The Seaside Home: an alternative scenario

[Chris]

Do the records show what the person was taken to the convalescence home for?

could you send me a copy?

They relate to sick leave from the Metropolitan Force, not to the Seaside Home as such. They don't include any information about the nature of the illness.

I'll send you a private message containing a link to download a copy of the file.

[Versa]

Apparently not, according to the records of sick leave:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=174620&postcount=55

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=174650&postcount=72

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...7&postcount=94

Thanks

Blimey you've been busy!

Do the records show what the person was taken to the convalescence home for?

I did make a list of all the officers for whom sick leave was recommended (or extended) during this period; if anyone is interested to have a copy I can send them one.

could you send me a copy?

[Chris]

Do we know where PC William Smith was at this time? Could he of been at the Seaside home?

Apparently not, according to the records of sick leave:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=174620&postcount=55

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=174650&postcount=72

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=174747&postcount=94

[Versa]

quick question

"after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification"

he "strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC [sic] near Mitre Square,"

Do we know where PC William Smith was at this time? Could he of been at the Seaside home?

I realise he wasn't a Jew but if the Jewish witness had refused to ID the suspect is it possible that a police constable suffering from dementia or possibly what we now recognise as post traumatic stress disorder and staying in 'the seaside home' was used for the ID but their condition prevented them from making a statement that was admissible in court.

apologies if this has been covered ad nauseum already.

[Victor]

Then you go against expert opinion?

Two leading experts have given their opinion that Aaron was probably suffering Hebophrenic Schizophrenia

Personally I would question the competence of any "expert" who gave a definite diagnosis without interviewing the patient or giving lots of caveats.

KR,
Vic.

[Jeff Leahy]

Personally, I don't think Kosminski was Schizophrenic. I think he quite possibly was Schizoeffective (which is essentially Bipolar with Schizoid breaks). From his records it seems as though his primary problem was mood related, with some spells of delusion. Now any diagnostics at such a remove is impossible, but it might explain why he could mostly hold it together, and a few other things..

Then you go against expert opinion?

Schizophrenia has a genetic component, and to the best of our knowledge there were no corresponding delusions in the rest of his family. Which statistically is very very slightly abnormal. On the other hand, Eastern European Jews are somewhat more susceptible than average to mood disorders. Now if he pulled a knife on his sister and no one thought enough of it to either separate them or get him help, that could possibly be a good indication of some emotional instability in his surrounding family

We dont know enough to conclude that..though clearly his family are still with us..

The particular relevance to this thread would be this. People with Bipolar or Schizoaffective can be extremely difficult to identify, simply because a good part of our recognition process is based on body language. People routinely cannot identify average criminals in a lineup, because when they saw the individual they were acting guilty, or violent, or creepy, or furtive... whatever. But in a lineup they may just look mildly concerned. People with mood disorders have drastic changes in their body language. They can look defeated and exhausted, and five minutes later look confident and bombastic. People have reported changes in height, weight, complexion, even up to 20 years difference in age in the same individual based on different body language. If the Jack The Ripper had a mood disorder, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a witness said "well, he looks like the same guy I saw, but that's not the same guy" and it would be extremely difficult for him to articulate why he would make such an odd statement.

Two leading experts have given their opinion that Aaron was probably suffering Hebophrenic Schizophrenia..

If you would like to submit expert opinion to the contrary I'm happy to go through it...

However what we do know is that its most unlikely Aaron Kosminski was bi-polar

Yours Pirate

[Errata]

A Hebophrenic Schizophrenic could possibly have commited the JtR crimes.

There is even some illogical sense to it.

Its possible, however rare, and lets face it, Jacks crimes are Very Rare.

Pirate

Personally, I don't think Kosminski was Schizophrenic. I think he quite possibly was Schizoeffective (which is essentially Bipolar with Schizoid breaks). From his records it seems as though his primary problem was mood related, with some spells of delusion. Now any diagnostics at such a remove is impossible, but it might explain why he could mostly hold it together, and a few other things.

Schizophrenia has a genetic component, and to the best of our knowledge there were no corresponding delusions in the rest of his family. Which statistically is very very slightly abnormal. On the other hand, Eastern European Jews are somewhat more susceptible than average to mood disorders. Now if he pulled a knife on his sister and no one thought enough of it to either separate them or get him help, that could possibly be a good indication of some emotional instability in his surrounding family

The particular relevance to this thread would be this. People with Bipolar or Schizoaffective can be extremely difficult to identify, simply because a good part of our recognition process is based on body language. People routinely cannot identify average criminals in a lineup, because when they saw the individual they were acting guilty, or violent, or creepy, or furtive... whatever. But in a lineup they may just look mildly concerned. People with mood disorders have drastic changes in their body language. They can look defeated and exhausted, and five minutes later look confident and bombastic. People have reported changes in height, weight, complexion, even up to 20 years difference in age in the same individual based on different body language. If the Jack The Ripper had a mood disorder, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a witness said "well, he looks like the same guy I saw, but that's not the same guy" and it would be extremely difficult for him to articulate why he would make such an odd statement.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate

My point is simple there is absolutely nothing that can be determined from BSM shouting Lipski....nothing.

nothing...?

