Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Phil Carter]

As Chris has pointed out above, I did explain my reasons. Will you please admit that the above highlighted line is wrong.

RH

Hello Rob,

To quote you in full on the specific subject, (Dr. Tuke), posting No.732...

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.

This is your reply. My emphasis used.

a) In no way has it asessed the article of Dr Tuke.
b) All you have done is turn the opinions of the man into "he doesn't know about lust murderers, etc"..you have not adressed his views per say.
c) You first state that you do not think it particularly relevant, and then, in ending, state that Dr Tuke's opinion is "borderline worthless".

Sure Rob, if that is a reply to my question.. you did reply... and reasons given are.. well.. I will let others judge that.. however..

To address my point towards Phil H and ask you to address it, where Phil H states that it is of great import to have contemporary views in the field. Yet you, I state, ignore it. (not particularly relevant and borderline worthless)..which rather contradicts Phil H's historians approach he recommends to us all.
(I am still awaiting a reply from the gentleman himself on his statement.)

Like it or not Rob, Dr. Sir John Batty Tuke knew everything there was to know about the lunatic mind at the time of the murders, and his opinion is of great value, as it shows that in this foremost expert's opinion, the murders were not committed by a madman but by a very angry man.

"...For my own part, I can more easily see these crimes being the result of savage wickedness than insane mental action."
Dr. Tuke.


Herewith, for continued perusal, are his conclusions again. My emphasis.

"it would not be hard to imagine the commission of an isolated act of this character by an insane person, but the whole circumstances of the commission of these crimes, save one. are outside insanity. If they have been committed by a lunatic, his is the case which, in this country, is without parallel or precident. I have said that the circumstances of these crime is outside insanity, save one; that circumstance is, of course, the horrible nature of the act; but are we to deduce insanity from the revolting nature of the crime alone when all the other circumstances point away from it? Why should we underestimate the power of strong human wickedness and overestimate that of weak human insanity? For my own part, I can more easily see these crimes being the result of savage wickedness than insane mental action. The is a conciousness in the first idea which there is not in the second. Moreover, there is an incentive to wickedness productive of crime analogous to those now under consideration, which only those very intimately aquainted with the dark records of medical jurisprudance know of. This is not the place to speak of it, and I only allude to it in order to indication that there are incentives to crime unappreciable by the great mass of the community."

And you believe this opinion to be borderline worthless? Not particularly relevant?
I actually think Phil H is correct.
It carries weight. It should be treated with the respect it deserves. Irrespective of modern experts..to quote Phil H, again.

Just because it throws Aaron Kosminski, lunatic, out of the psychological frame, does not mean it should be dismissed so lightly.

Sorry Rob, this isn't personal in any way, I stress that, but you asked and you have been answered. This is about historical analysis. Contemporary historical analysis.
And you wish to ignore it and call it borderline worthless?
I am told by those who know better that we must not do such things. These things carry weight.

best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

This is about historical analysis. Contemporary historical analysis.[/U][/I][/B]

It is contemporary scientific analysis... nineteenth century scientific opinion. It is not historical analysis. I would give far more weight to modern experts opinions on matters of criminal psychology and serial killers.

RH

[Ally]

Phil,

You appear to be confusing historical analysis with scientific analysis. They are two very different things and scientific opinion from hundreds of years ago is hardly to be put on an even platform with historical opinion.

That would be to claim that the notion that the sun goes around the earth should be taken seriously and all other claptrap that was considered the best wisdom of its time.

A historical perspective should be considered, yes. If a doctor was standing in a square when a riot broke out, his opinions and observations should be given weight a hundred years later when we are reading about it as to what occurred in a factual context, where it started, who hit who first, how it ended, whether the police used excessive force if he witnessed such things, etc. However if he claims the riot occurred as a result of demonic possession (once the best wisdom of its time), female hysteria (once the best wisdom of its time) or any other claptrap that is long since disproven, then no, those observations should not be taken seriously or given any sort of weight.

