Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"Fisherman:

There is absolutely NO evidence against Lechmere/Cross. It's not a question of written evidence, there is no evidence."

Did I really say that, Phil? Wow. You know, you may just be right - my intellectual shortcomings may be showing.

I always thought that I supported Lechmere as a suspect, but it now seems I donīt...?

Like I say, itīs good to know you are around to set things straight, Phil. But maybe we should avoid discussing Lechmere on the Kosminski threads. I donīt think we are supposed to. If you know better - you normally do - then please tell me how to proceed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Fisherman:

There is absolutely NO evidence against Lechmere/Cross. It's not a question of written evidence, there is no evidence.

The case against him is circumstantial in every way, embroidering a theory on the fragile cloth of isolated facts that MAY NOT be connected in any way - his being found near a body and giving a name other than his usual one - the rest is a tissue of fabrication, a construct, a whimsy. Most of it could apply to hundreds if not thousands of East Enders who walked down Hanbury St each day.

As long as we donīt KNOW what Lechmere felt about women/ prostitutes...

And we never will.

The Lechmere idea which is wholly a modern construct, should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the marginalia or the Macnaghten meoranda. They are chalk and cheese. The marginalia etc are historical evidence, the Lechmere stuff an hypothesis without any period basis.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Kosminski is a far better candidate as a " murderous, womanhating homicidal man" than Charles Cross...and I suspect that is the basis for this dismissive stance from certain quarters."

Yes he is, as regards the written evidence. Then again, we have no assessment at all about Lechmereīs stance visavi women, do we? But factually, you are correct and nobody is disputing that as far as I can tell. As long as we donīt KNOW what Lechmere felt about women/prostitutes, I feel the point is slightly petty, but there you are ... you can have it!

"that's more than some recently accused innocent."

Who are you calling innocent here, Monty? I would have thought that innocence is what adhers to all people until proven guilty, so I donīt see what you are hoping to prove.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rob House:

"Seems to me that a suspect who is on the record as having threatened his sister with a knife, is potentially in line with a "womanhating homicidal man." Why is this such a problem?"

You have my answer to that on the Swanson thread, Rob! And itīs not a problem - on the contrary.

"Do you expect a serial killer to exhibit violent behavior in prison, or when incarcerated in an asylum?"

No. Gein did not. Panzram did. I made that point earlier. It differs. I know all that, Rob.

The best,
Fisherman

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I just saw on Howard's site that he discovered an interesting article on Kozminski in which Swanson's grand daughter, Mary Berkin, stated that the Ripper murders were often discussed in the family. I'm sure this article is known to some/all of the regular Kozminski researchers around here, so I'm at a loss as to why we're just now seeing it...unless of course it's old news that I missed, in which case just thump me on the head and be on your way.

I've never seen it but that doesn't mean much.

"Mary Berkins, Swanson's granddaughter, said the case was commonly discussed by her family. It was general knowledge that my grandfather knew the name of the killer, and that there was no evidence except from a Jewish man who would not give evidence for ethical reasons," she said.

http://jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=180755&postcount=1

[Tom_Wescott]

I just saw on Howard's site that he discovered an interesting article on Kozminski in which Swanson's grand daughter, Mary Berkin, stated that the Ripper murders were often discussed in the family. I'm sure this article is known to some/all of the regular Kozminski researchers around here, so I'm at a loss as to why we're just now seeing it...unless of course it's old news that I missed, in which case just thump me on the head and be on your way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

My case for Sir Bob as the author of 'From hell' just got clenched.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Buckled after 124 years......

[Tom_Wescott]

2) No.. Suspect based discussion is fine David.. but labelling innocent people with the accusation of murder, when the person cannot even be shown to have been a suspect.. is way overboard. Aaron, that is. Cornwell did the same with Sickert.. and we all went through the roof. Whether Sickert had weaker circumstantial evidence against him isnt the point... he was never even mentioned once, like Aaron, in connection with being the murderer, at that time.

