A Case of Misattribution?

[Lechmere]

Rob
Public masturbation, eating food in the gutter and violence towards family members are traits that are more commonly associated with what used to be called 'simple' people or people who would inaccurately be referred to as having a childish mental age - a form of mental retardation. Such people get very difficult for their families to handle when they reach physical maturity. It is almost certainly the case that Kosminski fell into this group. He may have also suffered from schizophrenia.

[robhouse]

Lechmere,

I am sorry but this post is utter nonsense. Aaron ate food from the gutter because the voices in his head told him to do so, probably out of the paranoid belief that he was being poisoned. There is actually no indication of "public" masturbation. Aaron certainly may have masturbated in front of others... family members is the most likely probability. (But Dahmer did this also, and Dahmer was not mentally retarded.) But again, it is only stated that he practiced self-abuse... not that he did this publicly. ("He is melancholic, practises self-abuse. ") And violence toward family members can be a result of anything, including rage, hatred, psychopathy, etc.

Incidentally, I agree that his symptoms may "go beyond schizophrenia". That does not mean he was not schizophrenic... he almost certainly was. But he may have also been psychopathic, if the MM is to be believed. He quite possibly also suffered from depression. But there is certainly no indication that he was an imbecile, as you seem to be suggesting, and as others have stated in the past (Fido, Sugden etc). But these views are based on faulty interpretation of documents, and apparent lack of knowledge about what types of patients were housed in Leavesden asylum. Aaron's asylum documentation explicitly states that he was not an imbecile (effectively, anyway, by classifying him as one of the other classifications of insanity... specifically "person of unsound mind".) Moreover, the 1901 Leavesden census classifies Aaron as "Lunatic", as opposed to "imbecile", which was the other classification used for patients at that facility. If he actually was a mentally retarded person, he would have been classified as an "imbecile", as imbecile was the term then used for that condition.

RH

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Rob

You and Garry have provided two of the best reads I ever had since becoming interested in JtR...

Sincerely

Dave

[Lechmere]

Rob - it is no more nonsense than the diagnosis of schizophrenia - it is clear that while he may have been schizophrenic he was also not capable of funtioning in normal society and was very obviously and overtly mentally impaired.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So someone supposedly believed to be a likely candidate for Jack the Ripper was allowed to reside at his brothers in the crime zone - and other policemen Were not told as the higher ups wanted it kept secret?

What's so hard to believe?

They couldn't convict him.

They kept watch over him.

Did anyone else need to know? For what purpose? Imagine it getting out that JTR was living at x address - then what?

[Fleetwood Mac]

This "suspect Jew" was not Anderson's secret at the time of the murders, Anderson appears to have developed this belief in the years after the murders. We are left to question the accuracy of this belief.

Regards, Jon S.

I would hazard a guess that the belief took hold some time between the Mckenzie murder and the identification.

Simply because Anderson takes the time to state that the McKenzie murder was by another hand and lumps this in with the Mylett case, so, in my mind, at this stage he/they were still trying work things out.

As Anderson states their suspicions surrounding JTR being protected were proven correct, I think it's a fair bet to say his family knew of his guilt. But, if they had shopped him to the police, wouldn't this have been enough to convict him? If so, then we're looking at an informant or something they learned from his spells in the workhouse.

[Lechmere]

What's so hard to believe is that if they seriously thought he had done it but thought they could not convict - why keep it from senior local investigating officers, why think Coles was possibly a Ripper victim, and why not get him locked up in an asylum quickly as they would have had grounds to do so based on his previous episodes. Why not at least try to do that to protect public safety. Do you think the police were more concerned with the safety of someone they supposedly seriously thought was Jack the Ripper?

[Fleetwood Mac]

What's so hard to believe is that if they seriously thought he had done it but thought they could not convict - why keep it from senior local investigating officers, why think Coles was possibly a Ripper victim, and why not get him locked up in an asylum quickly as they would have had grounds to do so based on his previous episodes. Why not at least try to do that to protect public safety. Do you think the police were more concerned with the safety of someone they supposedly seriously thought was Jack the Ripper?

Concerned doesn't come into it.

But the fundamental principles of the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty do. Remember that Anderson states something like: "if we had had the powers of the French police....." In other words, the police, or at least senior police, were not prepared to act outside of the boundaries of their authority, as laid down according to English law, for Jack the Ripper or anyone else.

Would they have had grounds to place him in an asylum? Why?

[robhouse]

Concerned doesn't come into it.

But the fundamental principles of the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty do. Remember that Anderson states something like: "if we had had the powers of the French police....." In other words, the police, or at least senior police, were not prepared to act outside of the boundaries of their authority, as laid down according to English law, for Jack the Ripper or anyone else.

Would they have had grounds to place him in an asylum? Why?

Exactly.