[Bridewell]

Knowledge and Proof

Bridewell,
In answer to your post966.No I do not know that Kosminski wasn't arrested.

Hi Harry,

I responded to your query as to why the police hadn't arrested Kosminski. As you say, we don't know that they didn't, so they can't be criticised on that score. That was the point I was making.

no more than anyone today knows there was evidence to arrest him,but after the claimed identification,he was allowed to go home,this after said identification proved to police that he was JTR.

It's about more than proving the issue to their own satisfaction. It had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to a court of law. Plenty of cops used to tell me, in my previous incarnation, that they knew their suspect was guilty. Knowing and proving, though, are not the same thing.

As I said police only had to have reasonable grounds of suspicion to arrest.So allowing him to go home,is indicative to me that he was released from arrest,or had not been arrested at any time.

'Reasonable cause to suspect' constitutes grounds to arrest, but not to charge. After arrest, ultimately, you either charge or release. There is no third option.

Does one release a person that evidence shows to have been guilty?

Yes if the evidence is insufficient to charge.

You either believe Anderson and Swanson or you do not,and they clearly showed they believed him to have been proven guilty.

I believe Anderson and Swanson, in terms of good intent, but not necessarily in terms of 100% accurate recall. I also concede that they believed a Kosminski to be the Ripper. I'm not sure that either man believed him to have been proven guilty to a level acceptable as such in a court of law. A confrontation ID of the sort described would certainly not have been sufficient to convict. Even if the identification was correct there is no known witness who saw enough to secure a conviction. I don't actually think we're at odds here though. I seek only to point out that we don't know whether or not a Kosminski (Aaron or another) was arrested during the course of the enquiry.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

You appear to be confusing historical analysis with scientific analysis. They are two very different things and scientific opinion from hundreds of years ago is hardly to be put on an even platform with historical opinion.

That would be to claim that the notion that the sun goes around the earth should be taken seriously and all other claptrap that was considered the best wisdom of its time.

A historical perspective should be considered, yes. If a doctor was standing in a square when a riot broke out, his opinions and observations should be given weight a hundred years later when we are reading about it as to what occurred in a factual context, where it started, who hit who first, how it ended, whether the police used excessive force if he witnessed such things, etc. However if he claims the riot occurred as a result of demonic possession (once the best wisdom of its time), female hysteria (once the best wisdom of its time) or any other claptrap that is long since disproven, then no, those observations should not be taken seriously or given any sort of weight.

Thank you for this posting. Appreciated. I liked the comparison. Allow me to suggest another.

If a person comments on the inner social structure and condition of the lower class of people, both as a group or on an individual level, and the level of their ability and capacity to interact or not within that society, and indeed the micro society they live in, without known first hand knowledge, and has possibly a known overbearing view in their attitude to those below that person in society, making their views potentially biased, ...has perhaps a self centered view of life in general... how much weight, historically, should be given to that person's utterances on the specific subject, when that person has no known qualifications to utter any professional opinion on sociology and the inner structures of society and it's individuals, perchance?
I would suggest here too, that those observations should not be taken seriously or given any sort of weight.

Phil

[Ally]

I would suggest that any person who has ever lived is "qualified to comment on society". Sociology is an adorable concept but it is not a "science" and really does not require any actual credentials beyond an ability to observe and think coherently. Observation and opinion that requires no specific knowledge doesn't prevent one from making a sound judgement regardless of personal bias.

By your presumed opinion, one cannot make a diagnosis about madmen at all unless one is himself mad. One does not have to be of the class to understand or make determinations that are valid about the class.

[Phil Carter]

I would suggest that any person who has ever lived is "qualified to comment on society". Sociology is an adorable concept but it is not a "science" and really does not require any actual credentials

And your suggestion is read.. so it is good to read the non existant credentials of the man himself...

Welcome to the background of Sir Robert Anderson and his comments in TLSOMOL.

