Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[miakaal4]

To the guys that pointed out to me that Kosminsky was not a drooling imbicile.
Well he may not always have been guys, but he behaved in that way at some point. Rob House (dissertation file) tells us that he was transferred to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles in 1894! And he died there in 1919, presumably an imbecile to the end.

[Sally]

I find it hard to believe that Kosminski was targetted just because he fitted the bill. Following that line of logic, had his fellow jew formally identified him at the Seaside Home event, Kosminski would have been hanged for the Whitechapel Murders.

Are you saying, Ed and Miakaal, that you think the police would have done that? Any culprit better than no culprit.

Sorry, but I think that's simplistic and vaguely ridiculous. Plus, let's face it, you both have suspects to push, which makes you less than objective regarding Kosminski's suspect status.

[DVV]

I find it hard to believe that Kosminski was targetted just because he fitted the bill.

Hi Sally.
However, the theory precedes the suspect in his case. And that was Anderson's theory. Worse : diagnosis.

[robhouse]

To the guys that pointed out to me that Kosminsky was not a drooling imbicile.
Well he may not always have been guys, but he behaved in that way at some point. Rob House (dissertation file) tells us that he was transferred to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles in 1894! And he died there in 1919, presumably an imbecile to the end.

No sorry, you are wrong. But I have already explained this about ten times, so if you want to find out, look up my older posts. Kozminski was not an imbecile...period. You don't actually know what "imbecile" means anyway.

RH

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Are you saying, Ed and Miakaal, that you think the police would have done that? Any culprit better than no culprit. Sorry, but I think that's simplistic and vaguely ridiculous."

Because you know what the police agenda looked like in cases like this? Or because you THINK you know?

If the latter applies, then are you not the one being ridiculous here?

Have a look at "Cross", since you speak of a bias on behalf of people who have suspect preferences; is it probable or not probable that he was looked into deeply?

It is not probable. If it had happened, the police would have secured his name. Likewise, he would not have been treated with the total lack of interest that is apparent.

And just how well does this tally with the police not having preconceived notions about what their man would be like? Not at all. Because it seems evident that a man like "Cross", who could account for himself and who displayed no external madness and who was no any exotic foreigner, would not be of interest to the investigation.

This in spite of having stood alone by a freshly killed victim!

If it had been Issenschmidt that found her, a man with a diagnosis, a madman with a foreign name, if he had found Nichols on an early morning walk - somebody HAD to find her, as I´m told - then what chances would he have stood to be left to mind his own business afterwards?

Let me tell you, Sally, and everybody else who says that a contemporary suspicion elevates a suspect over the ones who were NOT suspected: This only holds true if the tools the police used were appropriate.

We know very well today that the ordinary serial killer is often a drab man, a man who has attracted no interest at all from his environment. A grey man, a nobody, a socially uninteresting man.

But the police in 1888 sought for men that were "half man, half beast" as one paper put it, a maniac, revelling in blood, as Anderson put it, a mentally deranged person.

That line of inquiry is not compatible with the grey man scenario. Therefore, going on these parameters only, a contemporary suspect is a bad suspect. Please notice that I am here disregarding any collected evidence that may have led Anderson, Swanson, MacNaghten et al to entertain suspicions against their chosen men. Such evidence, relating specifically to the murder series, may have been there. But if it was, it has gone lost, and what remains is as tangible as London fog; hints, murmurs, underlinings that may or may not be of interest, alleged information from undisclosed sources ...

That´s how "simplistic and vaguely ridiculous" it is to say that the police would have been at a loss, looking for the wrong type of suspect altogether, Sally. From what we have, it fits the picture. But why bother about such things, when there are fancy ghost leads to follow everywhere?

The best,
Fisherman

[miakaal4]

Hi RH, well I'm not going to look the word up, but I think an imbecile (in 1888) would be some one who needed help to survive, and perhaps to prevent self harm. Drooling suggests that the mind is elsewhere and not concerned with keeping the mouth closed or swallowing. I grant you that Kosminski could have been none of these things, but I'm not sure I would believe that a cunning, planner like JtR would be sent to an asylum for imbeciles.
Sally, I think that a lot of people were targetted because of rumour or News gossip. Guys with Gladstone bags, in aprons, and behaving in what would be deemed as a mad way, to name but a few. Kosminsky may have been very well known in Whitechapel, the way some local tramps nowadays are well known in their community. What I am saying is that when the description of the killer went out as Mad, Foreign etc it would be natural for people to think of Kosminski, if they knew him, and mention him to the enquiring police.

[Sally]

Fisherman -

Yesterday you wrote:

I will not post anything about Lechmere on this thread anymore

And yet here you are, bleating on about Lechmere - again.

Give it a rest. This thread is for the discussion of Kosminski.

[Sally]

Sally, I think that a lot of people were targetted because of rumour or News gossip. Guys with Gladstone bags, in aprons, and behaving in what would be deemed as a mad way, to name but a few. Kosminsky may have been very well known in Whitechapel, the way some local tramps nowadays are well known in their community. What I am saying is that when the description of the killer went out as Mad, Foreign etc it would be natural for people to think of Kosminski, if they knew him, and mention him to the enquiring police.

