Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Oh I don't think he was incapable of acting out. And he probably did a time or two. I would just need more than a single threat to consider someone violent.

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

It does distinguish him from dozen and dozens of suspects that have no track record of violence, let alone violence against a woman. And with a knife no less!

Yes, I realize that we have no idea if this an isolated incident or over-dramatized. Could have been anything or nothing. But it's in what few records we have, and it's in the record of the "real" Aaron Kosminski.

Consequently, I can see his sister trying to get between him and his delusion. Trying to make him eat, or make him bathe, and she wouldn't stop until he picked up a knife to hold her off, and told her if she tried to do it again, he would kill her. He didn't feel the need to be violent, and he didn't feel the need to hurt her, or I imagine he would have. But he needed her to stop whatever it was she was doing. And of course I don't know that's what happened, but it's pretty common.

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.

To me it reads like someone that was mostly OK by the asylum's standards.
But sometimes he wasn't fine, and he was violent every once in awhile to an unknown degree perhaps set off by things such as you have discussed above.

It's not something I really expect anyone to understand, but (and I have admitted this before) it makes me feel sorry for the guy. Oddly enough, even if he was the Ripper I would feel sorry for him.

Rob's book has a pretty sympathetic tone towards Aaron and the mentally ill of the Victorian age. If I was a descendent I would not be outraged.

[Lechmere]

And he died before the Convalescent Police Seaside Home was opened (though personally I don't think that's fatal).

Death can be fatal

[Robert]

Hi Chris

I meant, just as a Polish Jew. Or rather, just as a suspect - a "hair-raisingly" violent man who was incarcerated in the right place at the right time. Of course, to link him to the Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten suspect it is necessary to postulate "Kaminsky" etc.

[Chris]

I think probably the best alternative to Aaron Kosminski, from the point of view of the Polish Jew theory, would be David Cohen. But that takes us into very murky waters.

But as 'Kosminski' he falls down not only on the name, but on self-abuse, the brother's house and Stepney workhouse. He doesn't fit March 1889 any better than Aaron. He matches what Swanson wrote about dying soon after being committed, but therefore not what Macnaghten wrote about being believed to be still alive in 1894. And he died before the Convalescent Police Seaside Home was opened (though personally I don't think that's fatal).

[AdamNeilWood]

Do you expect a serial killer to exhibit violent behavior in prison, or when incarcerated in an asylum? Did Dahmer? Did Sutcliffe? Did Bundy? Serial killers are typically cowards. When they are incarcerated they do not have access to their victims, who are generally vulnerable females. Most serial killers are described as "model prisoners".

Excellent point, Rob.

[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.

Of course, the memo was never an official document (though produced by an authority) yet it does have Houchins referral to support Kosminskis aggression.

Again, that's more than some recently accused innocent.

Monty

[robhouse]

Chris:

"... actually Aaron is rather a good fit for the descriptions given"

Strong homicidal tendencies, anybody?

On the whole, of course, Aaron IS the best bid so far for Kosminskiīs role. But Aaron Kosminski seems not a good bid for the dangerous, murderous, womanhating homicidal man described in the memoranda.

Could it be that Anderson added some spice to the truth, trying to rub in that he had found the killer? Was Kosminski fit up by Anderson?

Of course, we know that Ostrog TOO was described as a homicidal maniac, a man with the worst possible rap sheet. Likewise we know that this was apparently nowhere even near the truth.

So why are the suspects described as something they seem not to have been? Thatīs the million dollar question.

The best,
Fisherman

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?

Do you expect a serial killer to exhibit violent behavior in prison, or when incarcerated in an asylum? Did Dahmer? Did Sutcliffe? Did Bundy? Serial killers are typically cowards. When they are incarcerated they do not have access to their victims, who are generally vulnerable females. Most serial killers are described as "model prisoners". Moreover, the supposed statement that Kozminski was "harmless"... where does that come from? He is never described as harmless. There was a line on a form, "Dangerous to Others?" Answered "No". Where did that answer come from? Undoubtedly, they asked the person who brought him to the workhouse... ie. Kozminski's brother, probably Wolf Abrahams. So keep in mind that this is where the idea of "harmless" comes from. Kozminski's own family... who would not (presumably) want to incriminate him as the Ripper.

RH

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"I think probably the best alternative to Aaron Kosminski, from the point of view of the Polish Jew theory, would be David Cohen. But that takes us into very murky waters."

Why would we mind - we are USED to very murky waters.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"... actually Aaron is rather a good fit for the descriptions given"

Strong homicidal tendencies, anybody?