Born Dublin, not London,
was the son of a wealthy Crown Solicitor,
and elder of the Presbyterian Church,
Initially work on a short business apprenticeship in a large brewery,
left to study in France, and entered College in Dublin, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts,
one year later was called to the bar.
12 years later gained a Bachelor of Laws degree,
During this twelve year period he became involved in operations against a militant group in his society becoming the "foremost expert" (Wikipedia) on them and operations against them and 5 years after he was called to the bar the Home Office appointed him as adviser on political crime. This group had nothing to do with the posting above.
He was in time appointed secretary to several government inquiries. Such as secretary to the new founded Prison Commission.
The militant group then started up their violent camopaigns again and although this person was the foremost expert on their behaviour and role, he was not particularly effective in combatting them, and he was forced to resign his Home Office post, he was also removed from the Prison Commission two years later.
One year after this, he was called in once again to help combat these same militants. He was asked to assist the then Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at Scotland Yard, in operations related to political crime. He became Assistant Commissioner a year later, which he held for the rest of his career he was to hold for the rest of his career.

He thought the Jack the Ripper murders grossly oversensationalised, and went on holiday for health reasons as they started, leaving others in charge of the case. He spent one month away during this time. Yet claimed on his return to have no problem in getting his man, had he the time, etc. Although he actually didn't.

I have tried, and failed, to see any time he actually spent in the company of the lowlife of the East End jewish population. I welcome any examples of him doing this to any degree.

Welcome to the background of Sir Robert Anderson, devout Christian, member of the Plymouth Bretheren, and the man who didn't tell the truth in his memoirs, as shown by Simon Wood, on how he finished his career, (I am sure you remember this particular bit, Ally).

The Lighter Side of my Official Life is, almost from beginning to end, an ego trip of how fantastic he was, how brilliant his police department was and how he had total awareness of the guilt of people not even charged with a crime, through his own, invented, moral guilt.

Give me the qualifications of Dr Sir John Batty Tuke and his opinions on the murderer vis a vis lunacy or nay any day of the week. He really DID know what a lunatic was.. first hand.

Sir Robert Anderson, as a commentator of right and wrong, guilt and innocence, is completely biased, driven by his over bloated sense of himself.
He is no expert, in any sense, on Jewish lunatics, or lunatics of any sort.. even the lunatics "people"..who were of the "worst sort".

Just an opinion.

I'll listen to Dr Tuke every day on the subject of lunacy. Not Robert Anderson.

Now I must sleep. My apologies.


Phil

[Michael W Richards]

What evidence exists, or has been proven to have existed, that suggests or links Kosminski with any one Canonical murder? What evidence exists to link any Canonical Murder to a Jewish man living in the East End at the time of the murders in the Fall of 1888?

I believe in both cases the only answer is that there is nothing, aside from the conjecture offered by the contemporary investigators.

Maybe before we ask if a suspect is viable we should have a decent reason to ask if he should be suspected at all, other than relying solely on the opinions of contemporary officials who didnt solve any of the unsolved murder cases.

Best regards

[Monty]

"He thought the Jack the Ripper murders grossly oversensationalised, and went on holiday for health reasons as they started, leaving others in charge of the case. He spent one month away during this time. Yet claimed on his return to have no problem in getting his man, had he the time, etc. Although he actually didn't."

Is Anderson to be faulted for not having a psychic ability now?

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

I have some sympathy with the view Michael, but so much evidence, be it good or bad, has now disappeared. Historically we must go with what we have.

Of the senior policemen, who actually named suspects, two of them name Kosminski, and one of these in so doing purports to be enlarging on what his former chief was saying in his memoirs...so effectively three of them are implying one man as a suspect...out of all of the hundreds, (if not thousands), of possible suspects...so logic alone dictates they didn't pluck the name from mid air...they must have had something...in the absence of anything else we have to give their beliefs some weight...(else, for example, we'd totally discount much of what Pepys asserted because it isn't backed by any other testimony...but that way lies madness)...

