Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[lynn cates]

keeping up appearances

Hello Colin.

"I think the only significant evidence is the Hutchinson sighting which, if genuine, puts a victim in the company of a Jewish man, heading towards 13, Millers Court two hours before the likely time of death. Either Hutchinson is a liar or there is evidence linking a 'canonical' victim to a Jewish man at the material time."

Or, better, a "Jewish looking" man.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Links to a Jewish Man

What evidence exists to link any Canonical Murder to a Jewish man living in the East End at the time of the murders in the Fall of 1888?

Nichols: None.

Chapman: Only the Long sighting (if it was Chapman she saw) and if, by "looked like a foreigner", she meant Jewish.

Stride: Location only - outside a club frequented, in the main, by Jews.

Eddowes: Similar argument to Stride, but even weaker.

Kelly: Hutchinson's Astrakhan man of "Jewish appearance".

The Stride & Eddowes link, if it is one at all, is very weak, because there was a large Jewish population anyway. I guess it comes down to how much weight is attached to the evidence of Long & Hutchinson. I think the only significant evidence is the Hutchinson sighting which, if genuine, puts a victim in the company of a Jewish man, heading towards 13, Millers Court two hours before the likely time of death. Either Hutchinson is a liar or there is evidence linking a 'canonical' victim to a Jewish man at the material time. Whether or not he lived in the East End cannot be known but, if he actually existed, he can certainly be placed there.

N.B. I don't want to transform this into yet another Hutchinson thread, but it was impossible to address Michael's (highly pertinent - but probably rhetorical?) question without his name being mentioned.

Regards, Bridewell.

[harry]

I think the reason w hy no progress has been made,is because prime suspects,so called,as evidence Kosminski,has little value,and that the evidence against them is so weak,it would be foolish to place too much trust in a belief that any were JTR.

[Wickerman]

Of the senior policemen, who actually named suspects, two of them name Kosminski, and one of these in so doing purports to be enlarging on what his former chief was saying in his memoirs...so effectively three of them are implying one man as a suspect...

Hi Dave.
Three senior policemen all holding the same opinion can appear impressive, or at least significant. However, we are not talking about three independent opinions. It would only take one written report, emanating from Swanson, to spread one opinion among the three men.
Note Abberline does not mention this issue. The very fact that three officers (who worked together) carried the same opinion can be easily countered by the fact that no other senior officer, some of whom must have been involved like, Abberline, Moore, Reid, Monro, Shore, Warren, including McWilliam & Smith of the City, left no similar thoughts on this issue.

Even though we can name three men (Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson), it is essentially the same opinion voiced three times, because all three men worked as a team together.

I'm not asserting that Aaron was the suspect...nor am I denying it...I'm merely stating three distinguished coppers reckoned somebody called Kosminski was worth a look...

He was a suspect we can't deny that, but how significant we he? At the time of the murders, apparently not very significant. He is not mentioned by anyone. His significance grew sometime after the murders, how long after, and why, is still debatable.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ally]

When Aaron Kominski left Colney Hatch to be sent to Leavesden there were three categorys in the Colney Hatch discharge register.

1 Died
2 Recovered
3 Relieved

I could only see another relieved person and she went home
Aaron was Relieved to Leavesden Aylum

Can any of you tell me what this term Relieved actually meant?
And why if relieved he did not go home? Could it mean the family did not want him back?

Pat

My guess, and this is purely a guess, is that they are using "relieved" in the meaning of "took over the duties for". So a person relieved to home would be cared for her by her relatives, while Relieved to Leavesden means Leavesden would be assuming the duty of care. He was not cured, but Colney was relieved of the duty.

It may however just mean what it sounds like at face value, he experienced some improvement of his symptoms, but was not cured.

[robhouse]

I am beginning to see why so little progress on this case has been made in the last 120 years.

RH

[Paddy]

Medical Advice

When Aaron Kominski left Colney Hatch to be sent to Leavesden there were three categorys in the Colney Hatch discharge register.

1 Died
2 Recovered
3 Relieved

I could only see another relieved person and she went home
Aaron was Relieved to Leavesden Aylum

Can any of you tell me what this term Relieved actually meant?
And why if relieved he did not go home? Could it mean the family did not want him back?

