Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Errata]

Hello all,

After reading the posts on this thread its clear that some members either have information that the rest of us dont even know exists, or that assumptions of truth and accuracy are being used as bread crumb trails to some kind of revelation.


Best regards

Okay, so back to basics then. What do we know? Not what we assume, or what we think we know, what do we actually know? Because at this point, I've seen certain assumptions presented as fact (such as Kosminski being a compulsive masturbator) but other things I thought were assumptions were facts, such as Kosminski's previous stay in an asylum (I think I assumed he was being confused with Jacob Levy).

We know Anderson favored a suspect who was an insane low class Polish Jew with masturbation issues and may have been protected by his peers.

We know Swanson says Kosminski, but got his disposition wrong if he was referring to Aaron Kosminski.

We know Aaron Kosminski was a low class Polish Jew, delusional and hallucinating at least some of the time, who was committed (with his cooperation) by his family.

We know Aaron Kosminski has no record of violence, other than throwing a chair at an orderly, and for all we know the orderly totally deserved it. I don't really count the threat against his sister as violence, I consider it a threat. The two can often be miles apart from each other.

What else do we know? I'm serious, lay the facts out there.

[m_w_r]

Hi Rob,

"I, the undersigned Edmund King Houchin do hereby certify as follows . . . On the 6th day of February 1891 at the Mile End Old Town Workhouse in the county of London I personally examined the said Aaron Kozminski and came to the conclusion that he is a person of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment."

Not a sniff of suspicion about him perhaps having been the 19th Century's serial killer sine pari.

Odd, n'est-ce pas?

Hi Simon,

I don't see why this is particularly odd. Houchin could hardly have determined that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper - or even that he was suspected by the police of being Jack the Ripper - by examining him personally, unless Kosminski had said so, which he evidently didn't (and even if - purely hypothetically - he did, Houchin must have had cause to doubt whether it was true). Nor did Woolf Abrahams mention anything about Jack the Ripper. Houchin had no other sources at the time he made the report you quote. So I don't see how he ought to have known that the man before him was 'the 19th Century's serial killler sine pari'. If you were in Houchin's position, how would you have been able to tell?

Regards,

Mark

[Lechmere]

Who was the accomplice? Surely it was Tumblety.
That would square the circle and keep a lot of traditionalists happy.
Even better of there were two accomplices – with Montague Druitt making up the threesome.

However I rather think that the good Doctor Phillips merely offered an unsupported opinion that there was an accomplice and that a reward might get this person to dob in the culprit. As Phillips had become a minor personality and professional man associated with the case his views were given credence. I don’t think he ‘knew’ anything in particular.
One of the lingering police theories was that there was an accomplice as they did not understand that serial killers nearly always work alone and they could not fathom how someone would do this alone and get away with it. They didn’t understand what would motivate someone to do these sorts of crimes.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

After reading the posts on this thread its clear that some members either have information that the rest of us dont even know exists, or that assumptions of truth and accuracy are being used as bread crumb trails to some kind of revelation.

Well, I am sure each side regards the other as deranged and possibly dangerous to others. But some have actually read a book that is directly about the question asked in the first post, "Is Kosminski the man really viable?" So there is some information there, such as detailed exposition about what the imbecile category really meant at that time. Being a Maybrickian I've learned more than I care to about Victorian medical thinking; glad to see others suffer lol.

So if you call Kosminski an imbecile and use the term as we do today, you're wrong and you haven't read Rob House's book. (I don't mean you Michael; it's the rhetorical "you") If you call Kosminski feeble minded, you're wrong and you haven't read Rob House's book. Etc etc. Things that shouldn't be controversial. There is plenty to argue about but it shouldn't be the various categories of insanity and madness and what they meant both theoretically and in practical terms.

Perhaps you were referring to other pieces of "information".....

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

"I, the undersigned Edmund King Houchin do hereby certify as follows . . . On the 6th day of February 1891 at the Mile End Old Town Workhouse in the county of London I personally examined the said Aaron Kozminski and came to the conclusion that he is a person of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment."

Not a sniff of suspicion about him perhaps having been the 19th Century's serial killer sine pari.

Odd, n'est-ce pas?

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

After reading the posts on this thread its clear that some members either have information that the rest of us dont even know exists, or that assumptions of truth and accuracy are being used as bread crumb trails to some kind of revelation.

