Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[Monty]

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

I know Im correct. Goose and Gander.

The recent innocent who have been accused based on no evidence, Mrs Williams, Appleton, Cross et al.....all innocent umtil proven as you state.

Monty

[Phil H]

See my post in the other thread, Fisherman.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"I know Im correct. Goose and Gander."

Well, thatīs sharp ... all I know is that the ones who claim that Kosminski is a strong suspect today are wrong.

"The recent innocent who have been accused based on no evidence, Mrs Williams, Appleton, Cross et al.....all innocent umtil proven as you state."

You forgot to include Kosminski, Monty. The evidence that he was a suspect is not evidence that he should have been. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. We kill the geese over here in November, and then we feast on them ...

[Monty]

Monty:

"I know Im correct. Goose and Gander."

Well, thatīs sharp ... all I know is that the ones who claim that Kosminski is a strong suspect today are wrong.

"The recent innocent who have been accused based on no evidence, Mrs Williams, Appleton, Cross et al.....all innocent umtil proven as you state."

You forgot to include Kosminski, Monty. The evidence that he was a suspect is not evidence that he should have been. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

All the best,
Fisherman



PS. We kill the geese over here in November, and then we feast on them ...

What tosh.

Again, you have no experience of the investigation and not party to the full account.

Therefore, as ever, you are supposing.

Monty


PS How interesting, I can see why you are becoming fatter and more cumbersome now.

[robhouse]

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

It is an interesting article. I had not seen it before.

Rob H

[AdamNeilWood]

Mary Berkin

Hi Tom, Rob,

As I posted on JTRForums, I've emailed Mary seeking clarification on her comments.

On top of the claim that the family regularly discussed the case, it's interesting to see that Mary says the only evidence was that of 'a Jewish man who not give evidence...'

I've asked her whether this was discussed in the family before the discovery of the Marginalia, or whether it was a point she picked up afterwards.

Adam

[Monty]

'a Jewish man who not give evidence...'


And there it is again. He would have no choice on giving evidence. Ho hum, I guess that is not the topic here.

Monty

[Errata]

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

It's not really a citation. Serial killers, especially the ones displaying the Macdonald Triangle, start the fantasy process in their teens. Typically acting on it in their late teens, early twenties. Schizophrenia, and other diseases marked by delusions or hallucinations don't start until the late teen early twenties. Full presentation typically takes several years more to develop. I Think most Schizophrenics don't have fully delusional states until they are nearing 30. I have never heard of someone with the early behaviors of a serial killer reaching the fantasy stage, and then turning it around. We don't know what causes it, so I can't put my finger on something and say "If this is true, then they will be a serial killer." But there does appear to be a point of no return, and that seems to be the fantasy stage, especially when combined with killing animals, or violent behavior towards people. Which shows up early.

Basically, the telltale behaviors of a serial killer and the fantasies start before the disease does. Not always of course. Bipolar presents in the early twenties, but I had the very rare childhood onset, and was diagnosed at 8. And I know of one case of childhood onset Schizophrenia. So If I had been a serial killer, it would ave been hard to determine which came first. On the other hand, I never passed as normal. I mean, I was never okay, so it's not like the people in my life could possibly have missed my problems. So I don't think Kosminski had childhood onset anything. I am something of a fatalist where serial killers are concerned. I had to study a bunch of them for a job, and while I believe in free will I quickly came to the conclusion that there was a point where they could not be saved.

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.

Saying that he was delusional at least at one point was not really leaving the door open for him to have never been delusional again. When dealing with very old psychiatric records, from before the various diseases were well understood, the safe bet is to rely on self reporting before the observations of others. He reported his delusions once, in his evaluation. So he was delusional once. Other observations may in fact be very accurate, but could easily be actions that are misconstrued. If he only got excitable and incoherent immediately before some kind of treatment, or some change in his routine, that could be simple distress, not a disease. I think he was as described. I think he had more delusions. I think he had hallucinations. But He reported one episode, so the safe conclusion is that He was delusional at least once, but probably more than once. Thats all.