Pat

[harry]

Bridewell,
I agree with your reasoning.What happened if we read into the claims of Anderson and Swanson,and others,raises Kosminski above the reasonable doubt mark..There was ,in the opinion expressed at the time,no doubt.They were the people who could and should act on the evidence available to them.That we do not know precisely what that evidence was,leads us no option but to accept the claims made,and that is that what emerged at the seaside home, was the crucial factor in determining the guilt of Kosminski.In that case they had,as police officers,a reason to arrest.I can not argue the merits of the evidence,nor can anyone else.I can only base my opinion on w hat was claimed.

[Ally]

Phil,

I have absolutely completely no clue as to what you are attempting to say. I am frankly confused because what I think you are attempting to say makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ( I do not mean that as a personal attack, I simply mean I cannot grasp the connection you are attempting to make). I am going to proceed based on my understanding of what I THINK you are attempting to say, with the full understanding that I may well have completely misconstrued you and your claim has merit that I am failing currently to grasp.

Robert Anderson, as far as I am aware, did not set forth any considered opinions on lunacy, or jewish lunatics. He stated that Jack the Ripper was a specific jewish lunatic that they had identified and locked up. He made no medical diagnosis. He stated there was a man, he was a lunatic and polish jew and there had been an identification. He was a cop. So why precisely you feel this: "He is no expert, in any sense, on Jewish lunatics, or lunatics of any sort.." in any way invalidates him to make a claim against a suspect is completely beyond my comprehension. You would be hard pressed to find any cop who is an expert in psychiatric conditions, how does that invalidate them from doing their job, which is, to capture criminals? Or in this case, provide an opinion on who he thought the killer was.


Your doctor gave an opinion on what he thought the murderer would be like. A profile, basically. Profiles are often quite, quite wrong. We know this profile is wrong, flat out wrong, because insane people actually do commit murders like that. It happens.

In a contemporary context that is like saying that Malvo and Mohammed could not possibly be the DC Snipers because the psychologists who provided the profiles stated that the sniper would be a lone white guy, no two black guys in the history of this country ever did an attack like that, sniper attacks were the domain of single white nutjobs, ergo, this was an attack by a single white nutjob. Therefore the police are wrong because psychologists know more about the state of mind of killers and historical precedent on who kills whom how and that does not deviate. But regardless of clear error, you'll take the psychologist's opinion over the police's opinion, because they know more about crazy people?

So what makes your psychologist more qualified to "guess" what the murderer would be like, when, even in the quote you put up, he makes statements that we know today are patently not accurate?

[Cogidubnus]

I have some sympathy with the view Michael, but so much evidence, be it good or bad, has now disappeared. Historically we must go with what we have.

Of the senior policemen, who actually named suspects, two of them name Kosminski, and one of these in so doing purports to be enlarging on what his former chief was saying in his memoirs...so effectively three of them are implying one man as a suspect...out of all of the hundreds, (if not thousands), of possible suspects...so logic alone dictates they didn't pluck the name from mid air...they must have had something...in the absence of anything else we have to give their beliefs some weight...(else, for example, we'd totally discount much of what Pepys asserted because it isn't backed by any other testimony...but that way lies madness)...

I'm not asserting that Aaron was the suspect...nor am I denying it...I'm merely stating three distinguished coppers reckoned somebody called Kosminski was worth a look...

All the best

Dave

[Monty]

"He thought the Jack the Ripper murders grossly oversensationalised, and went on holiday for health reasons as they started, leaving others in charge of the case. He spent one month away during this time. Yet claimed on his return to have no problem in getting his man, had he the time, etc. Although he actually didn't."

Is Anderson to be faulted for not having a psychic ability now?

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

What evidence exists, or has been proven to have existed, that suggests or links Kosminski with any one Canonical murder? What evidence exists to link any Canonical Murder to a Jewish man living in the East End at the time of the murders in the Fall of 1888?

I believe in both cases the only answer is that there is nothing, aside from the conjecture offered by the contemporary investigators.

Maybe before we ask if a suspect is viable we should have a decent reason to ask if he should be suspected at all, other than relying solely on the opinions of contemporary officials who didnt solve any of the unsolved murder cases.

Best regards

[Phil Carter]

I would suggest that any person who has ever lived is "qualified to comment on society". Sociology is an adorable concept but it is not a "science" and really does not require any actual credentials

And your suggestion is read.. so it is good to read the non existant credentials of the man himself...

Welcome to the background of Sir Robert Anderson and his comments in TLSOMOL.