Oct 2, 1903 – T.P.’s Weekly (Anderson)
Moreover, it is not in finding the criminal that the greatest difficulty in police work consists, but in finding evidence on which to charge him. … information is generally to be had, and not information only, but proof. But information and proof are not necessarily legal evidence.

Oct 15, 1905 -The Sunday Chronicle, A "Well-known official" quoted (probably Anderson)
"When the police are being condemned," added the official, "for seeming inactivity it should be remembered that to charge a man or woman with murder necessitates publicity, and if the charge is found to be unproven not only do the police suffer in credit, but there is a great deal of personal trouble. Unless we have a strong case we do not arrest. We content ourselves with asking a suspected person to accompany us to the police station to answer a few questions. The person so invited pleases himself how he answers the questions.

"It is perhaps a cynical fact that murderers still at large have paid these visits, and, benefiting by the absence of evidence which would be admissable before a jury, have walked the world again as free men."

1907 - Criminals and Crime: Some Facts and Suggestions (Anderson)
“When I speak of efficiency some people will exclaim, “But what about all the undetected crimes?” I may say here that in London at least the undetected crimes are few. But English law does not permit of an arrest save on legal evidence of guilt, and legal evidence is often wholly wanting where moral proof is complete and convincing. Were I to unfold the secrets of Scotland Yard about crimes respecting which the police have been disparaged and abused in recent years, the result would be a revelation to the public. But that is not my subject here” – pg 81

[Wickerman]

As Anderson states their suspicions surrounding JTR being protected were proven correct, I think it's a fair bet to say his family knew of his guilt. But, if they had shopped him to the police, wouldn't this have been enough to convict him?

His family may have had suspicions, bloodstained clothing, absent on the nights in question, but short of actually finding human organs in his possession I'm not sure what they might have had by way of proof of him being responsible for any murders. Suspicions by family members should not be sufficient to convict.

Anderson makes two references to "his people" not giving him up to gentile justice, not specifically "his family". I have to wonder if these two remarks were not an indirect reference to the witness also being a low-class Jew.

The proof "that our diagnosis was right on every point" was supported by the witness refusing to swear to him. We are left to wrestle with problem of identifying a low-class Jew being the only person to have a good view of the murderer.

"Low-class Jew" and "good view" are relative terms. There were certainly lower class Jews in Whitechapel than Schwartz or Lawende, I'm not sure they would qualify in our estimation. Anderson appears to have been designating a class of Jew lower than either Schwartz or Lawende.
He does say "people of that class will not give up one of their number.....", so he was not referring to race, but that particular class within that race. Both witness and suspect were low-class Jews.

"Good view" is difficult to assign to either one, and yet both these terms could be simple overstatements by Anderson.

Rather than argue over whether Schwartz or Lawende could be considered as low-class Jews, and whether either of them had a good view of the killer it is more likely that Anderson is just overstating his case.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

Would they have had grounds to place him in an asylum? Why?

Because he was loony ?

[martin wilson]

Maybe the Torah can help;

Numbers 25.30
Whoso killeth any person the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses but one person shall not testify against any person that he die.

Deuteronomy 19.15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin ,in any sin at the mouthof two witnesses or at the mouth of three witness shall a matter be established.

Were Lawende or Schwartz devout?
All the best.

[Lechmere]

Kosminski's own - Jewish - family Dobbed him in. Maybe they didn't read the Torah or maybe the claim that a Jew wouldn't testify to a gentile about a fellow Jew is something of a myth.

[Bridewell]

Herem

Whilst we are on the subject of research,for an alternative explanation of AK's behaviour,have a read on the Jewish Encyclopaedia about Herem, or excommunication.
All the best.

Hi All,

Thanks for the above, Martin.

For those who've not already seen it this is the relevant link:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5933-excommunication

The following offences justifying excommunication (effectively isolation) seemed to me to be particularly interesting:
(20) omission by a "shoḥeṭ." (ritual slaughterer) to show his knife to the rabbi for examination; (21) self-abuse.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Or Denial

How are we supposed to interpret "he knew", without some kind of admission from the suspect?

If the witness points and declares, "thats him!"
And the suspect responds with some kind of acknowledgement, whether verbal, body language or expression, isn't that an admission of guilt?
As long as the suspect did not say, "yes, it was me", no-one can say he "knew" with any degree of certainty.
If the suspect did acknowledge his part, why do the police need the witness to swear to him?
The suspect has just admitted guilt, hasn't he?

How can anyone acknowledge his role as "identified" without admitting guilt?

Hi Jon,
Acknowledgement of being identified doesn't necessarily involve an admission, does it? Could it not equally involve a denial? For example:-

"I don't care whether he says it was me or not. He's wrong. It wasn't me!"

This scenario would have him acknowledging identification, denying guilt, but realising that he could not continue to offend.

Regards, Bridewell.