stride if only it weren’t for the wrong reasons, such as misunderstanding the Coram knife saga and thinking a different knife from Eddowes was PROVABLY used, or that Kidney killed her, ad infinitum. I will say this, if her murder was NOT committed by JTR or Le Grand, then you need look no further than the Berner Street club. Have you ever considered that Eddowes and Stride were related murders, but not by the same hand?

Eddowes and Kelly as by the same hand I am in two minds about. Certainly not the same hand as Chapman and Nichols. If you were to press me, I'd say 60/40 in favour of two different killers for C4 and C5. But am uncertain.. like many I suppose.Arnold reckoned on Copy cat killings in amongst this lot somewhere.. and I think he may have a point. It's a touchy point for some, and strangely rarely discussed.

Yes, Arnold suspected Eddowes was a copycat, and there’s little doubt in my mind that he was influenced by the medical opinion, namely Bagster Phillips. There’s actually more contemporary opinion eliminating Eddowes than Stride, but Bagster Phillips eventually conceded that the C5 and possibly others were, in fact, by the same hand.

The Kelly murder and surrounding investigation, especially with the Eddowes murder on the last point, leaves great big question marks in my book. Especially Eddowes. Too much that doesn't make sense. I don't actually rule out that the body in 13 Millers Court was one "Mary Jane Kelly".

You mean to say you think it possible the body was not the woman Joe Barnett knew as Mary Jane Kelly? And why do you feel there’s more question marks about the murder of Eddowes than, say, Stride or Nichols?

One of the problems on these boards is posting stuff from "out there" where people have entrenched themselves and cannot be shifted. All normal explanations have left us little. I am intruiged that Special Branch was involved in the investigation. (That matter has been discussed elsewhere).. as "Special" have their own agenda to follow.

I would agree that a certain element are immovable in their conclusions, and these are often (but not always) suspect-obsessed researchers. To embark in research on a specific suspect, as I have done, unfortunately lumps me in with this group, but so be it. And I find the Special Branch stuff very interesting, and not only because it refers the doings of a group of private investigators. Hmmmmm.

It's all hypothesis. But now you have the answers you asked for, without any suspect names barring Isenschmidt, which is tentative anyway. I have ideas and am working on much.. but that is not for me to explain as yet as I am not happy with it yet to be near certain. That is why I honestly do not like hyped up naming of "New Prime Suspects".. it does Ripperology a dis-service I feel. But that's just personal opinion.

I named it that because I wanted a powerful title that would stand in contrast to the article itself, which provided virtually zero theorizing as to Le Grand as the Ripper. An overstated title with an understated article. In hindsight, it’s caused me a lot of grief. But it also reflects my certainty that in the years to come he will be accepted as the prime suspect. There won’t be any others left.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon,

You haven't answered my questions from a few pages back (written this morning). If you'd prefer to discuss in private, please PM me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

You know, I think the crap I wrote about the so-called "Kosminski" suspect is still valid after so many years. I believe it implicitly and have not changed my original thought processes very much (except for the fact that we don't know David Cohen's Polish last name (if he was Polish):

"I believe that an unrecognized two-fold event led to the capture of the Kosminski suspect. The first part of this event led to focused police attention on a particular location of the October 1888 house-to-house search for the killer. The trigger to this event was the most tangible clue left by the killer: the piece of Eddowes’ apron dropped in the doorway to the Wentworth Model Buildings on Goulston Street. From this clue, the police knew exactly where to concentrate their house-to-house search, even though the search boundaries extended well beyond the Goulston Street area. By intensifying their investigations close to the area of the clue, the police may have been able to shorten their list of potential suspects down from hundreds throughout the search area, to perhaps tens or fewer “living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders” 1. It was there in Goulston Street, I believe, the police first encountered the Kosminski suspect in 1888 during the search, but only recorded suspicion in their notebooks.

The second event occurred two years later in 1890 when Aaron Kosminski threatened his brother’s wife, Betsy, with a knife. The subsequent police interview of Betsy led to a review of their two-year-old notebooks to see if Aaron’s name had been recorded; it wasn’t, but another Kosminski may have been. This Kosminski also had a family member, Betsy (a different person), residing with him when he came under suspicion in 1888. Thus, momentary police confusion over ‘Betsy’ may have led them back to one Isaac Kosminskie, aged 40, a Polish boot- and shoemaker, who possibly resided at 79 Goulston Street at the time of the house-to-house search 2. Aaron Kosminski, by 1890, lived outside the are first searched by the Metropolitan Police after the Eddowes murder, as far as Whitechapel Road on the south, and Great Garden Street on the east, missing Sion Square and Greenfield Street 3.

