Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[bigjon]

As for the Macdonald Triangle, there is no empirical evidence that someone cannot engage in all three behaviors and turn out relatively normal. And Even if I could prove that everyone on the planet who had it was in fact a violent psychopath, I couldn't prove that it never happened in the past, or will never happen in the future. Macdonald did not study serial killers that we know of. I mean, there could have been one in there who was in for a bar fight and hadn't been discovered yet, but surely not a whole lot of them. We don't know if he studied psychopaths. It wasn't part of his study, he makes no reference to it, and in 1963 there was no reliable indicator of sociopathy. Given what we think now, that as many as 1 in 20 people are in fact sociopaths, and a great many repeat violent offenders do test as psychopaths, I think it's extremely likely that a good many of the violent offenders he interviewed were in fact psychopaths. Since it wasn't a factor in his study, and he didn't ask, we will never know.

But the modern criteria for the psychopath developed in the 1940's by Cleckley. And the DSM published in 1952 had a disorder named sociopathic personality disturbance which shared many criteria with Cleckley's disorder. While these may not have been as reliable as today's test, they were around and could be diagnosed/referenced. I'm not sure where you get your figure of 5% being the predominance of psychopathy, as most studies seem to estimate around .5-1%.

The Macdonald Triad probably is less dependent on the behaviors and more dependent on what those specific behaviors reveal. Fear, rage, antipathy towards others, anti social behavior, fetishism, bloodlust, shame, abuse, cruelty, sadism... all personality traits or behaviors that go along quite well with a serial killer. Certainly some of those conditions can be treated, but outside of a catastrophic episode, these are not kids who are going to be taken to a doctor. These are kids who are abused and ignored.

Perhaps for those who are unfamiliar we should describe just who the sample Macdonald used were - they were sufferers of mental illnesses who had threatened violent behaviour. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the data to see how this is indicative of fetishism and blood lust?

[Tom_Wescott]

P.S. Just for the record, Monty has known the identity of JTR for years, and his only motive for not making it public is he likes to watch us dance around like ants. Oh Crap, Admin's gonna ding me!

Oops, I posted this and then Admin put that new thread up. Coincidence? I think not!

Sir Robert,

What do you mean when you say just call out 'Abracadabra' and a new Kozminski find comes out?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Nemo]

I thought that Kosminski being forcibly separated from his family and the synagogue due to his uncleanliness/madness provides good reason for him to be affronted by the sight of hypocritical Jews fraternising with prostitutes, extrapolating into a dislike of prostitutes soliciting Jews

There is an example of a schizophrenic killer who committed a multiple brutal murder because the victims were camping on land from which he had been expelled - his brutality being in retribution for their trespass (I'll look for his name in a minute)

Both the murder locations in the JtR case and the GSG seem apt in the circumstance where Kosminski perceives an injustice against himself within the Jewish community

I would think he would be schizophrenic but sane and capable while undertaking the Ripper crimes which I would expect to be opportunistic or, more likely IMO specifically targetted on weekends and particularly holidays

[Nemo]

Herbert Mullin was the serial killer I was thinking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Mullin

He is schizophrenic, religiously motivated, follows the orders of his auditory hallucinations, kills indiscriminately and brutally, yet shows a high degree of control in his selection of victims and weapons, escape and cleaning up and the like

[Errata]

[QUOTE=bigjon;246024]

But the modern criteria for the psychopath developed in the 1940's by Cleckley. And the DSM published in 1952 had a disorder named sociopathic personality disturbance which shared many criteria with Cleckley's disorder. While these may not have been as reliable as today's test, they were around and could be diagnosed/referenced. I'm not sure where you get your figure of 5% being the predominance of psychopathy, as most studies seem to estimate around .5-1%.

Sociopathy was known, but since he wasn't looking to either include or exclude sociopaths, he didn't go through the effort of determining whether any of his subjects were sociopaths. I mean, I would think it was important, but evidently he didn't. And I lied about the 1 in 20. It's actually 1 in 25, it comes from The Sociopath Next Door which cites three studies and a government survey. It's impossible to know how accurate those figures are, but this particular set of numbers has caught on recently.

Perhaps for those who are unfamiliar we should describe just who the sample Macdonald used were - they were sufferers of mental illnesses who had threatened violent behaviour. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the data to see how this is indicative of fetishism and blood lust?

