discussion of Aaron Kosminski's psychological profile

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I thought it a little odd that Macnaghten still uses "Mr" to a person whom he suspects as being the most vicious murderer they had ever known.

Regards, Jon S.

No such courtesy was accorded Aaron Kosminski by either Macnaghten or Swanson: just plain 'Kosminski'.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,

No, he wrote "Mr. M. J. Druitt". But nice try, though :-)

Yes, but I think you missed my point.
Just by way of example, pull up the Inquest reports in the press of Stride, Chapman, Kelly, etc. Occasionally we see the doctors titled "Dr", as we do today, but mostly they are given their due respect as "Mr".
I thought it a little odd that Macnaghten still uses "Mr" to a person whom he suspects as being the most vicious murderer they had ever known.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

Following on from my previous post:

To anticipate this question:

Why would Macnaghten tell Anderson 'Kosminski' was deceased, yet hint with Griffiths -- and even more emphatically with Sims (1907) -- that the same Polish Jew 'suspect' was still alive?

My theory is because making him dead for Anderson-Swanson prevented any kind of investigation on their part, but then he switched back to the truth with his literary cronies, as he was pushing hard a thesis onto them; that the Ripper could not have lasted more than a few hours without killing himself as it was a human mind blown to smithereens by what it had done, and seen to have done to Kelly's remains -- and Mac had the grisly photos to 'prove' it!

A dead 'Kosminski' would have muddied the waters, so he was brought back to life and thus only Druitt gets to be in his grave -- the very morning of the worst atrocity.

Of course, Griffiths and Sims did not know that 'Dr D' did not drown himself in the Thames 'as the crow flies' from Miller's Ct. -- which is still a helluva feat to avoid people whilst staggering like an automaton covered in blood, and screaming and shrieking --as the rotting corpse was actually fished out at Chiswick.

Mac would have known this at the very least from P.C. Moulson's Report -- if not from a variety of Druitt sources -- and therefore the idea that Druitt killed Kelly, then killed himself 'a shrieking, raving fiend' within mere hours all the way at Chiswick -- and nobody noticing -- was patently absurd (Mac entirely dropped the location and method of Druitt's suicide from the tale, in his memoirs, to try and and make it plausible -- and even then he somewhat hedged on the specific date: 'on or about ...' and in his preface pre-emptively apologized for any 'inaccuracies')

[Jonathan H]

To Marlowe

It is just my opinion, but I think that in 1895 Macnaghten claimed to Anderson that he had found that a name on the house-to-house list, or some such ,list of local men. had been sectioned in early 1889 after attacking his sister with a knife. That the family 'suspected the worst' and were happy to have their member 'safely caged' as he hated harlots -- he was very dangerous.

This man was a chronic self-abuser and Anderson took that very seriously as an example of the brutish character of this maniac.

That the doctors at the asylum had no inkling of any of this, and since the man could never be brought before a court -- as he's dead -- it might as well stay that way.

Anderson also felt that this was typical of Polish Jews. Instead of seeking assistance they would rather harbour a fiend than co-operate with what they spit on as 'Gentile justice'

What was his name, Macnaghten?

.... 'Kosminski'! Definitely Kosminski. I just cannot remember the rest? One of these days I must get myself a notebook.

Of course what Macnaghten was telling Anderson was a fictional variation of the truth as Aaron Kosminski was sectioned when Mac already had been on the force for nearly two years!

In the 'Aberconway' version (which may have been written as late as 1898) Mac hints that he knows that 'Kosminski' is very much alive in the madhouse, not 'died shortly after' as Swanson mistakenly thinks -- or was misled to believe?

[Errata]

Errata, you must have a time machine with an ESP drip attached.

Searching the records, Martin Fido found David Cohen and proposed it was name confusion with Nathan Kaminsky. Then he found Kosminski. He wrote a book about it. Go left to Suspects/Cohen to read a very good summation by Swedish writer Glenn L Andersson.

Cohen is the man we discussed the other day about old medical terms.

Roy

Hehheh.

I always knew that confusion was a theory on this, especially with the more prevalent name of Kaminsky or Kominsky. But neither name is SUPER common, so it seemed pretty out there that two people with such similar last names would have similar abnormal behaviors or disorders.

