Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Phil H]

Aaron Kosminski was NOT named at the time and in the 25 years of dedicated research about the man, not one iota of linkage between Aaron Kosminski and the Whitechapel murders has been found.
Naming AK as the Whitechapel fiend is wrong. Period. And no, Phil H, I won't succumb to using terminology "prattle"..see your views on my comments of Rob House's book below... what is worthy, etc.
Unveiling, no. Highlighting and emphasising, yes. The truth is that Aaron Kosminski is innocent of being tarred with the epithate "Jack the Ripper".

You don't READ other people's posts, do you Phil C? I am in total disagreement with your views in the posts under discussion and I'll say no more.

Save this: Aaron Kosminski was NOT (it is true) specifically named at the time as the suspect. That said, what we know of his life makes it highly likely that he was the individual that DSS and Sir RA had in mind. He (Aaron) is a legitimate subject for research and discussion and no other candidate for the role hads yet emerged.

Salami slicing the argument in the way you are doing, is the Ripperological equivalent of contemplating how many angels you can get on the head of a pin. No doubt interesting to you, but irrelevent to me.

While I recognise the point, I am quite happy (for the present) to consider Aaron as the "prime" suspect when Kosminsi is being discussed. Debate would be somewhat difficult without it.

Phil H

[Phil Carter]

Phil

I'm afraid you're muddling together two quite different questions:
(1) Was Aaron Kozminski the suspect referred to as 'Kosminski' by Macnaghten and Swanson (and described by Anderson)?
(2) Was Aaron Kozminski the murderer?

Obviously it is not necessary to find any new evidence linking Aaron Kozminski to the murders in order to answer the first affirmatively. We simply need to consider how well Aaron Kozminski matches the man described by the sources, and whether it is likely that there is someone else who hasn't been identified but would be a better match.

As far as I'm concerned, the answer to question (1) is "Yes, beyond reasonable doubt", and the answer to question (2) is "Probably not (in common with all the other named suspects)". I hope that's clear enough.

Hello Chris,

Well, you term it "muddling together"..I call it simplifying. Allow me to explain.

"Kosminski" was the name discovered.
"Aaron Kosminski" is the name produced that comes "nearest" the named "Kosminski" discovery.

As far as I, and others are concerned, Aaron Kosminski may very well be the "nearest" we can get to the "Kosminski" discovered, but I am afraid to say that in our opinion, "Aaron Kosminski" does not tick the important boxes.. and the most important of all is whether any link between "Aaron Kosminski" and the Whitechapel murders has been found. The answer is none.

What has been found is an Aaron Kosminski put away in an asylum. He is described in the asylum medical reports. Those descriptions show no link towards his mind being that of a violent murderer. His known personality does not ally itself to him being a violent murderer, or even a personality that shows him capable of being a violent murderer.

Until anyone can show a tenable link between Aaron Kosminski and the crimes themselves, he, like Druitt, Sickert, PAV etc, is simply an interesting but unlikely name.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I don't care what name or names of the killer or killers is/are eventually found. If anyone can link anyone to the murders.. I'll be delighted. But calling people a "prime suspect", tarring them with all sorts of labels of the psychological variety in retrospect, is akin to saying that Chris or Phil or Tom are obsessed with Jack the Ripper. They are very interested and enthusiastic about it, certainly. But to staple the word "obsession" is a step too far. Likewise Aaron Kosminski. He may well be an interesting name that can, possibly, be looked at but all thoughts of the man being a murderer are more than a step too far, imho.

You again still haven't adressed the eminent Sir John Batty Tuke's comments re the Whitechapel murders, nor Howden's re lunacy and psychology. I kindly ask that if and when you do, keep the KNOWN antecedants of the feeble minded Aaron Kosminski in mind. For his known personality does not match the well respected and eminent Dr Tuke's appraisal of the murderer's personality.

I hope I make myself clear as well.

Thanks for the polite reply. Appreciated.

