Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Fisherman]

Phil C:

"Not AARON Kosminski, Christer."

Aaron Kosminski does on some accounts not seem to be the Kosminski related to by Anderson, Swanson and MacNaghten, no - but he is nevertheless the one and only Kosminski that has been found in the asylum records.

So either he was an "Ostrog" - painted out in the records as something he clearly was not - or he went through a total change of personality after 1888, resulting in rather a meek man when incarcerated. Such things CAN change. What cannot is the time at which you are committed to an asylum, and the date of your death. That, too, was sorely missed by Anderson and Swanson, and so one must ask oneself what they really got RIGHT in the Kosminski case.

It is tempting to look at Fido´s "Cohen" character - HE was a violent man, HE was incarerated very shortly after the deeds and HE passed away at an early stage, making him a very much better fit for Kosminski´s role than Kosminski himself.

As it stands, I think the soundest bid for Kosminski, is Aaron Kosminski. And if he was THE Kosminski, then Anderson and Swanson are provably wrong on very basic things. If we to this add our knowledge that Ostrog was "fitted up" as a suspect, by the appearance of things, then we have a very good explanation to why Henry Smith considered the claim that Anderson had put the Ripper away completely outrageous. Fine raconteur or not, given to exaggerations or not, it would seem he got the Kosminski affair spot on.

The best,
Fisherman
off to bed!

[Stephen Thomas]

batty man

You know, the medical question surrounding Kosminski's mind has been promoted and even bleated out in support for his candidacy of being a killer.

So I took a little look at contemporary views in the British Medical Journal.
This view, from 17th November 1888, stands out.


It reads..
Dr Batty Tuke contributes an article to the Scotsman in which he combats the view that the perpetrator of the Whitechapel Murders is an insane person.
He concludes

"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 precedent. 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 consciousness 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 acquainted with the dark records of medical jurisprudence know of. This is not the place to speak of it, and I only allude to it in order to indicate that there are incentives to crime unappreciable by the great mass of the community."

Now that raises some very interesting thoughts and imho, should be taken great notice of...on many fronts.

Hi Phil

I have to disagree with you on this, my friend. If JTR was a lone killer then he was totally mentally deranged. Sane people kill other people but not like THAT.

[Errata]

It probably bears repeating that today, there is no evidence linking Aaron Kosminski with the crime. However, the suspect Anderson, Swanson, etc. support also had no evidence linking him to the crimes. Or they would have arrested him. And I believe that they believed it was this Polish Jew, but maybe we need to look at the actual facts, instead of trying to find some. There is no evidence against him. Now or then. If the only thing they had was an ID, and we don't even know what he was being identified as, then they had nothing. They may have believed they had him, but they didn't have him. There was no evidence.

So if it walked like a duck in 1890, and quacks like a duck in 2012, maybe it's a duck. Maybe it's a guy who had nothing to do with the crime.

Stephen Thomas: of course they do.

[Stephen Thomas]

Stephen Thomas: of course they do.

Hi Errata. Examples please.

You think whoever cut up Kelly was SANE?

[Wickerman]

Hi Stephen.

Sane people kill other people but not like THAT.

Presumably sane people tortured, mutilated & murdered their captives in WWII, none of them were ever deemed insane by psychiatric standards. After the war these same sadists returned to a normal social life, how they slept at night I have no idea.
There is a 'bad' gene in all of us but thankfully the majority keep it suppressed.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Errata. Examples please.

You think whoever cut up Kelly was SANE?

Hello Stephen.

I can my friend.....
I can give you one very very good example.

He killed 69 people inside 2 hours in two separate incidents.
He planned his crimes over a year in advance, ordering material over the internet from around the world.
In the second of the incidents, he calmly walked around an large and secluded area, opening tents and shooting innocent children through the head, whilst they pleaded for their lives.

His name was Anders Behring Brevik. He was found guilty of multiple murder. He was found to be sane, legally and clinically.
He will spend the rest of his life behind bars WITHOUT one medical asessment necessary, and without having to take one tablet, of any sort.

He is, apparently, according to the authorities, totally normal and sane.

Now I know and you know he isnt normal. Neither was Hitler. Nor Himmler. Nor Pol Pot. Nor...ec etc.
But technically, they are not insane. just colloquiallyknown as "madmen".


best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

Hello Stephen.

I can my friend.....
I can give you one very very good example.

He killed 69 people inside 2 hours in two separate incidents.
He planned his crimes over a year in advance, ordering material over the internet from around the world.
In the second of the incidents, he calmly walked around an large and secluded area, opening tents and shooting innocent children through the head, whilst they pleaded for their lives.

His name was Anders Behring Brevik. He was found guilty of multiple murder. He was found to be sane, legally and clinically.
He will spend the rest of his life behind bars WITHOUT one medical asessment necessary, and without having to take one tablet, of any sort.