The samle is a little more specific than that. It consisted of patients in a hospital who were hospitalized for threatening violence, as opposed to actually committing a violent act. It was about 50/50 psychotic patients and non psychotic patients. He found that a majority of the sadistic patients (diagnosed sadistic, not just labeled that by a family member or something) had the triad of behaviors in their histories. Thus, the triad could be used to predict criminal behavior. But based on sadism, not on psychopathy.

When I say that it indicates, say, blood lust, I don't mean the triad. I mean the behaviors that make up the triad. Torturing animals indicates sadism, blood lust (literally, as in they experience sexual arousal at the shedding of blood), lack of general empathy. Pyromania always indicates fetishism. Pyromania is a fetish. It also reflects a lack of empathy, antisocial tendencies, antipathy, often it goes with addictive personalities, feelings of powerlessness. Bed wetting past the age of 5 barring physical cause is quite simply a form of anxiety disorder. Kids who do it live in fear or shame. They feel out of control, unsafe. It isn't always due to abuse, but it is always due to anxiety.

Any one of these means nothing. I used to throw my cat in the fish pond, which was quite cruel, but I always thought something different would happen. I couldn't figure out why cat's didn't like water, and I thought it I kept throwing him in, I would see why. I was five. I stopped doing it pretty quickly and I feel bad about it now. My sister wet the bed until she was 11 or 12, but she was a perpetually anxious child with some psychological problem nobody understood, but resolved itself after a couple of years. Like she used to have these wild fits of screaming and punching and destruction for like two years, and then it stopped. Even two of the three is probably fine, though I would hope to god one of those was bed wetting, because I can't see pyromania and animal abuse turning out well. All three indicate a personality who will be drawn to violence. I think it's that these three behaviors combined encompass every personality trait one would expect in a sadistic killer.

I think there are probably other behaviors that could essentially replace one of these three in the triad. I think bullying could substitute for animal abuse, substance abuse for bed wetting, pyromania is pretty distinct though. What I mean is that the kid who is a relentless bully, a violent one or one like those kids who specifically try to get other kids to kill themselves and then laugh about it when they succeed, thats the same personality who skins cats alive, but maybe they don't have access to cats. But bullying IS violence against humans, and the point was to find what precedes that point, so animal abuse is whats used. It's also a little different to cause physical pain and death to an animal, and to cause pain to another kid. It's not better or worse, but killing animals means a desire to end life, to shed blood, that a school bully may not share.

I think the triad has value. I don't think you can morally look at a kid who has the triad and say "It's hopeless, lock them up before they can kill someone". Clearly those behaviors, singly or in the triad need therapy. But the kids I've met who had it were all in that peculiar stage between truly being psychopaths and gaining enough sophistication to fake being normal, and they made my skin crawl. And I've met full grown psychopaths who have committed terrible crimes, and they didn't creep me out. If it was my kid, I would try everything within my power to save them. But I would be trying to turn them into a responsible sociopath. Not a normal kid.

[Hunter]

In every area of history, there will be debate on the subject in question, to a certain degree. It is no different within Ripperology. And if the re-introduced promotion of the Kosminski suspect theory is not recieving the positive attention hoped for by some, then it is simply because times have changed and the theory itself has been relegated in the minds of many. Whether corect or nay, it is the way things are..and something we must accept as part of the development of the genre. Some will dislike this intensely. Some will applaud it. But whatever happens and in whichever direction the genre tourns, it simply has to be accepted.

These are my thoughts on the subject. I believe, being one og those who questions (especially) the candicacy of Aaron Kosminski as the Whitechapel Murderer, that it is only correct that those promoting Aaron Kosminski have to see that reaction against their theory is a sign of the times. Historical analysis is develping all the time..and that is the way it should be..like it or not.

Hi Phil,
You've offered some interesting things to consider; not the least, the way historical analysis is perceived... which is the angle of this series of events that I am interested in.

I understand your use of the evolution of the study in the behavior of the Great White Shark and how some predetermined notions on that subject were later invalidated by further research. I'm not sure if it is that relevant when comparing scientific study of a biological nature to the dissemination of information pertaining to historical events. The methods and criteria are different, but I get your point... Instead, rather than delve into a comparison of biological science and the evaluation of historical events, lets get to the heart of the subject--the suspect Kosminski, who many have determined is likely a Polish Jew named Aaron Kozminski, and where we are now with this.

