Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Phil Carter]

I throw these speculative questions to all comers:


1. At the time did the Kosminski family, or certain members -- or just one -- know, or believe, that their Aaron was likely the Ripper, and that he had been positively identified by a Jewish witness (who would not testify against a fellow Hebrew)? eg. did they know that he had been taken to the Seaside Home, a police hospital outside of London, for this calamitous (from their point of view) official identification?


2. Assuming that members of the Kosminski family were in-the-know, that their sectioned member was a notorious killer, would they have recognised their [un-named] Aaron in the writings of Griffiths, Sims, and most significantly the public comments and memoirs of Sir Robert Anderson?


Obviously the answers can only be speculative -- yet I think such analytical exertions could prove productive:

Hello Jonathan,

These are good questions. With a little expansion... here is a little list of those I would personally believe either would, or should have known about "Kosminski", if Swanson and Anderson are correct.

Primarily..
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.. Monro and or Bradford.
The Commissioner of the City Police
Various heads at Scotland Yard and Special Branch.
The investigating police inspectors, Abberline included.
The family of Kosminski. If Aaron, the sister and the brother at least.

Secondary..

A leading member of the Hebrew faith in the East End, attached to a Synagogue.
Close friends of the Kosminski family.
Friends and relations of various policemen after their retirement.
A few individual journalists.

After that, down the years, many others.

What I find interesting, is the total silence surrounding this supposed mad killer. The most vicious individual killer of all time, the most infamous killer of all time.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

My suspicion, Jon, has long been that Kosminski simply fitted the preconceived notions that Anderson had developed with regard to the wanted man. He was Jewish, mentally unstable, lived in the immediate neighbourhood, had a family that might have been seen as protecting him, and was said to have practised ‘self abuse’. Beyond this there appears to have been little or no evidence against him. There couldn’t have been, otherwise the entire case wouldn’t have rested on an eyewitness identification. Remember too that the City investigation failed to convince Major Smith of Kosminski’s guilt. The round the clock surveillance apparently uncovered nothing incriminating. Even if it did, we may be certain that Lawende never identified Kosminski as part of the City investigation.

Hello Garry,

This is one of the best posts I have seen on the subject.

Anderson seems to have a degree of bias against Jews.
Anderson latched on to this nobody that may have come under the spotlight as many others did.
Anderson shows a vivid desire to be on top of all things in his work.
He applies a "morally guilty" code of conduct when he cannot get a suspect convicted.
His extreme religious fervour doesn't, I suspect, help when he describes this poor Polish Jew and "their like".
If the City Investigation rules out Lawende as "the witness"..we are left with only one other known possibility. Schwartz. But this particular person creates so many problems re id that the man is doubtfully reliable.

Now, what I find strange is that, to my knowledge at least (I ask to be corrected here), no family member since 1888 has ever come forward and admitted that their ancestor was a significant witness in the Ripper investigation. No mention of any id anywhere, no mention of a Seaside Home, no mention of a commital to a madhouse, nothing.

One would have thought that one bright spark in one family or another would have used the chance to potentially make an awful lot of money and worldwide fame by cashing in on what they know and or what they have been handed down. All they would have to do is get hold of a known exoert on the JTR subject and reveal the knowledge so that it could be checked out for it's veracity. Also a newspaperman would help.
And I don't kmean the made up story of Joseph Sickert/Stephen Knight type of thing. I mean real stuff. What really happened within their family.

Promotion of something in order to make money can be one heck of a motivation for some. It happens all the time.


best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil C

Sure these are good questions too.

But I am zeroing in on:

1. Did any of the Kosminski family know, or believe, that Aaron was Jack the Ripper?

2. Could the same family members [potentially] recognise their Aaron, eg. the multiple murderer, in what Anderson wrote?

[Errata]

There's not much evidence about where he lived, but I don't think there's any evidence that he was ever homeless.

