Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Tom.

"This was not your run-of-the-mill sexual serial killer series."

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

contemporary

Hello Errata. By "contemporary" is understood "at the time of the crimes."

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I don't see that as correct, considering we don't know when the murders began or ended, and if we accept the C5 as some sort of guide, then we're dealing with a matter of a few months. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who came under suspicion after the Kelly murder doesn't count? You have tough standards here, Wick.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom.
Macnaghten, in 1894, is certainly talking about Kosminski in the past tense with respect to him being a suspect. What we do not know from the context of Macnaghten's writings is if the police suspected Kosminski before he was comitted, or after. He does not say Kosminski was removed to an asylum because he was suspected of being the Ripper. And, he was not committed in 1889, it was 1891, 2 years and 4 months after the Kelly murder.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

This is all true. But weren't Anderson and Swanson contemporary investigators? I see Koz as a contemporary suspect, but let's say for a moment that he was a 'near contemporaneous suspect' (to borrow the phrase from A-Z) does that make him any less of a suspect, or should we gauge his validity on the evidence?

Hi Lynn,

I should think that 90% of the Ripper community (which does in fact extend beyond these boards) would agree that the 'Ripper murders' were not the work of a lone psycho-sexual nut. However, Kozminski should by no means be cast aside and should continue to be researched. Even if he murdered no one, we could all gain by learning what evidence there was to cause such comment from investigators. And who knows, maybe the rest of us are idiots, and Rob House is a genius.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

Finally, you or anyone else can argue until the cows come home..but I have produced contemporary medical opinion on the mind of the killer from the BMJ. It wipes the smile off the modern day profilers trying to fit up Aaron Kosminski.

If you want to rely on that sort of evidence feel free – it doesn’t convince me.

It wont wash...there isnt one iota of proof that Aaron Kosminski had anything whatsoever to do with the Whitechapel murders. Period.

There isn’t "one iota of proof" for ANY suspect or candidate named then or since!! So don’t prattle on like that, as if you are unveiling some great truth. “Kosminski” was named at the time, it is utterly correct for us to examine those claims.

Incidentally, your remarks re Rob’s excellent book are unworthy of you and uncalled for. It simply further devalues the worth of your posts in my estimation. Rob has made a major contribution to our understanding of someone who was perhaps strongly suspected at the time.

We are know that publishers and publicists willoften insist on more "lurid" titles and claims than would the author. So what? It doesn't IMHO affect the quality of Rob's research at all.

I don't know what you are seeking to justify in your post, Phil, or how you think it advances anything.

Phil H

[Phil H]

Tom

Let's not overdue it, Phil H. Kozminski is intriguing, and a reasonable suspect...but a suspect for WHAT?

Of being JtR!! That was the claim of Anderson and Swanson. They were the two senior officials on the case and their opinion should be taken seriously. They appear to have been convinced he was "Jack". It is a firm period view and needs to be examined.

Whether it is AARON Kosminski or not has yet to be clarified with any certainty, but nothing to date that I have seen utterly rules him out.

That's the big question. I should think very few of us could still operate under the delusion that the whole of the Ripper mystery could be laid at the feet of a single, local, East End nut.

I agree and many of my posts seek to make just that point - but the jury remains out on the issue, so it behoves us to be flexible and consider a number of options including the period view of one killer/five victims. I don't find having a matrix of possible outcomes in my head, and at this stage I'm not going to rule Kosminski out, if two senior figures felt then (knowing MUCH more than we ever will) ruled him IN!

If the Ripper murders were your normal, typical murder series, it wouldn't generate near the interest it does, nor would it likely have gone unsolved. This was not your run-of-the-mill sexual serial killer series.

That may or may not be true. The enduring interest in the case almost died out between Matters and McCormick. Farson and Cullen did good work and Knight, to an extent revived wider public interest which hads not died since. But even at the time the Ripper scare was largely about a name, and media hype.

The Ratcliffe Highway murders are almost as bad (though without the sexual angle) but lack the "features" of the Ripper (most of which in the public mind, cape and bag, top hat and scalpel, are wrong anyway!!).

Indeed, as you have said, we don't even know they WERE a SERIES!!

They went unsolved, IMHO, because forensic science was hardly even in its infancy in 1888, and they almost had to catch the killer in flagrante to get their man.

So I repeat, on present evidence, Kosminski is (again IMHO) a reasonable, and valid subject for research and further thought.

Phil H

[Phil Carter]

Hello Errata,

"Sane" and "insane" today really only applies to legal matters. And insane person cannot tell right from wrong, a sane person can.

So anyone committing a henious crime (see Brevik), deemed legally and clinically sane, knows right from wrong? Brevik saw what he did as right from his political viewpoint and applied an ethical (in his mind) solution. The court deemed that he knew perfectly well what he was doing by dint of forward planning and how he actually acted during his rampage. He was calm and carefully throughout the time.. when and where he would kill.