What I was thinking of was what my sister calls "desk-tritus". You work on several projects at once or go through a bunch of files, and at the end there are various papers that belonged in other files, but you pulled them out to compare them, or you didn't see them, whatever. Since the last files contents are spread over the desk, any strays get swept into the last file you look at. So if the last page of a court record for John Smith and his many domestic violence charges, and an evaluation for a George Thomas who rubs himself against women, and say the detective's lunch order for the new guy to pick up for him are all left on the desk when he finishes the Kosminski file, it all goes in the Kosminski file.

And five years down the road someone looks at again and says "Eureka! He is violent, he is a deviant, and he is insane (and at some point wanted shepherds pie with a side of pickle). This is our guy!"

I'm gonna go read that thing now.

[Marlowe]

Wickerman,

No, he wrote "Mr. M. J. Druitt". But nice try, though :-) So I think your point does not hold up, although what you wrote was interesting, even if it failed to support your argument. Also, Swanson has no reason to show such "respect" in his very un-official margin writings. Well, at least you gave it a shot.

[Wickerman]

Marlowe.
The tradition is well understood and reflected in numerous correspondance and society in general, so much so, that I was surprised you even asked the question.
If you understand the tradition the question is mute.

Whether the tradition is stricktly observed in every instance is immaterial. What shows up as odd, if anything, is that the first suspect is addressed as "Mr" (Druitt).
Macnaghten even convey's due respect to a "doctor of good family" even though he might have been Jack the Ripper?

Regards, Jon S.

[Marlowe]

Wickerman,

So Macnaghten showed respect for Kosminski but not M. J Druitt and Michael Ostrog?

[Wickerman]

Marlowe.
Do you see an over abundance of first names used in official 19th century documents?
I hardly think you will. The 19th century view was to show respect by using only surnames for men. You never use a man's first name for fear of presumed familiarity.
It's a traditional thing that has mostly died out, but there is nothing mysterious or intentionally misleading about it.
At British institutions like Cambridge & Oxford, and in consequence the higher levels of society, this tradition is still maintained.

Regards, Jon S.

[Marlowe]

Chris,

Okay...so I'm the elder troll around here...that's fine with me. Now why not show me how mature you are and answer my question.

Why did both men only mention the suspect's last name? I would really like to hear an explanation for this. thanks.

[Roy Corduroy]

Is it possible that Kosminski as a suspect was a filing error? Several pages on some other guy getting mixed in with Kosminski?

Errata, you must have a time machine with an ESP drip attached.

Searching the records, Martin Fido found David Cohen and proposed it was name confusion with Nathan Kaminsky. Then he found Kosminski. He wrote a book about it. Go left to Suspects/Cohen to read a very good summation by Swedish writer Glenn L Andersson.

Cohen is the man we discussed the other day about old medical terms.

Roy

[Chris]

You can't answer my question. Because you don't have a good answer.

It's more a question of having being around long enough to recognise a troll when I see one, and knowing that the very worst thing you can do with a troll is to feed it.

[Marlowe]

You can't answer my question. Because you don't have a good answer.

[Chris]

Marlowe

If you can suggest an answer to my question, I'll be interested to hear it, but I'm not going to play games.

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

Yes, you're right, the whole report(s) could be a careful deflection away from the real, middle-aged doctor suspect of 1888, as Littlechild was trying to make Sims realize in 1913.

Or Mac fused Tumblety and Druitt together for the sake of a better tale for Scotland Yard, but once they are separated both fall apart as minor and/or unlikely.

Stewart Evans has made the strong argument that in the single, official document on file at the Yard, Mac described Druitt as really nothing much. That this should be regarded as his true opinion about this suspect, not what he later told cronies or inflated for publishers.

My provisional judgment, based on a revisionist interpretation of Mac's simultaneously cagey and yet candid memoir, is that he sincerely and completely believed that Druitt was the fiend -- from 1891 to his death thirty years later.

I do not think that Mac would have trusted anything the upper class twit and fellow Old Etonian Farquharson told him, not without thorough checking.

I do think that Macnaghten knew everything about Druitt.