Concerning the witness, Anderson would have been well aware of the circumstances of Lawende’s brief glance in darkness at the man with Eddowes near the Church Passage to Mitre Square on 30 September 1888. He also knew that after almost two years, it would be impossible to verify, let alone stand up in court testimony. Lawende would not have bowed to police pressure (refer to Major Henry Smith’s abortive attempts to bait Lawende with leading questions) 4. The description of the witness response as related by Anderson strongly suggest that suspect and witness were well known to each other: “…unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him…” 5. Thus, Anderson’s witness may not have been Lawende.

Aaron Kosminski was still in good bodily health through 1918; both Anderson and Swanson would have been well aware of this having reviewed the medical records. In addition, Anderson’s statements made in memoirs and to journalists about the suspect’s identity would have been known to the staff at the Leavesdan Asylum, members of which would have been all to happy to convey any new information about Aaron to Anderson or his successors, as apparently they never did. If the Kosminski suspect actually died shortly after his confinement at Colney Hatch, the above scenario is impossible if the suspect was Aaron. But if we consider a sickly suspect taken to a workhouse befitting the degree of his medical condition (The St. Leonard's Sick Asylum in Bromley), the statement that he died shortly after being confined in the asylum is more understandable. Thus, I think the source of Swanson’s statement “…sent by us with difficulty…” refers to the difficulty the MET police would have with workhouse authorities for the transfer of a very physically sick man."


Notes

1. Anderson, Blackwoods Magazine, Part IV, March 1908
2. Ripperana no. 15, Jan. 1996, p. 20
3. Jack the Ripper A-Z, 1996, Headline, p. 296
4. JtR A-Z, p. 238-239
5. Anderson, The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910, p. 138

[Jonathan H]

To Scott

For what it's worth, I think that is a very, very interesting and incisive interpretation.

[harry]

I do not think that 1888 was so far in the past,that it has to be accepted that procedures of identification,as carried out by police forces,are far different than today.In both time frames it simply involves one person looking at,or hearing,another person,and communicating some information about that person.It is and was,organised and carried out by police officers attempting to gain information.Today it might,with the advance of equipment,be recorded differently.However,whether then or now,I cannot accept that a person subject to identification,in which identification is accepted as proving the identified person is a multiple murderer,would not be promptly arrested and confined.I believe that either the identification was negative,or it never happened,and I personnely favour the latter.

[Phil H]

I agree with Jonathan, thank you Scott. Much food for thought.

I wrote in a post earlier (in this thread I think) that I wondered whether the "Kosminski" referred to by Swanson (without a first name) might have been other than Aaron.

I was authoritatively corrected. But Scott's analysis is interesting and I am inclined to feel it goes some way to cutting through the ambiguities and otherwise inexplicable detail of the marginalia.

If the witness was not Lawende then many new avenues would open up.

Just MHO and I recognise all entirely suppositional.

Phil

[mariab]

a post bound to cause more frustration

Scott Nelson's thoughts in post #1375 are fascinating. Also l've read up a bit about the Crawford letter, and I might need to reconsider about Kozminsky. Wonder how I'll feel after reading the Rob House book.

Is Lynn’s work on this public yet?

In the Isenschmidt casebook threads, not too hard to find.

I’m also interested in the 12 murders (sans C5) that Simon is talking about where the murderers were undiscovered.

I think that the subsequent discussion made it clear that not all 7 of the rest were fatal attacks. Perhaps Mr. Wood would like to clarify if he counts Millwood, Wilson, and Tabram among them, and who are the other 4.

Recent research of mine has led me to suspect the Smith and Tabram murders might be related, and I think a research project on this might produce dividends. {...} I have some thoughts on the Smith and Tabram murders that I’m really still forming. But nobody cares about Smith, which is a shame.

I AM interested in Smith and in any possible connections you might have noticed or discovered between her attack and Tabram. That's why I “regurgitated“ the Emma Smith case here, being careful NOT to mention any details about your find, esp. WHERE it was located. (Perhaps I should have asked your permission first though, and I apologize. Again. Which has turned into a habit. Hard to break, even.)

[PaulB]

I agree with Jonathan, thank you Scott. Much food for thought.

I wrote in a post earlier (in this thread I think) that I wondered whether the "Kosminski" referred to by Swanson (without a first name) might have been other than Aaron.

I was authoritatively corrected. But Scott's analysis is interesting and I am inclined to feel it goes some way to cutting through the ambiguities and otherwise inexplicable detail of the marginalia.

If the witness was not Lawende then many new avenues would open up.

Just MHO and I recognise all entirely suppositional.

Phil

It has always been possible that Aaron Kosminski was not "Kosminski", although he fits the very limited criteria provided by Anderson: he was male, Polish, he lived in the heart of the district and with his people, he was committed to an asylum, and, perhaps most tellingly of all, he indulged in utterly unmentionable vices. He is also the only Kosminski found in the asylum records. And fairly comprehensive searches through the BDM records failed to identify anyone else "Kosminski" could be. Another candidate would be most welcome.

As you say, if the witness was not Lawende then many new avenues open up.