Lipski was a derogatory term for jews at the time. IS was said to have a stong jewish appearance. It was shouted by a man who was attacking a women just as this jewish person was walking by.

I think that something like an educated guess could be taken from this-as in it was probably directed at IS to do just what it did-scare him off.

Of course, it could be totally wrong, but in my mind, seems a rational interpretation.

I'm of an age to have grown up to an ITV series called UFO.

In one episode a satalite was linked to follow a UFO back to its home base and photograph it with a special photographic lens..

Unfortunately when the photo's returned to earth, the magnitude or applification information was lost....

No matter say's kernal Straker..its obvious we are looking at Alien cities. Intricate buildings and river systems!

actually he was looking at the close up amplification of his sexy assistants leg......?

All we know is that a man that spoke no english, Schwartz, understood one word "Lipski'

Thats it

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

I was merely suggesting that if someone were to be labeled as possibly schizophrenic, I personally would want more than a shouted word, and a weaving gait..

Yes you'd be wise to do so

But if you turned that around and said, could a known schizophrenic (possibly aaron Kosminski but he is not the only schizophrenic..cutbush?) have been BSM? then you have a clue, if nothing else? (not much I agree but as much as we usually get)

Statistically speaking, it is far more likely that the man "walking as if intoxicated" because he was in fact intoxicated. Do schizophrenics tend to have less precise movement? Yes. Some do. As do drunks. People with brain tumors, who have had a stroke, have low blood pressure, inner ear infections, brain damage, traumatic brain injury, arthritis, many types of poisoning, spinal anomalies, certain vitamin deficiencies, some autoimmune diseases, etc. Schizophrenia is pretty rare.

Yes I agree totally. And I have come under a lot of flack for Dr Lars Davidsons comment, " Schizophrenics are no more likely than other members of society to commit violent crime" There are people who disagree with that statement. I will continue to defend it. Schizophrenics MUST NOT BE DEMONIZED by those who fail to understand the illness.

The Mountbatten thing doesn't surprise me. It's a disease of rapid compensation.

I agree with you that we know nothing, and can glean nothing from BSM's single encounter with a witness. I'm also a big defender of Schizophrenics, as I am friends with a few, and dated one. I take it a little personally when "Schizo" gets bandied about, or people assume schizophrenia based on generalized symptoms of mental illness. If I appear overly rigorous I apologize. But I personally cannot sustain any notions of this man having any mental health issues.

I totally agree.

However Aaron as a potential suspect?

Well its here the Pirate parts company with Fido, Begg and Evans

A Hebophrenic Schizophrenic could possibly have commited the JtR crimes.

There is even some illogical sense to it.

Its possible, however rare, and lets face it, Jacks crimes are Very Rare.

Pirate

[Abby Normal]

Once in psychotic episode schizophrenics take on an alternative reality.

One expert I'm talking two has two patients on the same ward who both believe they are Lord Mount Battern. They apparently get along fine?

You have no way of knowing what reality, if any BSM was in.

My point is simple there is absolutely nothing that can be determined from BSM shouting Lipski....nothing.

Suggestion that BSM also shows no sign of schizophrenia is also incorrect because we have that Pesky Star report that clearly suggests BSM was walking 'as if intoxicated'

A point that an expert I talked to picked up on very quickly as Schizophrenics are often miss taken as appearing drunk.

Pirate

Hi Pirate

My point is simple there is absolutely nothing that can be determined from BSM shouting Lipski....nothing.

nothing...?

Lipski was a derogatory term for jews at the time. IS was said to have a stong jewish appearance. It was shouted by a man who was attacking a women just as this jewish person was walking by.

I think that something like an educated guess could be taken from this-as in it was probably directed at IS to do just what it did-scare him off.

Of course, it could be totally wrong, but in my mind, seems a rational interpretation.

[Errata]

Once in psychotic episode schizophrenics take on an alternative reality.

One expert I'm talking two has two patients on the same ward who both believe they are Lord Mount Battern. They apparently get along fine?