Maybe I assumed it because he was eating out of the gutters. I mean, clearly he had food issues, but I would have thought that if he had a stable place to live, he would have had access to a better kind of garbage. Or whatever his compulsion drove him to. Also he would have had access to a little more privacy as he ate his gutter food. But I do have to say that someone who has symptoms that severe tends to make a terrible housemate, and typically cannot live by other's rules. With compulsions that strong, I would be surprised if Kos could put even the least of them aside in order to satisfy a relative.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"Originally Posted by Garry Wroe
My suspicion, Jon, has long been that Kosminski simply fitted the preconceived notions that Anderson had developed with regard to the wanted man. He was Jewish, mentally unstable, lived in the immediate neighbourhood, had a family that might have been seen as protecting him, and was said to have practised ‘self abuse’."

"Quite possibly Garry.
Should we ask whether Anderson's "profile" evolved from his suspicions of Kosminski, or, as you say, Kosminski appeared to fit that preconception?"

We should, I believe, work from the assumption that the certainty that they were dealing with a "madman" came before Kosdminski. Reason? Sagar!

This is how he put it:

"The police realised, as also did the public, that the crimes were those of a madman, and suspicion fell upon a man who, without a doubt, was the murderer. Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was, however, placed in a lunatic asylum..."

Surely this sounds an awful lot like Aaron Kosminski? And what comes first? The certainty that a madman was responsible!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Paddy]

Phil,

In answer to:
"One would have thought that one bright spark in one family or another would have used the chance to potentially make an awful lot of money and worldwide fame by cashing in on what they know and or what they have been handed down"

Genealogy is really growing now days. but there are still families that have yet to explore.the past....
From personal experience I knew I had an ancestor who done quite well in city police, but I never knew he was involved in the Jack the Ripper case. There were whispers that he was involved in an important case. But we didnt know what. Descendants are 3 or 4 generations down by now and a lot gets forgotten.... Had I not met a couple of distant relatives online doing genealogy (who knew little) I doubt we would have ever have known more.

But if there's info out there, I do believe it could eventually come out because of the growing interest in genealogy

Pat

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Anderson seems to have a degree of bias against Jews.

Obviously this has been a contentious issue in the past and I don't think we'll resolve it today lol.

But....Rob's book gave me a better appreciation of anti-Jewish sentiment in the East End and what a powder keg might have gone off if a Jew were found to have been the Ripper.

There's that quote from the Rabbi asking Jews to cooperate as well as offering a reminder what a calamity a false accusation could bring about.

The East End Jews weren't being all that cooperative and in that light Anderson's comment become more factual and less biased. And "low class" specifically referred to Eastern European Jews. I think we are reading it with modern eyes and assigning bias where it might not be.

I don't have a hard time believing that they didn't always cooperate with the police. The East End Jews traded amongst themselves, formed their own communities, didn’t mix much with the English, and rightfully or wrongly had contempt for the English. The feeling was mutual it appears. The Jewish community as a whole did not like to acknowledge crimes committed by fellow Jews and I can imagine the Ripper being a particularly good case for this.

I thought Rob's citation of Harry Cox's comments very revealing. (pp.229-231)It is worth a re-read for anyone who hasn't looked at it in awhile. Reading it you do not get the impression the East End Jews were falling all over themselves to cooperate.

The Truth about the Whitechapel Mysteries told by Harry Cox
Ex-Detective Inspector, London City Police. Specially written for "Thomson's Weekly News"

We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes. (This is an interesting comment in and of itself.)

snip

While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months.

snip

The Jews in the street soon became aware of our presence. It was impossible to hide ourselves. They became suddenly alarmed, panic stricken, and I can tell you that at nights we ran a considerable risk. We carried our lives in our hands so to speak, and at last we had to partly take the alarmed inhabitants into our confidence, and so throw them off the scent. We told them we were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers who employed boys and girls under age, and pointing out the evils accruing from the sweaters' system asked them to co-operate with us in destroying it.

