Kosminski Identification Questions

[bkohatl]

He wasn't arrested and was mentally ill. I am assuming he was less than cooperative---maybe his family protested as well. It may have been done without explaining why. If the police were afraid of a racial explosion, then their secrecy makes perfect sense.

[mariab]

I trust that all of you have already read Rob House's book?
(I've got it here, and hope to read it next weekend.)

[Jeff Leahy]

But what if Kosminski's condition had improved? We were told his mania came in spells. We now know this spell lasted for the next 20 years. This 20 year "spell" wouldnt have been so obvious to the police at the time of the identification.
.

If Aaron was indeed suffering Hebophrenic Schizophrenia then that seems most probable.

The illness attacks in waves, typically starting in late teens early twenties, called psychotic episodes, they last typically 16-18 weeks. Periods in between attacks are also cyclicar but less predictable and can be effected by other causes, stress, alcohol, drugs etc. They vary in length according to individual.

Psychotic episode increase in severity to a period in early thirties known as burn out, here the sufferer symply removes himself from normal reality pretty much permanently.

Aaron Kosminski seems to have been coherent during his court appearance suggesting that he also had moments of lucidity typical of this illness.

Yours Pirate

[jason_c]

Excellent debate, thank you Stewart and Paul.

I would like to ask a question about Kosminski and his legal status. It was claimed by Anderson that the witness who identified Kosminski refused to as he did not wish to see a fellow Jew hang. This has been questioned by authors recently as Kosminski would have been unfit for trial.

But what if Kosminski's condition had improved? We were told his mania came in spells. We now know this spell lasted for the next 20 years. This 20 year "spell" wouldnt have been so obvious to the police at the time of the identification.


Ed Gein was found guilty of murder after many years of being unfit to stand trial. This was of course after huge leaps in mental treatment compared to 1888.

[mariab]

Oh yes, Mr. Begg (Paul), I sorta remember about this quasi bombing now and the controversy about it possibly having been a provocatory story. I'll most certainly read Bussey (in August, as it's at the bottom of my Rip lit list right now. Re-reading Gavin Bromley's old Ms. Kürr article is at the top :-)).

[PaulB]

Thank you SO much Mr. Begg for providing an internet link to Bussey!
I'm about to read Rocker this weekend (an exemplary on loan most generously provided by Lynn Cates), and I've perused Butterworth and Clutterbuck online, but in Clutterbuck I must have missed the part about “Mallon's claim that Millen humbugged Anderson over the Jubilee Plot, which is countered to some extent by Monro's concerns over the event in his unpublished memoirs“, as I have to confess I was more interested in perusing the SB ledgers parts in Clutterbuck. And I'm hesitant about buying Butterworth, since lots of it when I perused it online appeared as too “light“ and even “gossipy“ (chatting away on Karl Marx's relationship with his daughter, Karl Marx's hemorroids, etc.). But I might get Butterworth from the library, to read it in full once (or twice).

As for my perceiving you as “being on opposite ends“ with Mr. Evans, I meant just referring to the question of Anderson being “trustworthy“ or not pertaining to the results of the Ripper investigation in his book(s), both published and in serialized from, with the discrepancies and controversies resulting thereof.


By the way, the “aknowledging“ part (about you and Mr. Evans being actually closer in the middle than either of you care to think, let alone acknowledge) I find completely endearing. :-)

There was a Fenian plot to plant bombs in Westminster Abbey at the time of Queen Victoria's Jubilee in 1887, the leader of which was F.F. Millen. Anderson refers to it in his book The Lighter Side... and according to Mallon via Bussey, "Millen humbugged them." This opinion was shared by others, including H.B. Simpson, a Home Office clerk, and in 1910 by some Irish MP's. Anderson and Monro also acknowledged that Millen was in the pay of the English. Doubts about the seriousness of the plot have existed ever since, and even that the plot was real. Clutterbuck, however, rightly states that "as Monro describes it in some detail in his memoirs (p. 67-90), as well as recounting it in his evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee
set up to enquire into certain aspects of it (see Le Caron, 1894, who quotes
in full the evidence as reported by The Times), there seems to be
good reason to suppose that a "Jubilee Plot" really did exist, in some form or another. Whether it could have come to fruition remains a matter for debate."

[Stewart P Evans]

Anyway...

Anyway, Ripperologically Paul is a lot more fun than I am.

[mariab]

Thank you SO much Mr. Begg for providing an internet link to Bussey!
I'm about to read Rocker this weekend (an exemplary on loan most generously provided by Lynn Cates), and I've perused Butterworth and Clutterbuck online, but in Clutterbuck I must have missed the part about “Mallon's claim that Millen humbugged Anderson over the Jubilee Plot, which is countered to some extent by Monro's concerns over the event in his unpublished memoirs“, as I have to confess I was more interested in perusing the SB ledgers parts in Clutterbuck. And I'm hesitant about buying Butterworth, since lots of it when I perused it online appeared as too “light“ and even “gossipy“ (chatting away on Karl Marx's relationship with his daughter, Karl Marx's hemorroids, etc.). But I might get Butterworth from the library, to read it in full once (or twice).

