Plausibility of Kosminski

[Hunter]

...There just isn't the kind of data with serial killers that they would need. For this reason, to date not one serial killer captured was was the result of a profile. Not one. Not one serial killer task force has succeeded. Not one.

I'm not a big fan of serial killer profiling either. The categorization of types into 'organized' and 'disorganized' is problematic because the profilers, themselves, admit that many offenders displays traits of both types. If that's the case, then such categories are irrelevant. Individuals are just that...individuals who, like everyone, have their own unique traits.

But I can state one case where profiling did lead to the apprehension of the murderer and that was the case I previously mentioned - Richard Chase. Ressler's profile was used to query people of the area as to whether anyone of that description was seen. As I mentioned, one woman did, knew his name and the police found him. The 'Mad Bomber' of the 1950's was apprehended with the help of a profile provided by Dr. James Brussel. It was thought that the Atlanta child murderer was a white supremacist until the BSU agents went to Atlanta and told the authorities there that they should be looking for a black man who used a ploy to gain the confidence of his victims.

Personally, I would bet that Rob House could draw up a more accurate profile of the Ripper if he were to approach this case suspect-free than John Douglas could. Or Jonathan Hainsworth, or Monty. But the fact that the 'key points' of the standard profile fit literally every suspect put forth, from D'Onston to Druitt to the Kozmeister, should tell us a thing or two.

Suspect theorists draw a profile that fits their suspect and it is not consistent. He either has anatomical knowledge or he doesn't. He resides in the East End or he doesn't. He's a cunning organized killer or he's a lucky disorganized killer. Even some of the murders weren't committed by their man because he wasn't there at the time. Or, someone started the skien that others took advantage of. The imagination runs wild with some people.

The reality is that this was a short series of murders (even if McKenzie and Coles are included) perpetrated with a knife, involving the same type of victim, in the same constricted area with no normal motive apparent and they were out of the ordinary from other crimes that had taken place... and not one individual was ever prosecuted and convicted for any of them. It could have been coincidence and several murderers were involved or it could be that the same individual committed all of them - from Smith to Coles - and would laugh at the minutia we obsess ourselves with in dissecting each one of these murders for comparison as if everything has to fall into some neat little package. And yet, there are inconsistencies in nearly every series of murders that have since taken place that have involved one single perpetrator, but we continue to ignore this fact as if our own predilections will provide some more complex answer that is to our liking.

[Tom_Wescott]

But of one thing we may be certain: Aaron Kosminski was not Jack the Ripper.

I'm not capable of such certainty, since I know the same amount about Kozminski as the rest of you, which is next to nothing. I personally don't think he was Jack the Ripper, but that probably reflects my biases more than anything. I know much more about Druitt and Tumblety, and from this mass of knowledge I feel they weren't the Ripper, especially Tumblety. But imagine if all we know about the Tumbster was that Littlechild liked him and that he was later seen with uterus specimens, and that he fled to America...I think I'd be viewing him with a lot more suspicion. But since we know so much about him that virtually rules him out for the murders, and further research has pretty much destroyed all the original reasons for suspecting him in the first place, most of us don't view him with any suspicion at all. We don't have that luxury with Koz. We don't even have that starting point of knowing why ANYONE suspected him in the first place. All we can talk about are the guys who DID and DIDN'T suspect him, and a witness ID that obviously occurred because he was ALREADY suspected for reasons we can only guess at.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

But I can state one case where profiling did lead to the apprehension of the murderer and that was the case I previously mentioned - Richard Chase. Ressler's profile was used to query people of the area as to whether anyone of that description was seen. As I mentioned, one woman did, knew his name and the police found him. The 'Mad Bomber' of the 1950's was apprehended with the help of a profile provided by Dr. James Brussel. It was thought that the Atlanta child murderer was a white supremacist until the BSU agents went to Atlanta and told the authorities there that they should be looking for a black man who used a ploy to gain the confidence of his victims.

LOL. Brussel was a hinderance to the investigation, had nothing to do with his capture. It was a female file clerk who led investigators to the Mad Bomber. As for the Atlanta Child Murders, Douglas' profile and assistance in court sent an innocent man to prison. I'd hardly want to cite either of these examples as 'success stories' of profiling.

Having said that, we ALL profile. We can't help it. When I stated earlier that I don't think Tumblety was the Ripper, that's based on what I see as relevant or irrelevant in terms of the available evidence. If I say I don't think a gay man was the Ripper, I'm 'profiling' him as a straight man, or at least not gay. My only beef are with people who earn their living as profilers and sell themselves based on myths and an exaggeration of their own abilities. WE can do that, because lives aren't at stake in a century old case. But active cases where a real killer on the lose is another matter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

I'm not capable of such certainty, since I know the same amount about Kozminski as the rest of you, which is next to nothing.