My apologies for lack of further reply at this time.. but I must away.

best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

To be fair, Anderson never says the suspect was insane. Which if the suspect was in fact Kosminski, seems kind of a glaring oversight.

Was Kosminski insane in 1888?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Phil

I'm afraid you're muddling together two quite different questions:
(1) Was Aaron Kozminski the suspect referred to as 'Kosminski' by Macnaghten and Swanson (and described by Anderson)?
(2) Was Aaron Kozminski the murderer?

Hi Chris,

Entirely agree.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Chris]

Phil

You may call it simplification, but I really do think you are - shall we say combining? - two different questions.

We don't have evidence to link any suspect to the murders. Nor did the police. But I think we do have enough evidence to decide whether the suspect 'Kosminski' was the same man as Aaron Kozminski (d. 1919).

On the 'prime suspect' question, I do think it would be fairer to retain the context in which Rob used the phrase - 'Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect'. Given what Anderson wrote, and particularly if Swanson is viewed as endorsing it, I don't think that reflects an unreasonable point of view.

[Bridewell]

A contemporary suspect, to my mind, is one who was suspected during the spate of the murders. It has yet to be established that this was the case with Kosminski.

Hi Wickerman,

That's a very narrow definition of 'contemporary' IMHO. Strictly speaking you're right, but it excludes not only Kosminski, but a whole load of others also. Who was a contemporary suspect by this criterion? John Pizer?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

Phil

I'm afraid you're muddling together two quite different questions:
(1) Was Aaron Kozminski the suspect referred to as 'Kosminski' by Macnaghten and Swanson (and described by Anderson)?
(2) Was Aaron Kozminski the murderer?

Obviously it is not necessary to find any new evidence linking Aaron Kozminski to the murders in order to answer the first affirmatively. We simply need to consider how well Aaron Kozminski matches the man described by the sources, and whether it is likely that there is someone else who hasn't been identified but would be a better match.

As far as I'm concerned, the answer to question (1) is "Yes, beyond reasonable doubt", and the answer to question (2) is "Probably not (in common with all the other named suspects)". I hope that's clear enough.

I think there is a legitimate third question.

3: Did Swanson mean Kosminski when he wrote Kosminski, or did he confuse the name?

Aaron Kosminski could have come to the attention of the authorities when he threatened his sister with a knife, no doubt. Now, I haven't read anything to suggest that Kosminski was some compulsive public masturbator soiling the eyes of the unwary. Certainly that would have resulted in some arrests. However, his time foraging in the gutters for food, refusing to take food from anyone's hand, drinking out of taps, etc. would make him a spectacular example of madness in his neighborhood. In other words, memorable.

If you were to ask me ( or a lot of people I think) if I was a law enforcement officer working on the Ripper case, which fact would I be more likely to get wrong, a Polish name, or the eventual fate of the Ripper, it would be the name every time. I would like to think that I would never forget either, but would I be damned sure about his name, or what happened to the killer? I'm not sure I would be able to let it go until I knew he was dead.

Swanson says Kosminksi (we presume Aaron). Swanson said he was dead within a couple of years. Both are not true statements. One is a mistake. And I cannot for the life of me fathom that a man who worked on the case would lose the Ripper. Aaron Kosminski was a spectacular example of a mad Polish Jew. Polish names take some getting used to, in order to navigate the pronunciation and spelling. Krzyzewski for example is a tough one. It makes sense to me that Swanson would substitute the easier Kosminski in his head, especially if he had ever encountered the poor man. (Apologies to Coach Krzyzewski for the use of his name)

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

This is all true. But weren't Anderson and Swanson contemporary investigators?

Hi Tom.
Yes indeed they were, as was Abberline. In fact, you likely notice that Abberline was the one called in to conduct interviews with important suspects until 1892 when Insp. Moore took over.

Abberline, as Chief Investigator throughout the murders, apparently knows nothing about Kosminski, and as we all know he only began to suspect Chapman as a consequence of details given at Chapman's trial. Prior to this he suspected nobody in particular.