With all due respect, this is inconsistent with your past performances. You raked me over the coals regarding Le Grand, who was in fact a police suspect AND one who labelled HIMSELF a murderer, but still you jumped on me like white on rice when my article came out in Examiner...which of course is your prerogative...but I would suggest your motives might be a little less humanitarian than protecting innocent men who can't defend themselves. No insinuations intended in this, but I am curious what gets your passions up. From where I sit, it seems that when a suspect or theory comes forth that looks like it might have some meat on it, you for some reason feel compelled to go after the researcher/theorist.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

But threatening to kill your sister with a knife is a biggie in my eyes. I mean, we are looking for someone that attacked women with a knife.

Sister = Woman
Weapon= Knif
Threat = Murder

My case for Sir Bob as the author of 'From hell' just got clenched.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

There is conclusive evidence that three retired police officials suspected a Jewish man named "Kosminski" of being Jack the Ripper.

I thought the important issue was "when" was Kosminski suspected. Sometime after November 1888 and before February 1894.

These three top police officials are all relating to the same suspect, thats a given, but why Anderson insists there was a good witness when Macnaghten tells us the opposite is a problem.
Add to this the fact that Anderson said this good witness could have incriminated Kosminski, yet Macnaghten tells us no proof could be thrown on anyone, makes for a bizarre situation.
Anderson was Macnaghten's boss, so why the contrary opinions?

Then we must question what those circulars were that made Kosminski a 'strong' suspect considering there was not an iota of evidence?
We might be forgiven for wondering if these officials were talking in riddles.

At the end of the day, I'd be inclined to go with Macnaghten's opinions simply because they were written considerably closer to the events than Anderson's.

I'm not saying no ID took place, but the results of this ID were not as close to fingering the killer as Anderson made out. Swanson, is just putting a name to Anderson's suspect.

Regards, Jon S.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

If a serial killer is mentally ill, they would have been a serial killer without the illness.

I wouldn't pretend to know whether this is true or not. Can you give a citation for this?

Aaron Kosminksi was clearly delusional at least at one point.

Rob discusses the seven and a half years of records we have on Kosminski. Obviously much is therefore missing. And of course a journal entry is only a snapshot at that point in time....but I would not characterize him as merely "delusional at least at one point". It reads like he was delusional when he came in, and it got worse as the years rolled on. There are comments such as "requires constant attention" "Incoherent and excitable: troublesome at times" "very excitable at times" in addition to many references to his "hallucinations of sight & hearing".

I might add that comments like this don't make me envision a gentle lamb of a man that just sat in a chair in a fog. Harmless? Maybe - but I wouldn't be so certain.

If Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper, he did it while perfectly sane.

And this is also a statement I would be reluctant to assert as a matter of fact. Why not as a paranoid schizophrenic Ripper?

But Kosminski's solution was terrible self denial, and Chase's was killing, drinking blood, cannibalism. They both had terrible childhoods. They both had delusions of illness, both were compelled to go to great lengths to cure that illness. Same delusion, different solutions.

What if the reason Kos didn't eat was fear of being poisoned instead of self denial over survivor guilt??

Rob House goes to great length to discuss how rising hostility towards East End Jews (not to mention the horrors of the East End for everyone) could have acted as a trigger event for someone such as Kosminski.

You really should get the book. I know twenty dollar bills don't grow on trees but it would be great to discuss the "anti-Kosminski" point of view with someone with your insights with specific reference to the things Rob has to say. It's a particularly well written book IMHO.

[harry]

A claim alone,and that is all we have,that AAron Kosminski was a suspect,has no basis in fact,if that claim cannot be supported by incrminating information.No matter how many or how senior the persons making the claim.There has been no incriminating information involving AAron kKosminski in any of the Whitechapel murders.No information proving an identification took place.No information proving that AAron Kosminski went alone,or with others to a seaside home.There are just claims,nothing more.A claim alone does not make a suspect.Does not prove a happening.Evidence does.The sending of a suspect as described is ambiguous.Does it mean he went alone or was accompanied.Perhaps Swanson stuck a ticket in Aarons hand and said,"Aaron heres a ticket,get yourself down to the seaside home,somebody wants to have a look at you".That would fit with the farcical situation that prevails today.

[Errata]

You are projecting your beliefs onto the spotty record that we have. Personally I think it best to just say "we don't know". I'm not dismissing your ideas here out of hand. I do read your posts very carefully.

He doesn't seem to have been violent in general in the asylum but let's note the Colney Hatch Case Book entry for 1/9/1892: Incoherent; at times excited & violent - a few days ago he took up a chair, and attempted to strike the charge attendant; apathetic as a rule; and refuses to occupy himself in any way; habits Cleanly; health fair.