I'm not asserting that Aaron was the suspect...nor am I denying it...I'm merely stating three distinguished coppers reckoned somebody called Kosminski was worth a look...

All the best

Dave

[Ally]

Phil,

I have absolutely completely no clue as to what you are attempting to say. I am frankly confused because what I think you are attempting to say makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ( I do not mean that as a personal attack, I simply mean I cannot grasp the connection you are attempting to make). I am going to proceed based on my understanding of what I THINK you are attempting to say, with the full understanding that I may well have completely misconstrued you and your claim has merit that I am failing currently to grasp.

Robert Anderson, as far as I am aware, did not set forth any considered opinions on lunacy, or jewish lunatics. He stated that Jack the Ripper was a specific jewish lunatic that they had identified and locked up. He made no medical diagnosis. He stated there was a man, he was a lunatic and polish jew and there had been an identification. He was a cop. So why precisely you feel this: "He is no expert, in any sense, on Jewish lunatics, or lunatics of any sort.." in any way invalidates him to make a claim against a suspect is completely beyond my comprehension. You would be hard pressed to find any cop who is an expert in psychiatric conditions, how does that invalidate them from doing their job, which is, to capture criminals? Or in this case, provide an opinion on who he thought the killer was.


Your doctor gave an opinion on what he thought the murderer would be like. A profile, basically. Profiles are often quite, quite wrong. We know this profile is wrong, flat out wrong, because insane people actually do commit murders like that. It happens.

In a contemporary context that is like saying that Malvo and Mohammed could not possibly be the DC Snipers because the psychologists who provided the profiles stated that the sniper would be a lone white guy, no two black guys in the history of this country ever did an attack like that, sniper attacks were the domain of single white nutjobs, ergo, this was an attack by a single white nutjob. Therefore the police are wrong because psychologists know more about the state of mind of killers and historical precedent on who kills whom how and that does not deviate. But regardless of clear error, you'll take the psychologist's opinion over the police's opinion, because they know more about crazy people?

So what makes your psychologist more qualified to "guess" what the murderer would be like, when, even in the quote you put up, he makes statements that we know today are patently not accurate?

[harry]

Bridewell,
I agree with your reasoning.What happened if we read into the claims of Anderson and Swanson,and others,raises Kosminski above the reasonable doubt mark..There was ,in the opinion expressed at the time,no doubt.They were the people who could and should act on the evidence available to them.That we do not know precisely what that evidence was,leads us no option but to accept the claims made,and that is that what emerged at the seaside home, was the crucial factor in determining the guilt of Kosminski.In that case they had,as police officers,a reason to arrest.I can not argue the merits of the evidence,nor can anyone else.I can only base my opinion on w hat was claimed.

[Paddy]

Medical Advice

When Aaron Kominski left Colney Hatch to be sent to Leavesden there were three categorys in the Colney Hatch discharge register.

1 Died
2 Recovered
3 Relieved

I could only see another relieved person and she went home
Aaron was Relieved to Leavesden Aylum

Can any of you tell me what this term Relieved actually meant?
And why if relieved he did not go home? Could it mean the family did not want him back?

Pat

[robhouse]

I am beginning to see why so little progress on this case has been made in the last 120 years.

RH

[Ally]

When Aaron Kominski left Colney Hatch to be sent to Leavesden there were three categorys in the Colney Hatch discharge register.

1 Died
2 Recovered
3 Relieved

I could only see another relieved person and she went home
Aaron was Relieved to Leavesden Aylum

Can any of you tell me what this term Relieved actually meant?
And why if relieved he did not go home? Could it mean the family did not want him back?

Pat

My guess, and this is purely a guess, is that they are using "relieved" in the meaning of "took over the duties for". So a person relieved to home would be cared for her by her relatives, while Relieved to Leavesden means Leavesden would be assuming the duty of care. He was not cured, but Colney was relieved of the duty.

It may however just mean what it sounds like at face value, he experienced some improvement of his symptoms, but was not cured.