Specifically, we have no information at all about Aaron Kozminski's state of mind in the Autumn of 1888. So we're not in position to compare it with the results of psychological profiling.

[Wickerman]

Nicely written post Garry.

...It has been suggested that a schizophrenic might have perpetrated these crimes whilst experiencing a lucid period. This, however, is unlikely.

Agreed, though it cannot be denied the actions of the Whitechapel murderer are hardly those of a sound mind, but the schizophrenia argument falls short of conviction.
The murderer had to be insane to some degree but this 'mania' was not outwardly noticable, and this 'mania' apparently did not hinder his thought processes or his actions on the nights in question.
What we seem to be dealing with was a man who was outwardly normal, in control & aware of his surroundings, yet harbors intentions which are wholly abnormal.

We see none of this in the case of Aaron Kosminski. In fact, the medical reports suggest that Kosminski was a hebephrenic rather than paranoid schizophrenic, and there is every indication that he was an essentially benign individual who had no history of violence or haematic preoccupation.

But of one thing we may be certain: Aaron Kosminski was not Jack the Ripper.

Where I would hold reservation is on the subject of "what was Kosminski's condition in 1888?".
I could not be certain that Kosminski, or anyone else, was not the murderer in 1888, clearly someone was. Does that mean Kosminski can be included?, yes it does.
Not because of any presumed insanity, merely because he did live in the vicinity at the time. The most obvious fly in the ointment, to my mind, is his age at 23. I think that fact speaks more against his candidacy than anything else.

What is needed are medical records of someone who is suffering from schizophrenia which might parallel the records we have of Kosminski in 1892.
Then we need to know what the condition of that person was 4 years previous.
This might give a clue to Kosminski's condition in 1888. Without this barometer we are all just treading water.

Kosminski appeared in court over the dog incident in 1889, somewhat of a failed encore for a Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Jon S.

[GregBaron]

Koz or no Koz...

Not because of any presumed insanity, merely because he did live in the vicinity at the time. The most obvious fly in the ointment, to my mind, is his age at 23. I think that fact speaks more against his candidacy than anything else.

Nice post Wickerman. I believe the first manifestations of schizophrenia occur in the early 20's. Koz at this time could have been free of symptoms or just beginning to experience them. If he also had psychopathic tendencies he could be the fiend before the delusions made it impossible.

Recall also that he was a heavy masturbator apparently, which can be indicative of hyper-sexuality or other deviancy's which could manifest themselves as a lust murderer. I know it's a huge leap from 'yanking it' to murder but it's one of the few details we have...

It's very hard to keep Koz in the frame but I think your point is key - his mind in 1888 is the question - not his mind many years later....


Greg

[Garry Wroe]

I'd also add that cops, vigilantes and most of Whitechapel were looking for him - including the door to door searches - and he managed to avoid detection there as well.

Absolutely, Greg. This man was no Morriarty, but neither was he a Kosminski. Somewhere in-between, I tend to believe.

[Garry Wroe]

But then why do you think that Anderson and/or Swanson thought [presumably] Aaron Kosmisnki was the Ripper … In fact strongly believed this to be the case.

My belief, Jonathan, is that Kosminski came to the attention of investigators and was identified by Schwartz. His personal circumstances were looked into and were thought to provide a perfect explanation for the cessation of the murders. He also conformed to Anderson’s preconceived notion that the killer was not only mentally unstable, but a low-class Polish Jew. In other words, the identification aside, the whole case against Kosminski was purely suppositional.

Anderson, of course, later stated that the killer’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’. But the reality that no investigator beyond Swanson gave the slightest credence to this ‘identification’ is so bizarre as to beggar belief. More extraordinarily still, Abberline stated in 1903 that the rumour that the killer had been caged in an asylum was completely without foundation.

So whilst I am in no doubt that a positive identification took place at the Seaside Home as described by Swanson, the rest of the case against Kosminski was less a ‘definitely ascertained fact’ than a classic example of ‘confirmation bias.’ Whether consciously or not, Anderson magnified those elements which conformed to his Kosminski-as-Ripper belief, and all but dismissed those that didn’t. Hence his ‘moral certainty’ as to the killer’s identity.

That’s the way I see it, anyway.

[Garry Wroe]

The murderer had to be insane to some degree but this 'mania' was not outwardly noticable, and this 'mania' apparently did not hinder his thought processes or his actions on the nights in question.

Absolutely, Jon.

What we seem to be dealing with was a man who was outwardly normal, in control & aware of his surroundings, yet harbors intentions which are wholly abnormal.