Now I would be the first to say that taking up a chair ain't the signature move of JtR.....but once again we can torture this statement to make it say what we want.

"At times excited & violent" That implies to me violent more than once; the doctor is noting one recent example from "a few days ago". He's talking about this because it was a recent occurrence and he doesn't tell us if this is the degree of violence that Kosminski typically engaged in. And the entry doesn't say "always violent" or "frequently violent"; it's "at times". Episodic in nature.

We all look at suspects through the lens of our own experiences. It's hard for me not to relate to an Eastern European Jew with a devastating mental illness. But I would never argue that my view was anything other than the lens I see it through. I mean, we are functioning on precious few facts here, so we're all spitballing one way or another. Frankly I only get into it because I have a somewhat rare perspective as both a Jew (of course there are others here, some of them far more religious than I am) and as someone who is mentally ill and has been navigating that system for 25 years. And honestly, if this hadn't happened when I was so young, I would probably still be in the nobody's business phase, but I was well past that by age 16.

People struggle for an understandable metaphor for mental illness. They see it, and know that it is unbearable to the sufferer. But they don't know what it means on a daily basis, how much of it you can just ignore, what the process is, and how it affects a person's life. People compare it to being drunk, or high, or on acid. As someone who spent their teens in the 90s, I can say that it's not like any of those things. And so many people are surprised to find out that it doesn't make you something you aren't. Even at the heights of mania, or delusion, or even hallucination, it doesn't turn you into a violent person. If you are a violent person it takes away the impulse control, but it doesn't change you. If a serial killer is mentally ill, they would have been a serial killer without the illness. If a peaceful man has paranoid delusions, it doesn't make him a killer. At most it puts him in the very regrettable situation of not being able to accurately determine the need for self defense. That guy could get violent if he thinks he is being threatened, but he is far more likely to only do enough damage to escape, not beat a man to death. It's actually pretty common in psych hospitals that people become violent for the sole purpose of either escaping or stopping a procedure. That's why nowadays, episodic violence within the hospital setting is not part of the diagnosis, nor a part of their disposition after being released. Let's face it. Nobody reacts well to being held down by strangers to receive an injection they don't want or think they need.

Aaron Kosminksi was clearly delusional at least at one point. But delusions are very indicative of personality. Violent people have violent delusions. People who think they are superheroes are romantics. People who think the government is trying to kill them are people who have never done well under stress and don't deal well with failure. Usually very type A. Scrupulosity only affects the religious. People who have delusions leading to self punishment are people who have been carrying around guilt for a very long time. Since childhood. many of them have survivor's guilt, or residual guilt from being the victim of abuse. Given Kosminski's childhood, that would make sense. If Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper, he did it while perfectly sane. His delusions just don't at all relate the murders. But on the other hand, if he did it while perfectly sane, statistically his delusions should have reflected that violence. There are any number of serial killers who manage to get a diagnosis of Schizophrenia for a trial. I think the only one I can really get behind was Richard Chase. But not only did his delusions reflect his particular brand of violence, the reverse was also true. And he would have been a serial killer even if he had never gotten sick.

And I think if we are looking at a delusional serial killer, Chase is the model. Actually Chase is exactly what I would expect from a violent Kosminski. Same general delusion. But Kosminski's solution was terrible self denial, and Chase's was killing, drinking blood, cannibalism. They both had terrible childhoods. They both had delusions of illness, both were compelled to go to great lengths to cure that illness. Same delusion, different solutions. Different personalities. It isn't proof. Not by a long shot. But it suggests that if there is a delusional Jack The Ripper, he looks like Chase. And given the missing organs, he probably REALLY looks like Chase.

[sleekviper]

Just to be clear, is this about a viable suspect, or a culpable suspect? Perhaps it might be an idea to list which meaning is being expressed?

[Dr. John Watson]

(my emphasis)

Hello John,

Thank you. And even less connecting Aaron Kosminski with the crimes. Or the 3 police officers that stated the ball rolling in the first place.

best wishes

Phil

This whole discussion reminds me of someone trying to yank a bone away from a hungry dog; no matter how hard you pull, he ain't gonna give it up!

John