They readily promised to do so, although we knew well that they had no intention of helping us. Every man was as bad as another. Day after day we used to sit and chat with them, drinking their coffee, smoking their excellent cigarettes, and partaking of Kosher rum. Before many weeks had passed we were quite friendly with them, and knew that we could carry out our observations unmolested. I am sure they never once suspected that we were police detectives on the trail of the mysterious murderer; otherwise they would not have discussed the crimes with us as openly as they did.

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert:

""low class" specifically referred to Eastern European Jews. I think we are reading it with modern eyes and assigning bias where it might not be."

I think you are right here. And wrong. And I think that the time that has passed is what brought about the possibility to be both right and wrong.

Speaking in derogatory terms today about a specific ethnic group, would immediately be picked up on and castigated as racism.
Doing it back then would simply be adjusting to the order of the day, in many ways.

We had that Colney Hatch doctor that Rob quoted, who merrily pointed at Jews as being very unsavoury people - disgusting, even. This doctor was a thoroughbred racist, going by today´s perceptions - but he would have felt quite at ease to say what he said back then. To even suggest that all races were alike when it comes to intelligence, working capability, honesty etc., would have been something most westerners would have frowned upon in 1888.

"The East End Jews ... rightfully or wrongly had contempt for the English. The feeling was mutual it appears. The Jewish community as a whole did not like to acknowledge crimes committed by fellow Jews and I can imagine the Ripper being a particularly good case for this."

And why? Because, I would suggest, nobody wanted their own race to be the race where creatures like the Ripper were born and bred. To the brits, the Ripper was in all probability a foreigner, since we could always bank on them being less valuable people, more given to primitive behaviour.

But what if it was a brit after all? What would that do to the overall picture of racial differences? It would break it up, that´s what.
Solution? Madness. If a brit, then the Ripper would at least be mad. But the overall best solution would of course be to look for somebody who was NOT a brit, AND raving mad. And that´s how Kosminski fits the bill like a glove.

The best,
Fisherman

[Paddy]

I totally agree with Sir Robert Andersons post.
The growing socialism in the East End was seen as a security issue.
The young men that came here faced many frustrations. Kicked out of one country and looked down on or resented by the next. Not to mention thier Jewish employers who exploited them with low wages.

Apart from the working mens clubs and unions there was an underclass of Illegal gambling and drinking "Shops" that the disaffected young immigrants were drawn to. Henry quoted that the man he was following went into one of these criminal places in Leman street.

"The Jewes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing" (if I have that correct?) to me seems like a "DONT BLAME US FOR EVERYTHING"
I feel this is connected to the underclass, the disaffected, rather than the socialist working movement who were trying to improve conditions.
It could be that Sir Robert Anderson was referring to these people as low class?
Pat

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

""low class" specifically referred to Eastern European Jews. I think we are reading it with modern eyes and assigning bias where it might not be."

I think you are right here. And wrong. And I think that the time that has passed is what brought about the possibility to be both right and wrong.

Speaking in derogatory terms today about a specific ethnic group, would immediately be picked up on and castigated as racism.
Doing it back then would simply be adjusting to the order of the day, in many ways.

I think Anderson's comment about low class Jews should be compared to writers before the 1960s calling black people Negroes. Today Negro is offensive and one cringes when seeing it even when reading old works.

So if I might, this is how I would compare them:

I read "low class Jews" as the same as the old use of Negroes. Politically incorrect to use today but back then a factual description of an ethnic type. No indication of bias AS USED BACK IN THE DAY.

Some people here I think are looking at "low class Jews" and think it reads like ni##er would back then AND today as well. A racial slur and unquestionably a sign of bias.