That’s my reading of it, too, hence my suggestion the posters should familiarize themselves with the case of Arthur Shawcross.

Where I would hold reservation is on the subject of "what was Kosminski's condition in 1888?".

I can understand that, Jon, but there were no effective treatments for schizophrenia in 1888 – unless the drilling of holes into patients’ skulls might be considered effective. Given that Kosminski had not attempted any kind of work for years, I think it likely that his ‘instincts’ extended back prior to 1888. Indeed, the most common onset time for schizophrenia is between the mid-teens and early-twenties. Thus I’m inclined to believe that he was probably psychotic during the relevant timeframe.

I could not be certain that Kosminski, or anyone else, was not the murderer in 1888, clearly someone was. Does that mean Kosminski can be included?, yes it does.

Let me put it another way, Jon. If Kosminski was lucid during the Ripper’s operational timeframe, I very much doubt that he would have committed a series of mutilation murders. If, on the other hand, he was psychotic, his disrupted cognitive functionality makes it virtually impossible that he could have committed these murders with the lethal efficiency that characterized the Ripper’s mode of operation.

There is nothing about Kosminski to suggest that he harboured fantasies involving the destruction of women. So far as we are aware, he had no history of violence and remained passive throughout his twenty-eight years of incarceration. Nor did he confess to the killings. Compare this to Richard Trenton Chase, Herb Mullin, Ed Gein, Joachim Kroll, Sirhan Sirhan, Albert Fish, or the many other psychotic killers who openly admitted to their crimes both upon arrest and whilst incarcerated.

As far as I’m concerned there is no case against Kosminski, and even less likelihood that he was the Whitechapel Murderer. If others disagree, fine. But I need something more tangible than Anderson’s ‘moral certainty’, and it simply isn’t there.

[Hunter]

There is nothing about Kosminski to suggest that he harboured fantasies involving the destruction of women.

Nothing that we know of, but, of course, there was this from Macnaghten:

'He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies'

Where he got his information is not known; nor how reliable Macnaghten was considering the errors in his document. He claimed Ostrog was a homicidal maniac when some of the police involved with Ostrog thought he was faking insanity. We now know Ostrog's record and there was only the altercation with a policeman.

So far as we are aware, he had no history of violence and remained passive throughout his twenty-eight years of incarceration. Nor did he confess to the killings. Compare this to Richard Trenton Chase, Herb Mullin, Ed Gein, Joachim Kroll, Sirhan Sirhan, Albert Fish, or the many other psychotic killers who openly admitted to their crimes both upon arrest and whilst incarcerated.

That is the most revealing. Most of the psychotic killers that I've read about too, chattered like a magpie after they were apprehended. Their condition seemed to cause them to relive these events as a recurring manifestation.

[Chris]

Given that Kosminski had not attempted any kind of work for years, I think it likely that his ‘instincts’ extended back prior to 1888. Indeed, the most common onset time for schizophrenia is between the mid-teens and early-twenties. Thus I’m inclined to believe that he was probably psychotic during the relevant timeframe.

Of course it's possible, but obviously there's no basis here for "certainty" about any of this. The information just isn't available.

[Garry Wroe]

Of course it's possible, but obviously there's no basis here for "certainty" about any of this. The information just isn't available.

Except, Chris, that schizophrenia doesn't manifest itself overnight. It is years in the making and often stems back to childhood.

[Garry Wroe]

That is the most revealing. Most of the psychotic killers that I've read about too, chattered like a magpie after they were apprehended. Their condition seemed to cause them to relive these events as a recurring manifestation.

It's often the case too, Hunter, that they fail to understand the ramifications of their actions. Chase believed that his killings were relatively unimportant and simply represented the means to an end. In his case, the end was the prevention of his own death via 'soap-dish poisoning'.

[Chris]

Except, Chris, that schizophrenia doesn't manifest itself overnight. It is years in the making and often stems back to childhood.

Be that as it may, as I said, there's obviously no basis for certainty about any of this. You yourself say only that you're inclined to believe that he was probably psychotic at the relevant time.

Others may have different opinions. My point is that it is a matter of opinion, not something any of us can be certain about.

[Hunter]

It's often the case too, Hunter, that they fail to understand the ramifications of their actions. Chase believed that his killings were relatively unimportant and simply represented the means to an end. In his case, the end was the prevention of his own death via 'soap-dish poisoning'.

In speaking of Chase, some of the people involved with prosecuting him thought that he was legitimately insane and shouldn't have gotten the death penalty because he didn't understand the ramifications. He decided the issue himself by committing suicide with an overdose of drugs he had accumulated from his 'treatment regimen'... a bit ironic.