In the world Im familiar with criminal witnesses are invalid unless corroborated by others or unless physical evidence supports their statements. I use Israel as my example,..not only is there zero physical evidence that he was where he said he was when he said he was there, or that he actually saw anyone else on the street at that time if he was there, there is no evidence that he attended the Inquest, was sequestered or suppressed, or that he was used in subsequent line-ups and further inquiries.

Seems like people assume a pot of gold lies at his feet, when in actuality, based on the known records, all we got from him is colorful commentary.

Best regards

[robhouse]

He was a feeble minded, poor wreck of a man. And that's all.

Moreover, you still haven't picked up on it. You said Kozminski was an imbecile, am I right? Now you say he was "feeble-minded".

I would like to see you post any evidence of these assertions, because I can tell you, there is none. Zero.

And if you want to know why my tone toward you is so sharp, it is that I am sick of seeing you make these snide, derogatory type comments towards people (like myself) who support the Kozminski theory, while at the same time, you relentlessly post stuff that is blatantly wrong, and you never concede the point.

RH

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

And there we were trying to get away from silly infantile sentences. Learn from Chris.

Try adressing the eminent contemporary expert's (Dr. Tuke's) words, instead.
Or are you going to try and invent something like a week or two ago to combat this evidence?.. a la "Swanson was "itching" to tell the great "British public" his secret" again?

And why wasn't this eminent expert's contemporary opinion in your book?

Aaron Kosminski's personality is the total antithesis of a killer. That's from an expert who has described a typical "Aaron Kosminski" to a tee. He was a feeble minded, poor wreck of a man. And that's all.

Look Rob. The book was excellent. But it really does say something if THE expert of the time ISN'T even quoted. And CONTEMPORARY medical expertise of the level of Tuke trumps anything of a modern ilk. It comes without all the modern technical labels.

Now if I know you well enough..this evidence WILL actually sit deep within you, and be properly considered. If you can find the same quality of comment from an equal of Tuke's calibre, taking him to task..I'll consider it too, just as deeply. But DO please remember that the President of the section, regarding lunacy, Dr Howden, also thought of the same ilk in his attitude and comments during an important presentation to the faculty in this genre, referring to Dr Tuke.


best wishes

Phil

I did not include this in my book because a) I had never seen it before and b) I don't think it is particularly relevant.

Why is the opinion of one psychiatrist in the Victorian particularly relevant in giving his opinion re: the profile of a sexual serial killer. Knowledge of this type of killer in the victorian era was effectively non-existent. Why should this doctor be expected to have the level of understanding of serial killers that we have today? Are you claiming this guy was an expert in serial killers? Particularly lust murderers? Is he an expert in criminal pathology? An expert in schizophrenic serial killers? He may never have encountered one... and probably never did.

Moreover, are you claiming that his opinion trumps those of other reputable psychologists of the era who had a different opinion?

You seem to think you have discovered something big, and I am trembling over here. I think this opinion is borderline worthless.

You say "And there we were trying to get away from silly infantile sentences. "... since when are you doing this Phil? That's a new one to me. To be honest, I am sick of your snide backstabbing and puerile remarks. You want me to cite a list of the many derogatory things you have said lately about me (indirectly) and people supporting Kozminski?

Also... how is it that when I respond to your various allegations and statements that are flat-out wrong, you never mention this or concede that you were wrong. For example, your unsupported statement that Swanson wrote a document that claimed Coles was a ripper victim. You glossed over that, and moved the goalposts... claiming a new one... now Swanson is dishonest because he pilfers police documents. Well played sir!

RH

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Forgive me...no offence.. but that sounds like the biggest set up for SRA and HIS comment of "his people" to be correct Ive ever seen.

I realize you don't care for it but I confess I never in all these years until now thought about accomplices in terms of family and friends. And it isn't that bad a line of reasoning. I've always thought of a lookout, the Fenians etc etc but not someone's relatives. And the police knew by then that Pizer's family had sheltered him.

Seriously - if everyone thinks Anderson was a rabid anti-Semite looking for a Jew to pin this all on you can now say he probably thought they needed to offer a little gelt to get any assistance from those "people".