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert:

"I read "low class Jews" as the same as the old use of Negroes. Politically incorrect to use today but back then a factual description of an ethnic type. No indication of bias AS USED BACK IN THE DAY. "

Exactly. Which is why I say you are both right AND wrong. There WAS a bias back in 1888, but people did not recognize this themselves. Jews - and many other people with them - were regarded as lower standing people. It was racism, but the ones who employed that racism would not have recognized this. It was a totally different world, one where colonialism was looked upon at the better fit man´s duty to handle the inferior people´s business for them, a noble acceptance of responsibility.

Some of these peoples would be more likely to produce a Ripper than others, and at the very bottom of that list would be the brits - they would NEVER ...!

I think these bits are extremely important to offer an understanding of how, as Sagar put it, the public AND the police formed their opinions about the man they were looking for on the East End streets.

The best,
Fisherman

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Exactly. Which is why I say you are both right AND wrong. There WAS a bias back in 1888, but people did not recognize this themselves. Jews - and many other people with them - were regarded as lower standing people. It was racism, but the ones who employed that racism would not have recognized this.

I understand what you are saying but I think it is dangerous to tag Anderson with this mindset. Or to think that if he had it - despite his religious views as expressed in his own writings - that it would blind him to all other Ripper possibilities.

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert:

"I understand what you are saying but I think it is dangerous to tag Anderson with this mindset. Or to think that if he had it - despite his religious views as expressed in his own writings - that it would blind him to all other Ripper possibilities."

I am not tagging Anderson specifically. I am speaking of the general, very often overlooked, picture. I am saying that this sort of thinking dominated society on the whole back in 1888. To what extent Anderson and Swanson were affected by it, is not easy to say.
Just as you point out, Anderson was a strictly religious man. Those of us who have read Fido´s book will know the extent of his commitment to religion. But as I have already pointed out, no matter how many times Anderson asserts us that he thinks the Jews are a very fine people, we still have to deal with for example the fact that a rabbi stated that he had gotten things very much wrong when it came to the propensity of Jews not to give up their own to gentile justice. For example!

As for whether - as you put it - any bias on behalf of Anderson actually blinded him to all other Ripper possibilities, I have of course not even suggested such a thing. We can´t tell. But we CAN tell that the common picture of the British people back in 1888 was that they were at the top of the foodchain themselves, whereas the rest probed the depths of that list, in varying degree.

Add the ideas of phrenology to this, and you will begin to see what I´m after. Whatever the coppers expected to see once they had the Ripper in their net, it was not a West-End knighted brit, educated in Oxford, was it? And the fact of the matter is that we have since 1888 learnt that it COULD have been! Look at Leopold and Loeb, for example!

In 1888, there were people that never even ran the risk of being suspected of a Ripper-type crime. I sometimes think that once prince Eddie was accused, back in the seventies, it represented a sort of social revolution that had been waiting to happen for ninety years.

The best,
Fisherman

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Just as you point out, Anderson was a strictly religious man. Those of us who have read Fido´s book will know the extent of his commitment to religion

Well, I would argue that one needs to go back and delve into Anderson's own religious writings. They are copious.

That's where some insight into the mindset can be had. The power of the intellect as well.

Take a stab at this, probably his most famous book. It deals with the Book of Daniel.

http://endtimepilgrim.org/70wks2.htm

(A difficult read I might add; makes gas chromatography–mass spectrometry a walk in the park by comparison. )

[Fisherman]

I really don´t need to go into Anderson´s religious texts to form an opinion of how Victorian racism in combination with phrenology could have shaped the conception of what the Ripper was, Sir Robert!

Not that it is not interesting and may not have a bearing - it is and it may - but Anderson would not be violating any general acknowledgement of all people´s equal values if - and that´s IF - he regarded a Jew as a much better bid for the Ripper than an Englishman. Maniacs, revelling in blood, were more likely to be of foreing extraction, quite simply.

"A difficult read I might add; makes gas chromatography–mass spectrometry a walk in the park by comparison."

My wife is a PhD in chemistry, dealing with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry on a daily basis, so I´m afraid I´m rather well aquainted with these tools...!

... but I get the point anyhow.

The best,
Fisherman