Now you and I and most every "normal" person would never even consider such actions. "Normal" human thought does not encompass such reactions towards others. It isn't acceptable nor normal human behaviour. Ipso facto, it is abnormal and unacceptable. We tend therefore to call this type of frenzy the "act of a madman". As we have Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin, etc etc. As you have stated below, in the next paragraph, "issues" may be the key here. But does that apply to the person who slaughtered one or more of the C5?

"Nor are they "mentally ill". Clearly not everyone who kills or mutilates has some kind of a psychiatric illness, or even qualifies for one. And the reverse is true. There was nothing wrong with John Wayne Gacy other than the fact he was a serial killer. I would argue the same holds true for Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, a bunch of other guys. They don't even qualify as psychopaths. Though any axis II diagnosis rarely qualifies as an illness, they are more "issues".

In order to bring us back to the Aaron Kosminski debate, I read this paragraph with AK in mind. His psychiatric illness is extremely weak...feeble minded was a term from long ago I would use for AK. The very thought of AK, who WAS diagnosed with a psychological weakness, under his incarceration at the asylum, in comparison with the names you mention, doesn't even have a base of comparison, imho.

""Madness" technically applies to raving, and a lot of terrible people don't do that. People who have "gone mad" are suffering to the extent they can no longer function. They can't take care of themselves, they can't lead productive lives. Most mutilators don't fit this either.

Exactly. And AK, the man who may or may not have had a compulsive disorder to masturbate where and when he wished, be it in a public place or nay, does not fit the description of being "mad enough" to have committed one or any of these crimes, imho.

"What they do is not normal. It is not good for their victim, good for society, good for themselves. These guys are rare. Some of them are evil. Some of them are monsters. But they don't do this because of some illness or condition. They don't do this because they "have" to. They do it because they choose to. Knowing full well how the rest of society will view their actions. They do it because they want to. The do it because it gives them satisfaction. They do it for the same reason I blast 80s music in my car. And I don't love me some Duran Duran because I'm insane. It is quite possibly the most extreme matter of taste we humans are ever confronted with. Right up there with copraphilia and ritual cannibalism. But it is a matter of taste. Completely socially unacceptable taste.

my emphasis.
Exactly. And AK was not by a long chalk, of this catagory of "madmen". He did not have that self control. His incarceration in the asylum and its records show a totally different type of lunatic to the "crazy", "knowing", self-serving types. AK was an imbecile of sorts. A weak lunatic.

Thanks for your post.. I liked it a lot.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

It wont wash...there isnt one iota of proof that Aaron Kosminski had anything whatsoever to do with the Whitechapel murders. Period. [/B]

There isn’t "one iota of proof" for ANY suspect or candidate named then or since!! So don’t prattle on like that, as if you are unveiling some great truth. “Kosminski” was named at the time, it is utterly correct for us to examine those claims.

Aaron Kosminski was NOT named at the time and in the 25 years of dedicated research about the man, not one iota of linkage between Aaron Kosminski and the Whitechapel murders has been found.
Naming AK as the Whitechapel fiend is wrong. Period. And no, Phil H, I won't succumb to using terminology "prattle"..see your views on my comments of Rob House's book below... what is worthy, etc.
Unveiling, no. Highlighting and emphasising, yes. The truth is that Aaron Kosminski is innocent of being tarred with the epithate "Jack the Ripper".

Incidentally, your remarks re Rob’s excellent book are unworthy of you and uncalled for. It simply further devalues the worth of your posts in my estimation. Rob has made a major contribution to our understanding of someone who was perhaps strongly suspected at the time.

I have said this before. I repeat. When some bright spark calls AK a "Prime Suspect" for a series of murders that were unsolved and not one iota of proof can link Aaron Kosminski to those murders, then the statement "Prime Suspect" is completely untrue. It smells (with all personal respect to RH), of a sales campaign slogan by publishers.

We are know that publishers and publicists willoften insist on more "lurid" titles and claims than would the author. So what? It doesn't IMHO affect the quality of Rob's research at all.

Did I say it did?. No. And I have stated it (my respect) both personally and publically to RH, actually. Ask him or look it up on here.
As for "so what"... people read and believe, Phil H. What was promoted was plainly untrue. He was not a Prime suspect of the Police. He was POSSIBLY a suspect of ONE policeman, SRA, and the name of that suspect was given by another policeman. And it was not Aaron Kosminski.
Whether or not there are only 4 other possible Kosminski's running around the East End at the time or not, the next stage is too rule them in or out of the equation.
The bottom line is that however "near" AK "fits the bill"..he wasn't linked to the murders in any way. One policeman ruled him out of HIS equation for another, Druitt (MM)..another couple said "they had heard all about the Polish Jew theory" and there was nothing to it at all.. (Abberline, Reid).

I don't know what you are seeking to justify in your post, Phil, or how you think it advances anything.

[/QUOTE]

The posting in post 596 is there to establish some sort of contemporary medical opinion on psychosis in individuals, and in reference to said individuals in reference to the Whitechapel murderer. There is also a 4 page additional follow up by the President of the BMA on the subject (Howden) of insanity and psychology too, wherein he quotes Sir John Batty Tuke as well.