It is beyond reasonable doubt now that three senior officials, contemporaneous to the investigation into these murders, concluded with some varying degree that a certain individual was, indeed, a suspect for some of the Whitechapel Murders. Someone named Kosminski was that suspect because that name is stated by two of these officials and there is no indication that the third was not writing about the same man. Of course, there are other contemporaneous sources - Smith, Reid, Abberline, etc - who came to different conclusions as to who the killer was or if such knowledge even existed. There could be a number of reasons for this and I will not expand further in the limited scope of a post on a thread. So we'll get back to this particular suspect himself.

Because this 'Kosminski's' first name was not stated by anyone, modern researchers have searched for the best 'fit' to this surname. That appears to be Aaron Kosminski, but there are caveats with this, and one - Martin Fido - has even proposed that this surname may have been incorrect and has offered another Polish Jew based mainly upon the inconsistencies existing in the time of placement into an asylum and time of death of this individual. It is a tantalizing concept, but it is difficult to figure how both Macnaghten and Swanson would have the surname wrong and there is just enough information - despite these inconsistencies mentioned - to determine that Aaron Kozminski is likely to be the person in question.

So, was he Jack the Ripper? The inconsistencies in the information we have, and the fact that there was no consensus among all of the officials involved, can only lead to the conclusion that we can't determine that, and that whatever evidence existed against him was not decisive... otherwise we would not even be here.

At this remove, we can't even determine if the 'circs' against this man were based on hard evidence or something less tangible. I believe it was the latter, and that was why this failed ID was so important to Swanson and Anderson and why they stressed it so. Left with that, they just saw to it that the man was simply put away. When no more murders of this type took place - at least in their minds - over time that cemented these two officials' opinions that somewhere in the process they had gotten their man, even though Swanson continued the investigation after that had taken place. They may have been correct in their hindsight or they may have been sadly mistaken. Their views were obviously not shared by others - either because they were not privy to the information Swanson and, therefore, Anderson possessed, or they were and saw it lacking.

Is Aaron Kozminski even a viable suspect? If you look at the opinions of valid historians who have written about these murders, one thing that is consistent is the opinion that if a suspect ever emerges who may be reasonably considered, he has to come from the police investigation itself, because it is from that which most of the remaining information exist. I don't know if I agree with that totally, but by its nature it would carry considerable weight, because we will never possess the information they had available. There have been many suspects proposed in the subsequent years who did not even register contemporaneously - some with aspects that are interesting, and some who are utterly ridiculous. None have ever passed the test of hard scrutiny because the information in each irrefutably reaches a dead end at some point and the theories that promulgate them are in dispute.

When it comes to the contemporaneous suspect, Kosminski, we only know that he was just that. But unlike the other names mentioned at the time, he crosses the minds of three senior officials. At the same time, unlike some of the others, there is not enough information - despite the years of extensive research - to definitively refute the reasons why he was suspected in the first place.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Cris,

Thank you for your considered and thoughtful reply.

I understand your use of the evolution of the study in the behavior of the Great White Shark and how some predetermined notions on that subject were later invalidated by further research. I'm not sure if it is that relevant when comparing scientific study of a biological nature to the dissemination of information pertaining to historical events. The methods and criteria are different, but I get your point...

Thank you. The evolution of historical study was indeed the thought I had..and agree that although the two subjects cannot themselves be compared, there is a certain similarity, in base, historically speaking.

The inconsistencies in the information we have, and the fact that there was no consensus among all of the officials involved, can only lead to the conclusion that we can't determine that, and that whatever evidence existed against him was not decisive... otherwise we would not even be here.

The main inconsistency for me is that long after Aaron Kosminski was incarcerated in an asylum, the Ripper investigation was still going on, including D.S.Swanson, and (in part) R. Anderson. We talk of weight of circumstances..and this fact is imho, heavy, weighing down against Aaron Kosminski actually being a murderer. There has been, to my mind, no viable reason suggested why a massive investigation should continue in the manner it did involving especially D.S.Swanson still hunting for Jack the Ripper.

To consider the man and his behaviour, we must look at what we know of the man up to and including his incarceration. And we have. And we have found nothing to even suggest the man could be described as a "murderer".
Those two points made me realise a long time ago that Aaron Kosminski could not be the answer. I have seen many reasons put forward to the contrary, but like others, I am not swayed by ever widening circumstantial possibility.
It is simply, in my mind, time to move on. He doesn't have to be discarded. But promotion of Aaron Kosminski is now, I feel, at a "dead end".