You have no way of knowing what reality, if any BSM was in.

My point is simple there is absolutely nothing that can be determined from BSM shouting Lipski....nothing.

Suggestion that BSM also shows no sign of schizophrenia is also incorrect because we have that Pesky Star report that clearly suggests BSM was walking 'as if intoxicated'

A point that an expert I talked to picked up on very quickly as Schizophrenics are often miss taken as appearing drunk.

Pirate

I was merely suggesting that if someone were to be labeled as possibly schizophrenic, I personally would want more than a shouted word, and a weaving gait.

Statistically speaking, it is far more likely that the man "walking as if intoxicated" because he was in fact intoxicated. Do schizophrenics tend to have less precise movement? Yes. Some do. As do drunks. People with brain tumors, who have had a stroke, have low blood pressure, inner ear infections, brain damage, traumatic brain injury, arthritis, many types of poisoning, spinal anomalies, certain vitamin deficiencies, some autoimmune diseases, etc. Schizophrenia is pretty rare.

The Mountbatten thing doesn't surprise me. It's a disease of rapid compensation.

I agree with you that we know nothing, and can glean nothing from BSM's single encounter with a witness. I'm also a big defender of Schizophrenics, as I am friends with a few, and dated one. I take it a little personally when "Schizo" gets bandied about, or people assume schizophrenia based on generalized symptoms of mental illness. If I appear overly rigorous I apologize. But I personally cannot sustain any notions of this man having any mental health issues.

[Stewart P Evans]

Broadly speaking...

...
Stewart, you are simply stating the position as it was recognised as being twenty years ago and as it still exists today. We have a statement in two sources that a Polish Jew suspect was identified by an eye-witness, and Anderson, at least, was convinced that the suspect was Jack the Ripper. There are problems accepting the story, not the least being the absence of supportive data and its apparent rejection by other writers, notably Macnaghten. If there weren't those problems then we'd have accepted Anderson's story and packed our bags and gone home long ago. The problem posed twenty years ago is how we resolve these problems and since then the most effort has been devoted to inventing scenarios to show how Anderson got it wrong, be it because he was a bare-faced liar, a geriatric wishful thinker, an egoist who had to claim the crime solved to salve his department's loss of reputation, because he was an anti-Semite, and so one and so on and so on. None of these explanations have proved altogether convincing, not even to fervent anti-Andersonites, hence their number. So, yes, there are very well-known problems with accepting Anderson's story, which is why it isn't accepted. However, it does not prove that the story is untrue, which I know you didn't say it did, but is nevertheless worthwhile emphasising because all too often the problems are presented by some as if they do.

Paul, I think, broadly speaking, we do not disagree too much about the problems that exist in relation to the claims of Anderson and Swanson.

I first looked at what Anderson said some forty odd years ago without giving it too much thought and without the knowledge or facility to research it further if I had wished. You are quite correct when you point out that Anderson was not accorded the importance he was due until the late 1980s. But Ripper research was in a different place then and I suppose that we should be pleased with the sources and knowledge (not to say talented researchers) now at our disposal.

Where I do think we are at odds is over the degree of importance that should be attached to, and the quality of, Anderson (and to a lesser degree Swanson) as a historical source. Quite clearly I tend to agree more with Philip Sugden, a qualified historian, in this respect.

You and Martin quickly identified that Anderson's veracity and character was so important in assessing the degree to which we should attach relevance to his claims, that it had to be assessed. If anyone cares to look back at the works involving your good self, Martin, or both of you, say from 1987 to fairly recent times I think they will see that you have been very kind to Anderson and some material that militates against his stature and claims is missing from those works.

Just as much effort has been devoted to 'inventing scenarios to show how Anderson got it wrong', as much effort has been expended in inventing scenarios to show how he got it right. It has become a bit of a stalemate actually, with the reader left to decide where his opinion lies and take his stand (if he wishes to) accordingly. This, of course, must be true of many similar historical anomalies or mysteries and so it should be. It never could be as simple as accepting Anderson's story and 'packing our bags and going home'. For if proof of the identity of the Ripper had actually existed at that time then it would not have survived into the 20th and 21st centuries as an unsolved series of murders committed by an unknown offender.

It cannot be sensibly stated that proof exists which will resolve the mystery, therefore the identity of the Ripper will never be known. That said, we are reduced to examining all the surviving evidence and assessing all the sources. From that we have to decide what we feel is the best possible answer to the puzzle and be happy with the idea that that is the nearest we will get to knowing who 'Jack the Ripper' was.