The fact is that AK has been psychologically examined left right and centre and labelled with all sorts of psychosis by certain modern commentators. Those labels have been widely used to draw the net tighter around the proposition of his candicacy. My postings on the subject by both Tuke and Howden put balance in..and whats more they are contemporary..and THAT is important.

Thanks for the reply.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

So I repeat, on present evidence, Kosminski is (again IMHO) a reasonable, and valid subject for research and further thought.

On present evidence, (imho) and (again imho) of the evidence gathered in 25 years, Aaron Kosminski is NOT a reasonable suspect for the Whitechapel murders.
Who it is, named "Kosminski" , being a valid subject for further research is something else. There is nothing linking Aaron Kosminski to these murders.
If one can't find another "Kosminski" that fits the bill, one shouldn't fall back upon and rely on one that might but can't be linked in any way to these murders. After 25 years of research.. his name should be allowed to rest in peace. (im my, and other's honest opinions).

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Whether or not there are only 4 other possible Kosminski's running around the East End at the time or not, the next stage is too rule them in or out of the equation.

People have been looking for an alternative 'Kosminski' for the last 25 years, with absolutely no result. If you feel you can do better, by all means go ahead, but as an armchair research director you're a quarter of a century too late.

[lynn cates]

Kos, et al.

Hello Tom. Thanks.

"I should think that 90% of the Ripper community (which does in fact extend beyond these boards) would agree that the 'Ripper murders' were not the work of a lone psycho-sexual nut."

Indeed? I would have guessed the converse.

"However, Kozminski should by no means be cast aside and should continue to be researched. Even if he murdered no one, we could all gain by learning what evidence there was to cause such comment from investigators."

Entirely agree.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

What's in a name?

Hello Chris. Have you researched the "Polish Jew" Wirtkofsky? Cannot find him in Ancestry.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

People have been looking for an alternative 'Kosminski' for the last 25 years, with absolutely no result. If you feel you can do better, by all means go ahead, but as an armchair research director you're a quarter of a century too late.

Hello Chris,

As far as looking for another Kosminski..I am fuly aware of what has been done in this field of research. Your work inclusive.. but I repeat, just because you can't find another Kosminski that fits the bill, doesn't mean you should fall back and rely upon Aaron Kosminski that possibly fits the bill but in 25 years of solid research cannot be linked in any way shape or form to the Whitechapel Murders.

Aarom Kosminski is not, and never was, a "prime suspect" for the murders. Neither has he been shown to be any sort of contemporary suspect to these murders. Aaron Kosminski. If you can show otherwise.. "by all means go ahead".

So if you want to go off and find a lost file on Aaron Kosminski or suchlike, "by all means go ahead," but as a respected on the ground researcher you have to admit that you have come up with nothing in relation to Aaron Kosminski and him being a suspect of the Whitechapel murder crimes.
There is NO link.

In plain language Chris, every attempt has been tried to link AK into this mess. Circumstantial and extremely tenuous snippets of the man and his antecedants have been introduced all the way in 25 years. People have allotted various medical conditions to Aaron Kosminski to bolster the theory that he was the killer. And none of it sits. Why?

Well, imho, it is because the lack of basic evidence from the start is apparent.
Until someone somewhere can link Aaron Kosminski directly to the murders, his personality does not fit the bill of him being a murderer. That's without all sorts of psychosis stamped on the dead man's forehead in retrospect. Which I find... well... I'll leave that.

I presented contemporary medical opinion about the case from an eminent doctor in the field (Tuke). I backed it with a four page presentation by the President of the section within the field (Howden). Both contemporary. Both show when in comparison to the known character of Aaron Kosminski to be lacking when stapled together with the word "murderer".

Now if you wish to use clever little put downs of a personal nature ("armchair research director")..do by all means carry on...they are imho, pathetically infantile, but you still havent adressed Tuke's comments... and like I said at the start of this to Jon S... those contemporary views will not go down well in any way, shape or form in some quarters...because you and others know full well what they mean re Aaron Kosminski. Now kindly adress Tuke's comments and leave the snide quips aside.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Hello Chris. Have you researched the "Polish Jew" Wirtkofsky? Cannot find him in Ancestry.

No, I'm afraid I haven't.

[Chris]

Phil

I'm afraid you're muddling together two quite different questions:
(1) Was Aaron Kozminski the suspect referred to as 'Kosminski' by Macnaghten and Swanson (and described by Anderson)?
(2) Was Aaron Kozminski the murderer?

Obviously it is not necessary to find any new evidence linking Aaron Kozminski to the murders in order to answer the first affirmatively. We simply need to consider how well Aaron Kozminski matches the man described by the sources, and whether it is likely that there is someone else who hasn't been identified but would be a better match.

As far as I'm concerned, the answer to question (1) is "Yes, beyond reasonable doubt", and the answer to question (2) is "Probably not (in common with all the other named suspects)". I hope that's clear enough.