On the whole, of course, Aaron IS the best bid so far for Kosminskiīs role. But Aaron Kosminski seems not a good bid for the dangerous, murderous, womanhating homicidal man described in the memoranda.

Could it be that Anderson added some spice to the truth, trying to rub in that he had found the killer? Was Kosminski fit up by Anderson?

Of course, we know that Ostrog TOO was described as a homicidal maniac, a man with the worst possible rap sheet. Likewise we know that this was apparently nowhere even near the truth.

So why are the suspects described as something they seem not to have been? Thatīs the million dollar question.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Chris

I think probably the best alternative to Aaron Kosminski, from the point of view of the Polish Jew theory, would be David Cohen. But that takes us into very murky waters.

[Fisherman]

I must warn you, Robert - this is not a Lechmere thread. And if it was, it would have been TWO forenames and two surnames

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

There was Scott Nelson's Isaac Kosminski, but he isn't as good a fit as Aaron.

I think if there is to be a better fit than Aaron it would have to be someone who was recorded in the asylum records and workhouse records and whose death was registered under another surname than Kosminski. Obviously that possibility is hard to disprove, but one has to ask why the police would have referred to him as 'Kosminski' if he was recorded everywhere else as Kaye or something.

And actually Aaron is rather a good fit for the descriptions given. There is the fact that Swanson thought 'Kosminski' died shortly after going into Colney Hatch. But that's not so much a discrepancy between Aaron and the police accounts as an inconsistency in the police accounts, because in the Aberconway version Macnaghten expressed the belief that 'Kosminski' was still alive. That statement is absent from the official version. (Interestingly, so is his final comment on Ostrog: "He is still alive".)

Then there is Swanson's mistaken reference to Stepney workhouse. But viewed another way, that is actually quite a strong point in Aaron's favour. Why should 'Kosminski' have been sent to Stepney workhouse if he lived in his brother's house in Whitechapel? Something is obviously wrong with that, and maybe even if we didn't know about Aaron's history someone would have arrived at the logical explanation that Swanson meant Mile End Old Town workhouse, which is in Stepney, and that 'Kosminski' lived in that part of Mile End Old Town which was only a stone's throw from Whitechapel church.

That leaves Macnaghten's date of March 1889. If someone really believes in this alternative 'Kosminski' and wants to do a bit of research, they could look for a Polish Jew with an anglicised surname who was admitted to Colney Hatch around March 1889, probably from Mile End Old Town workhouse, and who died soon afterwards. But I don't think they'll find such a person.

[Robert]

Of course, Lechmere, with one forename and two surnames, scores over Kosminski with no forename and one surname, by 200%. I've got nothing against Lechmere. The trouble is...neither have you, Mr Spiggott.

[Fisherman]

"As good as"? Aha.

Letīs for argumentsīsake assume that what some posters consider an ID as good as made actually amounts to an ID well and truly made, Jenni - what evidence do you mean it supplies Aaron Kosminski with?

Does it put him on the spot, furnish him with bloodied clothes, provide him with a knife with small slivers of Eddowesīkidney on it...? Or what?

The "evidence" you speak of - what is it?

Letīs - retrospectively - put Kosminski (K) on the stand, and let the proceedings begin, using Anderson (A) as the prosecutor and Smith (S) as the counsellor for the defence:

A: Aaron Kosminski, I put it to you that you are the Ripper!

S: Ridiculous! What have you got to prove it?

A: I suspect him.

S: Well, you just said, didnīt you? But why?

A: He did it.

K: Pfffth ...

S: But donīt you see, Robert, that you need to prove it? Now, whatīs the evidewnce?

A: I am the former chief of the Metropolitan police! And when I say somethi...

S: Balderdash! You need PROOF!

K: Hmmmhmhmmmm ...

A: No I donīt. Iīve got evidence instead.

S: Which is...?

A: Well, I suspect him.

Not a club I would want to join, given the "evidence" existing...

The best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni Shelden:

"there is evidence"

There is, indeed! Clear and unambiguos evidence that three senior officers regarded him as a suspect (one did NOT name him, in fact, and NONE named Aaron Kosminski).

That is what there is evidence of. Likewise, there is evidence that Ostrog, Druitt, Issenschmidt, Sadler, Pizer and a few more were named by policemen back in 1888. In neither case does that evidence go to show that these men were good or even justified suspects.

The best,
Fisherman

they as good as named him as others have said more eloquently than i could