Macnaghten, who was Anderson's deputy until 1901, makes no mention of an I.D. in fact his comment:
"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one.", flies in the face of the Anderson/Swanson claim of a witness for an I.D.

I see Koz as a contemporary suspect, but let's say for a moment that he was a 'near contemporaneous suspect' (to borrow the phrase from A-Z) does that make him any less of a suspect, or should we gauge his validity on the evidence?

The question then becomes, what were these later suspicions based on?
All we have in that case is hearsay evidence, coming years later, which has no value.

Regards, Jon S.

[robhouse]

To be fair, Anderson never says the suspect was insane. Which if the suspect was in fact Kosminski, seems kind of a glaring oversight.

Anderson said: "the inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safely caged in an asylum.”

Given that the form of insanity on Kozminski's asylum record is given as "mania"... and the entire context of this statement, I think it is quite clear that Anderson was writing about a person considered to be insane.

RH

[Phil Carter]

Hello Errata,

Again, much of what you write is common sense. The common sense approach in Ripperology is the logical view. Logic, however, either gets interpreted differently or gets pooh poohed because it doesn't fit a particular person's theory.

However, I must disagree on the statement about Kosminski "....would make him a spectacular example of madness in his neighborhood. In other words, memorable."

Considering the amount of poverty in the area, and considering the amount of people of the Jewish faith, and considering that there were all sorts of non-comitted "lunatics" in the area. (according to MM..very many "dangerous" examples of criminals as well).. I am not so sure that a pathetic guttersnipe would attract THAT much attention..especially of the police in the middle of an apparent series of loathesome murders. I can remember from my childhood a group of 8 or ten "tramps" in the area where I lived. All I recall was that they were smelly, dirty and horribly bearded and persistently coughing and or intoxicated beyond movement from the shop doorway etc they sat/lay.
And that was West London..not the dregs of an over populated East End which abject poverty was far more common. So, "spectacular"? No.."Memorable"...perhaps to a certain degree.

Here we are talking about a senior policeman and his recollections re the most ghastly series of murders imaginable. Like you, I cannot see how Swanson, or any other policeman of that time for that matter, can possibly "forget" or "mistake" such an important witness, in any way. It would stay with him for life, as you say. The mistakes that Swanson makes in the marginalia and annotatiuons, are in many ways inexplicable. To my mind at least. If this "Kosminski" was really the true blue bonafida Ripper in all his glory, there is no way DIRECT involvement with him would ever have been forgotten.. including the details of when the man died.
It therefore makes far more sense to this person, that Swanson is just regailing and noting the left out additions of Anderson's story and suspect, and THEN lapses of correct memory and detail are far more understandable.

To me that is entirely logical and reasonable. But then we come full circle to the subject of common sense, logic and how it is both used and interpreted.

I have this really odd feeling that we are about to be presented with more "finds" that turn up out of the blue that cover the holes.

best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

That's a very narrow definition of 'contemporary' IMHO. Strictly speaking you're right, but it excludes not only Kosminski, but a whole load of others also. Who was a contemporary suspect by this criterion? John Pizer?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell.
Contemporary only means "at the same time". To what extent would you wish to change the meaning, and for what reason, bend the meaning to admit whom?

Even Macnaghten, who became involved in June 1889 admits he was not contemporary with the Whitechapel murders. That he missed having a go at that fascinating individual, or words to that effect.
We ALL know what contemporary means Bridewell, why some choose to struggle with the meaning is not always clear. There were very few named contemporary suspects - all temporary, even though there were hundreds investigated - and Kosminski "could" have been among those but that he did not stand out at the time, hence he was not suspected at the time, by anyone.

It could well be that when the authorities learned that Kosminski was admitted to Mile end (1890) they sent someone to find out why and realized that this man had been investigated earlier, but dismissed.
So only from now (1890?) do some begin to have second thoughts and eventually convince themselves that this could have been the culprit. Not that they ever had any evidence against him, but that now this character began to fit their preconceived profile of the "lunatic murderer".