Yes, perhaps. But do you think the police would have hung a man simply because he fit a preconceived notion? I don't.

If there was no evidence against him, I doubt he'd have got as far as the Seaside Home.

[DGB]

An imbecile is someone with severe learning difficulties (an IQ between 25-50, or a mental age of 3-7), they're barely able to even undertake housework. This definitely doesn't fit with Aaron.

However, it has also been used to describe certain criminality, which may have been a reason for Aaron's move.

Hi RH, well I'm not going to look the word up, but I think an imbecile (in 1888) would be some one who needed help to survive, and perhaps to prevent self harm. Drooling suggests that the mind is elsewhere and not concerned with keeping the mouth closed or swallowing. I grant you that Kosminski could have been none of these things, but I'm not sure I would believe that a cunning, planner like JtR would be sent to an asylum for imbeciles.
Sally, I think that a lot of people were targetted because of rumour or News gossip. Guys with Gladstone bags, in aprons, and behaving in what would be deemed as a mad way, to name but a few. Kosminsky may have been very well known in Whitechapel, the way some local tramps nowadays are well known in their community. What I am saying is that when the description of the killer went out as Mad, Foreign etc it would be natural for people to think of Kosminski, if they knew him, and mention him to the enquiring police.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Give it a rest. This thread is for the discussion of Kosminski."

Yes. And it is Kosminski, and his viability as a suspect, as suggested by the thread title, that I speak of. And the detection modes used by the police, as exemplified by "Cross" and Issenschmidt.

Any halfwitted person could see that.

The quarterwitted too, I suppose.

After that, who can say...?

So how about you address the issue instead, Sally?

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

What makes you think Aaron kosminsky didn't have a low iq? I suspect he did.

Sally - Was kosminsky hung or even arrested? Did the seaside home Id take place? If do where, when and by which means.
If you can answer these then you are indeed an expert researcher.
If not then you are merely another inaccurate poster.
Can you see the difference between a couple of senior policemen sitting in their leather armchairs late at night with a tumbler of whiskey and a fat cigar pontificating to each other about the most likely suspect that had (somehow - who knows how now) come to their attention, a suspect that confirms their prejudices, and a full blown evidence based trial at the old bailey?

As for kosminsky's madness - while he was not necessarily a drooler - it is given as his 'motivation' for being the killer. It is presented as the card that declares his potential for guilt. You can't have it both ways and say 'oh no he wasn't that mad' when it is realised that the crimes couldn't realistically have been committed by a madman.

[Mr Stu]

Yes, I've wondered if Aaron K fitted the bill as other posters have mentioned - the local odd guy.
It still happens today the local strange bloke coming under suspicion or worse being wrongly convicted- Colin Stagg anyone? Barry George? Tom Stephens in the Ipswich strangler case? Christopher Jefferies in the Jo Yeates case?
So yes, I consider it a possibility that AK could've been a person of interest because he fitted a preconcieved idea of being the "type".

[miakaal4]

To end the debate here, I apologise to all for calling Kosminski an imbecile. From now on I shall refer to him as a man who on occasion behaved oddly.
However, referring to my first post, and despite 13 pages of comment, I still do not see Kosminski, the man, as viable. There is nothing there, apart from some enigmatic remarks made by people whose agenda at the time is unknown.
We do know that the big word around the world regarding the great Scotland Yard was the word FAILED. They failed to find this killer end of. That must have hurt a lot. In the exclusive clubs, and the Masonic Lodges. It would be human nature to, having revised the evidence, give an opinion edged with the rueful comment about French policing.
We have all heard and maybe have been members of the "What if?" college of thought. I feel that S. M. and Sir R were memebrs of the "Must have been" High School. It "must have been" a foreigner, a Jew, a madman.
They were all tightly wrapped indiviuals, and to be fair each may have recorded or known things that we will never know for what ever reason. But the bottom line is they did not arrest the man, the policemen out on the street do not mention him anywhere, and he was not known for violence
or hatred of women. Either he is the wrong man or they are way off target. In both cases it wasn't Kosminski.

[Sally]

Sally:

"Give it a rest. This thread is for the discussion of Kosminski."

Yes. And it is Kosminski, and his viability as a suspect, as suggested by the thread title, that I speak of. And the detection modes used by the police, as exemplified by "Cross" and Issenschmidt.

Any halfwitted person could see that.

The quarterwitted too, I suppose.

After that, who can say...?

So how about you address the issue instead, Sally?

Fisherman

Fisherman. Your post was concerned with Lechmere, and with bolstering your position, as usual.

My original post was not even addressed to you; yet you saw fit to seize an opportunity to bring up your pet suspect. Any excuse, eh?

[robhouse]

What makes you think Aaron kosminsky didn't have a low iq? I suspect he did.

OK, again... what do you base this on? Are you suggesting that people with schizophrenia have low IQs? I think some people would find that offensive frankly.

RH