In your case you feel that Anderson/Swanson/the poor Polish Jew/Kosminski scenario is the best we have. You are informed and knowledgeable enough for that to be a reasonable conclusion and there is nothing wrong with anyone accepting that idea after they have assessed everything that is available.

I have to say that I don't agree with that conclusion but I do recognise it as a perfectly legitimate and reasonable avenue for further research and assessment. As a bit of a devil's advocate I will also point out any shortcomings or lack of balance (or errors) I may see. As I have often stated, the Anderson suspect is one that should not be ignored but is one, I feel, that has been accorded too much importance.

I regard you as the best, most important, and most knowledgeable of those who have made a specific study of these sources and this suspect. Your observations should thus be accorded respect and be regarded as authoritative (which I think they are).

[Jeff Leahy]

I don't know... schizophrenics aren't random, they are ordered within a false reality. Tourette Syndrome is pretty disordered. Schizophrenics tend to not shout random things. If anything they are rather more well known for a running monologue. If he shouted "Lipski" and was continuing in that vein in a sort of verbal play by play of his own thoughts, THAT would be pretty typical of schizophrenics.

It's certainly not impossible that BSM was schizophrenic, but nothing in his behaviour would suggest it.

Once in psychotic episode schizophrenics take on an alternative reality.

One expert I'm talking two has two patients on the same ward who both believe they are Lord Mount Battern. They apparently get along fine?

You have no way of knowing what reality, if any BSM was in.

My point is simple there is absolutely nothing that can be determined from BSM shouting Lipski....nothing.

Suggestion that BSM also shows no sign of schizophrenia is also incorrect because we have that Pesky Star report that clearly suggests BSM was walking 'as if intoxicated'

A point that an expert I talked to picked up on very quickly as Schizophrenics are often miss taken as appearing drunk.

Pirate

[harry]

On rereading what was said about the identification,it does seem clear that the witness was only indicating that the person he was sent or taken to identify ,was someone he had seen on a previous occasion.There should have been no previous reference by those that accompanied him,that would have led the witness to believe the suspect was Jewish.Still one item seems to have been cleared up,and that is that one Jew cannot recognise another as Jewish,even after two good looks.
Now as to what really happened.A witness approaches Anderson in secret and states he can identify the ripper.Without further ado,or any attempt to e stablish by what means,Anderson whisks this witness to the seaside home where he has a suspect.Thinking of the glory that was to come,Anderson faces them off,and says to the witness,"Is this the person" The witness replies ,"No,the person I saw was black".

[PaulB]

Let's try not exclude these other relevant angles by narrowing the debate down to a tiny point made by one person.

The only 'result' we have is provided by the words of Anderson and Swanson. We know that there was no 'good evidence' as Macnaghten clearly tells us in his 23 February 1894 in an official report where he states, "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." And the list of suspects that follows that clear cut statement includes 'Kosminski'. The big problem is that no independent source has confirmed the identification and the premise is based on the blind acceptance of the Anderson/Swanson sources as the unquestionable truth.

Of course the other big question that remains is that if such a staggeringly important event as the positive identification of 'Jack the Ripper' had occurred how on earth did Macnaghten fail to mention it in this 1894 report?

But then, of course, we return to the preposterous suggestion that it was kept a secret to which only Anderson and Swanson were privy and never, ever, leaked out in any other way. Also it should be remembered that when Macnaghten wrote his 1914 memoirs he signally failed to mention any such event, dropped any mention of 'Kosminski', and instead opted for his suicidal Ripper.

It's not a matter of excluding other relevant angles but of sticking to the particular topic under discussion, but that bird has flown now so it doesn't matter.

Stewart, you are simply stating the position as it was recognised as being twenty years ago and as it still exists today. We have a statement in two sources that a Polish Jew suspect was identified by an eye-witness, and Anderson, at least, was convinced that the suspect was Jack the Ripper. There are problems accepting the story, not the least being the absence of supportive data and its apparent rejection by other writers, notably Macnaghten. If there weren't those problems then we'd have accepted Anderson's story and packed our bags and gone home long ago. The problem posed twenty years ago is how we resolve these problems and since then the most effort has been devoted to inventing scenarios to show how Anderson got it wrong, be it because he was a bare-faced liar, a geriatric wishful thinker, an egoist who had to claim the crime solved to salve his department's loss of reputation, because he was an anti-Semite, and so one and so on and so on. None of these explanations have proved altogether convincing, not even to fervent anti-Andersonites, hence their number. So, yes, there are very well-known problems with accepting Anderson's story, which is why it isn't accepted. However, it does not prove that the story is untrue, which I know you didn't say it did, but is nevertheless worthwhile emphasising because all too often the problems are presented by some as if they do.