Born Dublin, not London,
was the son of a wealthy Crown Solicitor,
and elder of the Presbyterian Church,
Initially work on a short business apprenticeship in a large brewery,
left to study in France, and entered College in Dublin, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts,
one year later was called to the bar.
12 years later gained a Bachelor of Laws degree,
During this twelve year period he became involved in operations against a militant group in his society becoming the "foremost expert" (Wikipedia) on them and operations against them and 5 years after he was called to the bar the Home Office appointed him as adviser on political crime. This group had nothing to do with the posting above.
He was in time appointed secretary to several government inquiries. Such as secretary to the new founded Prison Commission.
The militant group then started up their violent camopaigns again and although this person was the foremost expert on their behaviour and role, he was not particularly effective in combatting them, and he was forced to resign his Home Office post, he was also removed from the Prison Commission two years later.
One year after this, he was called in once again to help combat these same militants. He was asked to assist the then Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at Scotland Yard, in operations related to political crime. He became Assistant Commissioner a year later, which he held for the rest of his career he was to hold for the rest of his career.

He thought the Jack the Ripper murders grossly oversensationalised, and went on holiday for health reasons as they started, leaving others in charge of the case. He spent one month away during this time. Yet claimed on his return to have no problem in getting his man, had he the time, etc. Although he actually didn't.

I have tried, and failed, to see any time he actually spent in the company of the lowlife of the East End jewish population. I welcome any examples of him doing this to any degree.

Welcome to the background of Sir Robert Anderson, devout Christian, member of the Plymouth Bretheren, and the man who didn't tell the truth in his memoirs, as shown by Simon Wood, on how he finished his career, (I am sure you remember this particular bit, Ally).

The Lighter Side of my Official Life is, almost from beginning to end, an ego trip of how fantastic he was, how brilliant his police department was and how he had total awareness of the guilt of people not even charged with a crime, through his own, invented, moral guilt.

Give me the qualifications of Dr Sir John Batty Tuke and his opinions on the murderer vis a vis lunacy or nay any day of the week. He really DID know what a lunatic was.. first hand.

Sir Robert Anderson, as a commentator of right and wrong, guilt and innocence, is completely biased, driven by his over bloated sense of himself.
He is no expert, in any sense, on Jewish lunatics, or lunatics of any sort.. even the lunatics "people"..who were of the "worst sort".

Just an opinion.

I'll listen to Dr Tuke every day on the subject of lunacy. Not Robert Anderson.

Now I must sleep. My apologies.


Phil

[Ally]

I would suggest that any person who has ever lived is "qualified to comment on society". Sociology is an adorable concept but it is not a "science" and really does not require any actual credentials beyond an ability to observe and think coherently. Observation and opinion that requires no specific knowledge doesn't prevent one from making a sound judgement regardless of personal bias.

By your presumed opinion, one cannot make a diagnosis about madmen at all unless one is himself mad. One does not have to be of the class to understand or make determinations that are valid about the class.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

You appear to be confusing historical analysis with scientific analysis. They are two very different things and scientific opinion from hundreds of years ago is hardly to be put on an even platform with historical opinion.

That would be to claim that the notion that the sun goes around the earth should be taken seriously and all other claptrap that was considered the best wisdom of its time.

A historical perspective should be considered, yes. If a doctor was standing in a square when a riot broke out, his opinions and observations should be given weight a hundred years later when we are reading about it as to what occurred in a factual context, where it started, who hit who first, how it ended, whether the police used excessive force if he witnessed such things, etc. However if he claims the riot occurred as a result of demonic possession (once the best wisdom of its time), female hysteria (once the best wisdom of its time) or any other claptrap that is long since disproven, then no, those observations should not be taken seriously or given any sort of weight.

Thank you for this posting. Appreciated. I liked the comparison. Allow me to suggest another.

If a person comments on the inner social structure and condition of the lower class of people, both as a group or on an individual level, and the level of their ability and capacity to interact or not within that society, and indeed the micro society they live in, without known first hand knowledge, and has possibly a known overbearing view in their attitude to those below that person in society, making their views potentially biased, ...has perhaps a self centered view of life in general... how much weight, historically, should be given to that person's utterances on the specific subject, when that person has no known qualifications to utter any professional opinion on sociology and the inner structures of society and it's individuals, perchance?
I would suggest here too, that those observations should not be taken seriously or given any sort of weight.

Phil