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

I have this really odd feeling that we are about to be presented with more "finds" that turn up out of the blue that cover the holes.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that.

[Errata]

Anderson said: "the inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safely caged in an asylum.”

Given that the form of insanity on Kozminski's asylum record is given as "mania"... and the entire context of this statement, I think it is quite clear that Anderson was writing about a person considered to be insane.

RH

Oh I agree. There are any number of indirect references to the Ripper's madness. He just doesn't come out and say it.

But I will say that the medical use of the word mania and the popular use are two different beasts. Mania, psychologically speaking is a feeling of intense well being and increased speed of thought and affect. Like you're average bipolar mania, which results in any number of awkward situations, but almost never murder. When the populace uses mania, they mean the behavior of a maniac. Meaning insanity. The irony is that mania alone never looks like insanity. Paired with delusions, totally different story. But someone who is manic is not a maniac. So while I agree that Anderson is referencing insanity, I don't think he is referencing the diagnosis of mania.

[Chris]

Oh I agree. There are any number of indirect references to the Ripper's madness. He just doesn't come out and say it.

He did describe his suspect as insane elsewhere, though. For example a report in 1904 of a recent lecture by him at the London Institute says:
"The Whitechapel murderer, known as "Jack the Ripper," was, said Sir Robert, undoubtedly insane, and was ultimately confined within an asylum."
[Otago Witness (New Zealand), 28 December 1904]

[robhouse]

Oh I agree. There are any number of indirect references to the Ripper's madness. He just doesn't come out and say it.

See Chris's post above.

But I will say that the medical use of the word mania and the popular use are two different beasts.

I agree with you here.

Mania, psychologically speaking is a feeling of intense well being and increased speed of thought and affect. Like you're average bipolar mania, which results in any number of awkward situations, but almost never murder. When the populace uses mania, they mean the behavior of a maniac. Meaning insanity. The irony is that mania alone never looks like insanity. Paired with delusions, totally different story. But someone who is manic is not a maniac. So while I agree that Anderson is referencing insanity, I don't think he is referencing the diagnosis of mania.

You are speaking of the modern definition. In the Victorian era, mania was a term often used to mean insane, although in practice, it was a cloudy term, vaguely defined, and used somewhat differently by different people. I discuss this in my book:

"In the Victorian era, while detailed taxonomies of lunacy existed for upper and middle-class patients, pauper lunatics were generally just lumped into one of three categories: those suffering from mania, those suffering from melancholia, and those suffering from dementia. Unfortunately, the usage of these labels was inconsistent, and one modern study of British asylum entries between 1870 and 1875 found, “we could not discern exactly what differentiated the principal diagnoses, mania, dementia and melancholia.”1 Dementia was a blanket term that seems to have been applied to any patient with a cognitive deficit, including those suffering brain damage or head trauma, and the insane. Melancholia was defined as depression characterized by underactivity, whereas mania was defined by overactivity. According to the study, “the term [dementia] applied to a huge variety of cases, including both patients with cognitive difficulties from any cause and psychotic patients who were not behaviourally overactive enough to be described as manic.”

In practice, it seems that if a patient were “overactive” or exciteable, a diagnosis of mania would be applied, even if the patient had symptoms of insanity or schizophrenia. As noted in Henry Monro’s treatise, On the nomenclature of the various forms of insanity (1856), “dementia should always be applied to a passive rather than an active state.”2 However, by the 1870s, the terms mania, melancholia and dementia began to evolve, and eventually acquired meanings at least somewhat analogous to the modern definitions of mania, depression and schizophrenia, respectively. Still, the difference between mania and dementia was not very clearly defined, and even as late as 1899, Emil Kraeplin’s Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie (6th edition), noted that the primary differentiator between mania and dementia was that mania did not have a deteriorating course, whereas dementia was chronic and typically incurable."

RH