discussion of Aaron Kosminski's psychological profile

[Natalie Severn]

Just for the record, Houchin's "Statement of Particulars" says:
"He took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister."

Thanks for the exact wording.It would still have been a quite common form of
"domestic" threat in Whitechapel at the time as Trevor Marriot was pointing out,the police attend to dozens such "domestic" threats---and worse, every Saturday night .

[Chris]

This is nonsense. I believe the words were "said to have threatened his sister with a knife" ...

Just for the record, Houchin's certificate says:
"He took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister."

[Natalie Severn]

a person could only be committed to broadmoor if he was found to be guilty of a crime.

So Kosminski was innocent -he certainly didnt have a criminal record -except for not putting a muzzle on his dog when walking it in November 1889.

[Natalie Severn]

a person could only be committed to broadmoor if he was found to be guilty of a crime.

Sure about that Rob?,if the police seriously thought they had something on Kosminski,they would have locked him up in the appropriate secure hospital,just as they did with Cutbush --------the women were not sure they had recognised him if I remember right .It also shows that ,as Macnaghten said,there wasnt a shadow of proof.It was all based on prejudice about a poor chap with some rather dirty habits[by which I mean "eating out of gutters etc]

[Debra A]

a person could only be committed to broadmoor if he was found to be guilty of a crime.

Rob, as I understand it, Cutbush was sent to Broadmoor without having undergone a trial. He was found unfit to plead and sent straight to Broadmoor. I've always wondered if being charged with a crime was enough.

[robhouse]

a person could only be committed to broadmoor if he was found to be guilty of a crime.

[Natalie Severn]

They very clearly would admit someone who took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister, since that part is actually written from a statement and follows the pre-printed question on the standard admission form that you were apparently qouting.

Dangerous to other: "no" (the only part of your 'quote' that is actually true is the word 'no'). and then followed by the written statement of threatening the life of his sister with a knife.

It is doubtful that the doctors or staff would have had the first inkling of whether or not Kosminski was JtR. No, I doubt they would have taken JtR if they had known that's who they were taking. Yes, they would take violent inmates, evidenced by the Kosminski's admission.

This is nonsense. I believe the words were "said to have threatened his sister with a knife" and believe me that would have amounted to bugger all in Victorian domestics.

It is also reveals a great deal of ignorance about Victorian doctors expertise and their staff to suggest that they would have been so absurdly ignorant about a patient they were dealing with.

[Pontius2000]

That Doctors would allow a man as dangerous as the ripper to be detained in an ordinary asylum is very unlikely.Check out what happened to any of the criminally insane at this period and you will find the dangerous ones-were all sent to Broadmoor--including Thomas Cutbush who according to Macnaghten was sent there for having " jobbed two women in the behind "let alone murdering and mutilating at least five women in quick succession and causing pandemonium in the metropolis.

No doctor would put the lives of his patients and staff at risk with a known murderer at large among them for a period stretching over thirty years when there was no way of controlling episodes of insanity with drugs in those days.
Poor Kosminski deteriorated rapidly after 1894,just three years after admission.There is a clear description of the form that deterioration took in his succinct medical notes and nowhere does it include any reference to him being dangerous to others.

They very clearly would admit someone who took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister, since that part is actually written from a statement and follows the pre-printed question on the standard admission form that you were apparently qouting.

Dangerous to other: "no" (the only part of your 'quote' that is actually true is the word 'no'). and then followed by the written statement of threatening the life of his sister with a knife.

It is doubtful that the doctors or staff would have had the first inkling of whether or not Kosminski was JtR. No, I doubt they would have taken JtR if they had known that's who they were taking. Yes, they would take violent inmates, evidenced by the Kosminski's admission.

[Natalie Severn]

That Doctors would allow a man as dangerous as the ripper to be detained in an ordinary asylum is very unlikely.Check out what happened to any of the criminally insane at this period and you will find the dangerous ones-were all sent to Broadmoor--including Thomas Cutbush who according to Macnaghten was sent there for having " jobbed two women in the behind "let alone murdering and mutilating at least five women in quick succession and causing pandemonium in the metropolis.

No doctor would put the lives of his patients and staff at risk with a known murderer at large among them for a period stretching over thirty years when there was no way of controlling episodes of insanity with drugs in those days.
Poor Kosminski deteriorated rapidly after 1894,just three years after admission.There is a clear description of the form that deterioration took in his succinct medical notes and nowhere does it include any reference to him being dangerous to others.

[Pontius2000]

Hi Pontius,Its now available in several books.The first time I happened to read it was in Paul Beggs The Facts.


Dont be silly . The point being that to have stopped for over a year ---presumably without medication ,and been at liberty throughout, seems a rather unlikely candidate for Jack the Ripper.
What other women do you mean that were murdered before his incarceration?

Quite a coincidence, the Paul Begg book you mentioned happened to be the most recent book I read. It's sitting here beside the computer. There is no such quote in Begg's book, and I just checked to verify. Perhaps you are mistaken as to which book it was in?

There have been numerous examples of serial killers who lead supposedly normal lives, being unmedicated, and while continuing to kill. So I'm not being 'silly' at all.

The other women who were killed after Mary Kelly and before Kosminski's incarceration?

Alice McKenzie, July 1889
Elizabeth Jackson, May 1889
Pinchin St Torso, September 1889

That's 3 right there. I'm not saying that any one of these were Ripper victims. But you have the air as if you 'know' that Kelly was the final Ripper victim, and you don't know that at all.

First you tell me to "get real", then "don't be silly". Don't come here trying to insult me by using quotes that don't exist and making assumptions without any proof or evidence. Thanks.