As for my perceiving you as “being on opposite ends“ with Mr. Evans, I meant just referring to the question of Anderson being “trustworthy“ or not pertaining to the results of the Ripper investigation in his book(s), both published and in serialized from, with the discrepancies and controversies resulting thereof.
By the way, the “aknowledging“ part (about you and Mr. Evans being actually closer in the middle than either of you care to think, let alone acknowledge) I find completely endearing. :-)

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

I'm not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Stewart and I are on "almost opposite ends" as I think it is probably true to say that we are actually closer in the middle than either of us care to think, let alone acknowledge.
The whole of Bussey is available online: http://www.askaboutireland.ie/aai-fi...NSPIRACIES.pdf and there is a book about Joseph Mallon Inspector Mallon: Buying Irish Patriotism for a Five-pound Note by Donal P. McCracken (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2009)

Yes, you are probably right Paul.

I have had the McCracken book for some time now and read it with great interest. It is a long-overdue biography and well worth the price. A nice book.

[PaulB]

Well, in this specific debate about Anderson's intentions in his claiming that the Ripper was known to the police and “safely caged“, it's pretty clear that Mr. Evans and Mr. Begg stand on almost opposite ends (while, more accurately, Mr. Fido would have provided the exact opposite of Mr. Evans' position). In this particular case I (almost) fully agree with Mr. Evans on all counts, but I've noticed that on other debates, specifically pertaining to Berner Street, Mr. Begg was more accessible/open to some of the new (well researched) ideas I and others have been representing/researching, so I'm really interested to see how the future discussion pertaining to all this will develop (following the results of the current research, it goes without saying).

I'm not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Stewart and I are on "almost opposite ends" as I think it is probably true to say that we are actually closer in the middle than either of us care to think, let alone acknowledge.

The whole of Bussey is available online: http://www.askaboutireland.ie/aai-fi...NSPIRACIES.pdf and there is a book about Joseph Mallon Inspector Mallon: Buying Irish Patriotism for a Five-pound Note by Donal P. McCracken (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2009)

[Stewart P Evans]

Bussy

...
...
Also thank you so very much, Mr. Evans and Mr. Begg, for informing us about
the Mallon via Frederick Moir Bussey story and Anderson's involvement in questioning Mallon. I assume that Bussey interviewed Mallon contemporaneously? Also, I'd love to know more about “Mallon's claim that Millen humbugged Anderson over the Jubilee Plot, {which} is countered to some extent by Monro's concerns over the event in his unpublished memoirs“ as mentioned by Mr. Begg.
Thank you both so much, again.

You really should read the book, if you are interested, it is an involved subject. Here is the title page of my copy.

[PaulB]

I cannot agree, you see, with the claim in the A-Z that 'he had a peculiarly scrupulous regard for the truth and would never have lied directly though when he thought anti-social criminals [is there any other sort?]

:-)

were involved he was prepared to mislead with half-truths or mental reservation...His statements about the Ripper's identity are far too direct to fall under this heading.' Obviously we are never going to completely agree on this one and others will have to draw their own conclusions.

I have reservations about that statement too, but I am not sufficiently informed to be able to refute it. That's the trouble.

[mariab]

It's interesting that I don't see so much difference between what Paul and Stewart say except for nuance

Well, in this specific debate about Anderson's intentions in his claiming that the Ripper was known to the police and “safely caged“, it's pretty clear that Mr. Evans and Mr. Begg stand on almost opposite ends (while, more accurately, Mr. Fido would have provided the exact opposite of Mr. Evans' position). In this particular case I (almost) fully agree with Mr. Evans on all counts, but I've noticed that on other debates, specifically pertaining to Berner Street, Mr. Begg was more accessible/open to some of the new (well researched) ideas I and others have been representing/researching, so I'm really interested to see how the future discussion pertaining to all this will develop (following the results of the current research, it goes without saying).

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

...
...
History is a fluid subject, it changes as new information comes to light or as old information is reinterpreted, so what Martin thought, I thought, Sugden thought, you thought five years ago or ten or fifteen or twenty just doesn't much matter anymore. Bickering doesn't get anyone anywhere. What matters is how the information we have today is interpreted and understood and it is interesting to see how sources such as Anderson, never the clearest of writers, are perceived and understood, and one feels that the files of Dublin Castle and elsewhere might shed more light on the activities of Anderson, Monro and Co, none of whom, one suspects, had very clean hands. I look forward to the future.

Yes, this is a point I am always making. And I stated that in my opinion you are a lot more flexible than Martin. I have just said it and I said, if you recall, many years ago on these very boards.

But what has to be remembered, and which seems to be forgotten here, is that many contributors are basing their research and statements on books written many years ago. So old ideas and comments remain alive and are constantly quoted. It is not difficult to find examples of these old books being used. Many people do not stay at the cutting edge.

[The Good Michael]

It's interesting that I don't see so much difference between what Paul and Stewart say except for nuance, and often the nuance becomes the bone of contention. I speak for myself when I say, as I get older, that bone gets bigger, but when it gets too large, I throw it to the dogs.


Mike