There have been suggestions that Anderson was barking up the wrong tree. There are those, myself included, that believe anybody pushing this theory today are doing exactly that. To defend one's position is fine.. I have no problem with that at all, but to dismiss fairly obvious facts that have considerable bearing on the study itself, is unforgivable, imho. It is misleading to the wider public in general...because historical evaluation changes..and that must be accepted with good grace. Peter Benchley did after having raked in an awful lot of money from his novel and his role in the construction of his film.

It has got to the point where Aaron Kosminski's name is now so entwined with the "Jack the Ripper" murders, that thanks to endless promotion, all without proof nor evidence of direct substance I may add, the public in general are aware of the Polish Jew theory, though not on the PAV level of general "knowledge", nor the "Queen's physician". And the horrible thing is that this poor Polish Jew is innocent of the crime of murder..and any type of association heavier than weak circumstantial points, all without Aaron Kosminski's name, is really wrong, imho.

I see a developing of historical perception taking place. The Kosminski idea has run it's course. It will now take far more tangible evidence to change many minds on the subject, to swing favour towards the theory. That historical perception just has to be accepted. Like it or not. Because nothing is actually going to stop it unless naturally, it changes it's course.
More Kosminski promotion on a large commercial scale, with the stalemate we have now, will only be looked at, in my eyes, as trying to get a meal ticket off the bandwagon... a bandwagon where the wheels, if not having fallen off already, are decidedly loose and wobbly. And that is just the way current perception is from many. Like it or not.

Thank you again for your reply. I may not be able to reply for a while, and apologise in advance. (that applies to all)

best wishes

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

The main inconsistency for me is that long after Aaron Kosminski was incarcerated in an asylum, the Ripper investigation was still going on, including D.S.Swanson

Phil,

Swanson's continued work on the case does not necessarily imply that Swanson was 50/50 on Kosminski.

There is a risk associated with any decision, no matter how water-tight it appears to be. Perhaps Swanson's ongoing activity is an indication of his objectivity and rigour in that he was as certain as a man can be regarding Kosminski, while accepting, as any reasonable man does, that there is always room for an alternative no matter how unlikely that alternative appears to be. I suppose it is a philosophical stance that somewhere along the line we can all be led astray when making a decision, no matter how certain we feel.

In the event Swanson's ongoing work was an indication of his objectivity and rigour, then what does this say about the statement: "suspect was identified, witness refused to give evidence, murderer would have hanged"?

Edited to add:

1) Swanson continuing on the case - no problem for me as I would have done the same - in the interests of objectivity.
2) The Seaside Home - no problem for me as I would have done the same - secure, secret location, the fewer people involved the better.
3) Believed he was dead - demonstrably a problem.
4) Only giving the surname Kosminski - could be argued either way in terms of whether this detracts from the ID - not significant for me.

So, I'm left with why Swanson thought he was dead.

[bigjon]

And I lied about the 1 in 20. It's actually 1 in 25, it comes from The Sociopath Next Door which cites three studies and a government survey. It's impossible to know how accurate those figures are, but this particular set of numbers has caught on recently.

I'm not familiar with Dr Stout's work - but I thought we were discussing psychopathy and not sociopathy (or ASPD). The levels of sociopathy are much higher than psychopathy according to DSM-IV (TR) but I think 1 in 33 is the approximate estimate.

The only similar number to 1 in 25 I've seen is for corporate execs.

[Phil Carter]

In the event Swanson's ongoing work was an indication of his objectivity and rigour, then what does this say about the statement: "suspect was identified, witness refused to give evidence, murderer would have hanged"?

Edited to add:

1) Swanson continuing on the case - no problem for me as I would have done the same - in the interests of objectivity.
2) The Seaside Home - no problem for me as I would have done the same - secure, secret location, the fewer people involved the better.
3) Believed he was dead - demonstrably a problem.
4) Only giving the surname Kosminski - could be argued either way in terms of whether this detracts from the ID - not significant for me.

So, I'm left with why Swanson thought he was dead.

Hello FM,

Thanks for the thoughts and opinions..appreciated.

I would willingly agree if it wasn't for the fact that Swanson wasn't running the investiagtion.. he took orders from above. Also that Swanson himself was in the thick of trying to name Jack the Ripper with Sadler. Swanson would not be chasing Jack the Ripper if he knew that the likely Jack the Ripper was already locked up.

I believe that something important may be overlooked here... politics.

In order to have the trust of the poplace, and indeed, the nation in general, both the police and the Home Office, Government even, would have calmed the situation as best they could. The fear that was around in the East End lasted many years after 1888. The investigation ended in 1896. Suddenly. Without a reason, the case was left unanswered.