He is, apparently, according to the authorities, totally normal and sane.

Now I know and you know he isnt normal. Neither was Hitler. Nor Himmler. Nor Pol Pot. Nor...ec etc.
But technically, they are not insane. just colloquiallyknown as "madmen".


best wishes

Phil

What does Anders Brevik have to do with Jack the Ripper?

RH

[Phil Carter]

What does Anders Behring Brevik have to do with Jack the Ripper?

RH

Hello Rob,

Stephen asked for examples of "sane" people committing atrocities but would be classed as "abnormal" (my description).



best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

A contemporary suspect, to my mind, is one who was suspected during the spate of the murders.

I don't see that as correct, considering we don't know when the murders began or ended, and if we accept the C5 as some sort of guide, then we're dealing with a matter of a few months. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who came under suspicion after the Kelly murder doesn't count? You have tough standards here, Wick.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

Stephen asked for examples of "sane" people committing atrocities but would be classed as "abnormal" (my description).

I don't think that is what Stephen meant. I am pretty sure he meant a lone killer who committed Ripper-like murders... I would assume he is referring to the post-mortem mutilation etc.

[Phil Carter]

Sir John Batty Tuke

Hello all,

Herewith the obituary notice for Sir John Batty Tuke M.D.Edin., F.R.C.P.E., LL.D.Edin., D.Sc.(Hon. Causa)Dub., F.R.S.E

An extremely well qualified and respected man in his field. His opinion would carry a great deal of weight, I surmise.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2346171/?page=1

The article quoted in post 596 can be found here:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2198674/?page=8

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

The Section of Psychology, James C Howden 1.9.1888

Hello all,

Herewith a link to the first of 4 pages of an interesting article by James C Howden MD delivered at the Annual Meeting of the British Medical Association held in Glasgow, August 1888.
Howden was the Superintendant of the Montrose Lunatic asylum, President of the Section (Psychology)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2198289/?page=1

The first of the four pages is page 469. Then just click on 470, 471 and 472.

Hope this is of some interest.


best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Kosminski is not a weak suspect, Aaron Kosminski is a reasonable subject of futher study.

Let's not overdue it, Phil H. Kozminski is intriguing, and a reasonable suspect...but a suspect for WHAT? That's the big question. I should think very few of us could still operate under the delusion that the whole of the Ripper mystery could be laid at the feet of a single, local, East End nut. If the Ripper murders were your normal, typical murder series, it wouldn't generate near the interest it does, nor would it likely have gone unsolved. This was not your run-of-the-mill sexual serial killer series.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

Hi Errata. Examples please.

You think whoever cut up Kelly was SANE?

"Sane" and "insane" today really only applies to legal matters. And insane person cannot tell right from wrong, a sane person can. Certainly any killer who mutilates people, but tries to not get caught, not leave clues, and denies it knows right from wrong.

Nor are they "mentally ill". Clearly not everyone who kills or mutilates has some kind of a psychiatric illness, or even qualifies for one. And the reverse is true. There was nothing wrong with John Wayne Gacy other than the fact he was a serial killer. I would argue the same holds true for Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, a bunch of other guys. They don't even qualify as psychopaths. Though any axis II diagnosis rarely qualifies as an illness, they are more "issues".

"Madness" technically applies to raving, and a lot of terrible people don't do that. People who have "gone mad" are suffering to the extent they can no longer function. They can't take care of themselves, they can't lead productive lives. Most mutilators don't fit this either.

"Crazy" is about the best word that can be applied. It is applied to people who do not behave within expectations. A guy breaks up with a super hot girl, he's "crazy". A girl hops up on a table at a bar and starts singing, she's "crazy". People give up modern technology to live a simpler life of a farming commune, they are "crazy". Some guy butchers a prostitute like she was deer carcass, yeah that's crazy.

What they do is not normal. It is not good for their victim, good for society, good for themselves. These guys are rare. Some of them are evil. Some of them are monsters. But they don't do this because of some illness or condition. They don't do this because they "have" to. They do it because they choose to. Knowing full well how the rest of society will view their actions. They do it because they want to. The do it because it gives them satisfaction. They do it for the same reason I blast 80s music in my car. And I don't love me some Duran Duran because I'm insane. It is quite possibly the most extreme matter of taste we humans are ever confronted with. Right up there with copraphilia and ritual cannibalism. But it is a matter of taste. Completely socially unacceptable taste.

Insisting these guys are nuts victimizes them. It insinuates events are beyond their control. That is not even a little true.

[Errata]

Okay, total stupid question, but one can easily see that I am a little obsessed with semantics.

When we say "contemporary" do we mean contemporary as in contemporary to the original the investigation, or "contemporary" meaning current, and therefor, now ish.

Because in my head it's contemporary vs historic, and not contemporary vs. recent.