[robhouse]

"Whether dangerous to others and in what way: No"

This comes from a form called "Statement of Particulars" that was filled out and signed by Maurice Whitfield, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town Relieving Officer, in February 1891. The information from this form was then copied into the Male Patients Day Book, New Series, No 20, Middlesex Asylum, Colney Hatch and then later into the Leavesden asylum records. It is still a bit unclear to me whether this form was filled out based on information supplied by the people who brought Aaron to the workhouse (ie. his brother Wolf presumably) or whether it was based on Dr. Houchin's direct observations and conclusions about the patient. As a side note, Houchin was a police surgeon for H Division.

In any case, it has been suggested that it was repeatedly stated that Kozminski was not dangerous to others. In fact, this nugget of information was only apparently entered one time, then copied from one form to another. Sugden has noted that the entry was "let stand" whereas others were altered, but whether or not this is relevant is unclear. It seems possible to me that Wolf Abrahams (Aaron's brother) was simply asked if Aaron was dangerous, and he replied "no." If so, any further notes on his dangerousness would presumably have been based on his behavior in the asylum.

In addition, if the police were "involved" in having Kozminski committed (which also seems likely), then they might have had some input in terms of what exactly was entered into Kozminski's file, and what was communicated to the staff at the asylum. If, as has been suggested, the police believed that Aaron might have been the Ripper, then presumably this suspicion would have been communicated to the upper level officials at the asylum, while it may not have been communicated to the staff, for fear that rumors might spread. This assumes that the police would have wanted to hush up the Kozminski affair, which I also think is entirely reasonable.

RH

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Pontius,Its now available in several books.The first time I happened to read it was in Paul Beggs The Facts.

Serial killers don't walk dogs, is that your argument.

Dont be silly . The point being that to have stopped for over a year ---presumably without medication ,and been at liberty throughout, seems a rather unlikely candidate for Jack the Ripper.
What other women do you mean that were murdered before his incarceration?

[Pontius2000]

Hi All,
Lets not forget that in the Autumn of 1889 a year after Mary Kelly"s murder, Aaron Kosminski was walking the dog around Cheapside .We know this because the dog he was walking didnt have the recently,legally required muzzle on so Aaron was taken to court.
Once Aaron Kosminski had been incarcerated,he was diagnosed as "not being a danger [B]to others[/B.

Let's also not forget that Mary Kelly was not the last woman murdered in the East end of London between 1888 and the end of 1891. Serial killers don't walk dogs, is that your argument.

Also, if you have the report from which your "not a danger to others" quote came from, I'd like to see that.

[corey123]

Hello Rob,

Yeah, schizo-affective mood disorder is a biggie. However, it is very easy to get the negative symptoms(alogia, avolition, flattening effect) confused with symptoms of the dual spectrums of bipolar disorder.

The DSM-IV critera for schizophrenia and schizoaffective mood disorder are almost identicle.

That is why some speculate they may be very very related. I fear the out come will be that schizophrenia in itself is rare, but schizo-affective would occupy the most psychological territory.

[robhouse]

Just a couple quick points.

First I do think Kozminski's records indicate schizophrenia as a more likely diagnosis than bipolar disorder. However, there is still a good deal of debate within the field of psychology over terms like schizo-affective disorder. For example, some argue that bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia may be less differentiated than commonly believed, in the sense that they fall within a spectrum of disorders that are differentiated by severity, but may share the same symptoms, etc. Hence, bi-polar, paranoid schizophrenia, and severe schizophrenia may fall on a spectrum, and may share some symptoms. These symptoms may also be measured separately and rated in terms of severity. Paranoid schizophrenia might be seen as less severe than disorganized schizophrenia... some argue that paranoid schizophrenia may not be one disorder, but several separate problems, a cluster of symptoms. Hence paranoid thinking (by itself) might be measured on a different scale from other symptoms. I realize what I am writing here is not very clear, but I believe that the differentiation between these disorders is not so clear as the DSM-IV seems to suggest.

Second point - Aaron Kozminski was not an imbecile. The term imbecile was a legal/medical term for a very specific type of "insane" person... specifically one born with an intellectual disability or mental retardation. Despite what other have written, there is absolutely NO evidence that Kozminski was an imbecile. Instead he was classified as a "person of unsound mind" which in summary was fairly similar to "lunatic". The he was later classified as a "lunatic." The only reason it has been assumed Kozminski was an imbecile was that he was admitted to the Imbecile Asylum at Leavesden... but in fact Leavesden admitted a variety of cases, and their primary criteria for admission was that a patient be incurable (chronic) and not disruptive to the asylum population. The term "Imbecile Asylum" in other words was a sort of misnomer... the asylum in fact was more of an overflow container for housing chronic incurables. Unfortunately, the so-called "fact" that Kozminski was an imbecile has been repeated so many times (in books, here on the message boards) that it is taking some time to sink in. In short, it is a meme, but incorrect.

It may be interpreted that Kozminski was a paranoid-type schizophrenic, and as such he may have been a bit more organized than the "disorganized" type schizophrenic... hence, able to hide his disorder, able to engage people in conversation etc.

In my opinion, it is probable that the Ripper type was what is known as a disorganized-type lust murderer (as defined by the FBI). The lust murderer is differentiated from the sadistic killer for example, by being primarily interested in mutilating the body after death, especially focusing on the sexual organs. So for example, Dahmer was a lust murderer. Based on the assumption that the Ripper was this type of killer, the FBI (in their profile for the Ustinov tv show) concluded that the Ripper was probably schizophrenic.

As far as solitary vices... the record indicates that Kozminski masturbated, we can assume that he may have done so "chronically" or frequently. Whether or not this indicates hypersexuality, I do not know. However, masturbation was often assumed to be the cause of many medical and psychological disorders at this time.

RH