Nor do I envision him some soul of peace in the asylum. Even if he was perfectly sane, I would expect a high level of agitation. Only catatonics and advanced delusionals would sit in a chair in a fog in one of those places. It's exactly like prison. Constant vigilance is required. I have a very real reluctance to try and interpret the behavior of someone in such a scenario. Of course it could be their illness. But it could be because they are now living in the outer circle of hell. And without references to see if certain behavior coincided with certain events, it's hard to tell. Though I gotta say, I would be hard pressed to blame someone for fending off an orderly with a chair. Orderlies restrained people, enforced the rules, forced people to do things they didn't want to do. They were the hired muscle of the asylum. Even a kind orderly with an exemplary record probably scared the hell out of someone every day.

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

Some of this is just gut instinct, but also when we look at paranoid schizophrenics who kill, their delusions are violent. Kosminski's was not. Full blown paranoid Schizophrenics, and Kosminksi was certainly old enough to be in the full throes of the illness, have persistent delusions. Unlike organized schizophrenics, they don't really have periods of complete lucidity. It appears that Kosminski did. And while it appears that Kosminski reported ongoing hallucinations, they weren't threatening him. He wasn't violent, he wasn't in full blown protection mode, he wasn't accusatory.

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

Because that's not what he said. He said that he was doing it to cure himself of some delusional illness. In a way, it was like food was poison, but not because people were trying to kill him, but because it would somehow trigger this disease he thought he had.

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.

Absolutely. I bet it triggered PTSD in otherwise perfectly healthy people. But people with an actual mental illness do not require trigger events. Triggers happen, but they aren't necessary to lose their marbles, so to speak. In terms of Schizophrenia, Bipolar, Mania, the absolute biological chemical illnesses, the only trigger necessary is reaching the appropriate age. And triggers don't always work the way you think they will. I'm Bipolar. My grandfather died, who was my favorite person in the world, you'd think it would trigger depression. It didn't. It cranked up my OCD to 11. And I get why, it just wasn't what I was expecting. At the worst point in my life, I had a psychotic break. Which is not uncommon for Bipolar people in a manic state, but I was severely depressed. I thought it was something special, but it turns out it happens all the time. So while I think that it absolutely could have triggered Kosminski, there is no telling what it triggered. Violence, flight, mania, depression, delusions of grandeur, anything really. My fiance's first manic state and the rather nasty breakup that accompanied it led to to the delusion that the Power Company had been sent by his father to convince him to become a lawyer, and that there was a resistance movement hiding messages on papers people stapled on the poles. So REALLY no telling. The brain is a thing of wonder.

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.

I asked for it for Hannukah. My sister always complies with my requests for books, she just wishes I read Dickens or something. Which I would rather grate off my own forehead than do.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Erratta
But Chase looked and acted odd during the time of his killings. His illness was in full swing. He blitzed his victims where he encounterd them. No one would have felt at ease around him let alone go somewhere with him. If Kos was JtR, then it was before his illness struck or times when it wasn't active, but I still doubt even then if Kos would appear normal enough, at the height of the ripper scare, to make his victims comfortable enough to go with him to dark ally ways. I think Kos might look like Chase, but not jack the ripper.

I have found no serial killer that looks like jack the ripper-the closest being william suff or perhaps dahmer. But neither was schizophrenic or considered mentally ill, which chase and kos most certainly were.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"you have no experience of the investigation and not party to the full account."

"The full account"? We do not know what Anderson claimed to have on Kosminsky. That IS the full account. And all we need to know to point out the uselessness in trying to assess the value of it.

Quite easy, really.

Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty:

"you have no experience of the investigation and not party to the full account."

"The full account"? We do not know what Anderson claimed to have on Kosminsky. That IS the full account. And all we need to know to point out the uselessness in trying to assess the value of it.

Quite easy, really.

Fisherman

Your Geese have a better comprehension.

Monty