Now if the killer or killers were found, either dead, abroad or incarcerated, that message would have been pressed home for all it is worth. It wasn't done by a long chalk in 1896, nor 1895..nor 1891. Governments do not like having egg on their faces.

In addition, many thousands of pounds were used in trying to hunt this killer down. That isn't something one does if the killer is known to have been locked away up to 4 years previously.

The evidence against Kosminski is circumstantial at best. The evidence against Aaron Kosminski doesn't even exist. And that point has to now be accepted.

Like it or not, we are where we are. A dead end. Unless something of serious substance comes up.. that is where many see the Kosminski situation..many more than before, I'd wager. Just like there are many less Sickert, Maybrick and PAV theorists. Their heyday has passed. So has Kosminski's.

Swanson thinking the killer was dead? That is where the medical student idea comes in..one which Swanson himself made comment upon previously.

best wishes

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Phil,

Swanson would not be chasing Jack the Ripper if he knew that the likely Jack the Ripper was already locked up.

I think I've just proposed an alternative; a reason as to why he may have done.

Now if the killer or killers were found, either dead, abroad or incarcerated, that message would have been pressed home for all it is worth. It wasn't done by a long chalk in 1896, nor 1895..nor 1891. Governments do not like having egg on their faces.

That's a matter of opinion.

There is good reason to think that in this case it may have been deemed to have been expedient to let sleeping dogs lie.

The evidence against Kosminski is circumstantial at best. The evidence against Aaron Kosminski doesn't even exist. And that point has to now be accepted.

I think it's been said that we have no visibility as to the evidence against Kosminski. What we're really discussing is Swanson's objectivity and reason, i.e. when he said: "murderer would have hanged", was it a reasonable statement?

[Wickerman]

In the event Swanson's ongoing work was an indication of his objectivity and rigour, then what does this say about the statement: "suspect was identified, witness refused to give evidence, murderer would have hanged"?

In all fairness F.M., this paraphrase you put together was not Swanson giving his opinion of Kosminski, it was Swanson justifying the words of his old boss.

Where Anderson concluded with; ..."but he refused to give evidence against him", Swanson provides justification by adding...

"because the suspect was also a Jew and also, because his evidence would convict the suspect, and [therefore] witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind".

"murderer being hanged" is only a reasonable conclusion derived from the 'second' previous "because" statement. It is not Swanson's opinion, its a matter of fact, assuming the second previous statement was correct.

I think the context of Swanson's words are that he is offering justification by way of two statements each leading with a "because" . He himself is not giving his opinion on whether Kosminski was the murderer, which I suspect has been the main assumption.

Swanson is not saying "this is what I thought", he is saying, "this is what Anderson thought", and why.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

In all fairness F.M., this paraphrase you put together was not Swanson giving his opinion of Kosminski, it was Swanson justifying the words of his old boss.

Where Anderson concluded with; ..."but he refused to give evidence against him", Swanson provides justification by adding...

"because the suspect was also a Jew and also, because his evidence would convict the suspect, and [therefore] witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind".

"murderer being hanged" is only a reasonable conclusion derived from the 'second' previous "because" statement. It is not Swanson's opinion, its a matter of fact, assuming the second previous statement was correct.

I think the context of Swanson's words are that he is offering justification by way of two statements each leading with a "because" . He himself is not giving his opinion on whether Kosminski was the murderer, which I suspect has been the main assumption.

Swanson is not saying "this is what I thought", he is saying, "this is what Anderson thought", and why.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

I agree with this. Expansion on Anderson's story.

best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

I agree with this. Expansion on Anderson's story.

best wishes

Phil

Thats how I see it Phil, too much emphasis is being placed on Swanson/Kosminski rather than, what I think is the true situation, Swanson/Anderson, with Kosminski being incidental.

Swanson has picked up Anderson's memoirs and added extra detail by way of explaining or clarifying why Anderson came to the conclusion he did.

There's no reason to suppose Swanson would include his own private suspicions in someone else's memoirs, especially as Swanson was adverse to putting his own thoughts on paper anywhere else.

Had Swanson created his own memoirs then it might be a different matter but so far as we know Swanson was not the type of person to give his opinion in writing. Swanson was only saying, this is why Anderson came to that conclusion, and why.

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

Swanson is not saying "this is what I thought", he is saying, "this is what Anderson thought", and why.

When he talks about the witness's reasons for refusing to give evidence, another possibility is that Swanson is recording (or more likely amplifying and interpreting) something the witness said.