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil H,

Dr. Phillips was not a detective, so probably not party to the Scotland Yard investigation and therefore unlikely to have plucked such a conclusion out of thin air.

There must have been scene of crime evidence, which Dr. Phillips appears to have only revealed at a meeting at the House of Commons on the evening of 9th November, and which led to a Cabinet decision on 10th November to issue a reward to an accomplice.

Dr. Phillips may have been treading a fine line between Whitechapel and Whitehall.

Echo, 10th November 1888—

Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

Star, and Daily Telegraph, 15th September 1888–

"Mr. Phillips personally has hitherto withheld information from reporters upon conscientious grounds, and Inspector Abberline himself says that the surgeon has not told him what portions of the body were missing."

Secrets.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon, all,

Thanks for bringing up the Echo articles, et al.

Quite some time ago I put up a thread about the Echo, 10th November, which I found rather interesting. You may recall it.

It can be found here..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4220

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

The reason I asked was that it looked just like the kind of innuendo we've seen in the past. Suggestions that documents had been faked or stolen, or that there was some sort of secret conspiracy or cartel based on vested interests. That kind of thing.

Hello Chris,

Then you will be delighted to hear that at no point in time did I consider your question, with what you have now revealed, as having been linked to playing silly games like entrapment... or trying to trick a volatile statement out in order to attack it...or me.

Furthest thing from my mind Chris. Because I don't start looking for black cats that don't exist in people's personalities.

Now that's out of the way, may we continue as we have been? Thanks.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

I did. But I expect Phil has not picked up on that yet.

Hello Rob,

And there we were trying to get away from silly infantile sentences. Learn from Chris.

Try adressing the eminent contemporary expert's (Dr. Tuke's) words, instead.
Or are you going to try and invent something like a week or two ago to combat this evidence?.. a la "Swanson was "itching" to tell the great "British public" his secret" again?

And why wasn't this eminent expert's contemporary opinion in your book?

Aaron Kosminski's personality is the total antithesis of a killer. That's from an expert who has described a typical "Aaron Kosminski" to a tee. He was a feeble minded, poor wreck of a man. And that's all.

Look Rob. The book was excellent. But it really does say something if THE expert of the time ISN'T even quoted. And CONTEMPORARY medical expertise of the level of Tuke trumps anything of a modern ilk. It comes without all the modern technical labels.

Now if I know you well enough..this evidence WILL actually sit deep within you, and be properly considered. If you can find the same quality of comment from an equal of Tuke's calibre, taking him to task..I'll consider it too, just as deeply. But DO please remember that the President of the section, regarding lunacy, Dr Howden, also thought of the same ilk in his attitude and comments during an important presentation to the faculty in this genre, referring to Dr Tuke.


best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

Dr. Phillips was not a detective, so probably not party to the Scotland Yard investigation and therefore unlikely to have plucked such a conclusion out of thin air.

There must have been scene of crime evidence, which Dr. Phillips appears to have only revealed at a meeting at the House of Commons on the evening of 9th November, and which led to a Cabinet decision on 10th November to issue a reward to an accomplice.

Dr. Phillips may have been treading a fine line between Whitechapel and Whitehall.

Echo, 10th November 1888—

Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

Star, and Daily Telegraph, 15th September 1888–

"Mr. Phillips personally has hitherto withheld information from reporters upon conscientious grounds, and Inspector Abberline himself says that the surgeon has not told him what portions of the body were missing."

Secrets.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

What did Dr. Phillips know? Why would Her Majesty's Government take the advice of a Divisional Surgeon in the matter of pardons to accomplices?

Two different footprints..... in the blood .....on the floor?

[Phil Carter]

Also, seeing as we're on the subject, who might Kosminski's accomplice have been?

Well, an accomplice could simply be someone who knew what he had been up to - a family friend or family member. They might know his comings and goings, even that he had blood on clothes or himself, and helped him wash or hide such evidence.

I don't think an "accomplice" (in this sense) has to be a party to the crimes, just someone who aids and abets.

Phil H

Hello Phil H,

Forgive me...no offence.. but that sounds like the biggest set up for SRA and HIS comment of "his people" to be correct Ive ever seen.
I'm not buying it, sorry. No disrespect. I personally wouldn't trust Anderson's words in combination with anything. The man had himself and EGO at the front of his intentions in that book. Throughout it.

best wishes

Phil