Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Errata]

But we're agreed that Anderson was talking about someone who had been found to be insane and put into a lunatic asylum?

I think he was talking about someone who was found insane by the asylum who took him, but not by any civil authority, yes.

[robhouse]

As far as I know about it, the asylum does not declare people insane. Henry Chambers, a Justice of the Peace for the County of London, signed a committal order, based on the certificate of Dr. Houchin (a police surgeon) who certified Kozminski to be "a person of unsound mind". This is how it worked.

But I do not see the point...(?)

[Lechmere]

The factors that make Aaron Kosminski viable are:

He was a local man and may have lived very close to one of the crime scenes.

He had a potential grievance or feeling of powerlessness which may have acted as a form of self justification for his acts. This feature is common with serial killers and does not imply that all people who have similar experiences become serial killers. For example one common grievance is coming from a broken home. For Kosminski, the potential source of grievance would be his Jewish background and the possibility that he may have harboured a grudge against the Gentile world stemming from persecution in Poland.

As Rob House has pointed out there is a close correlation between the murder scenes and the areas of densest Jewish population in the East End. This makes it credible that the culprit was Jewish and Kosminski was Jewish.

He was locked up in an asylum at around the time the murders stopped (if we exclude Coles) due to his madness. This is where the case against Kosminski starts to unravel. This factor is usually advanced in favour of his candidacy as the culprit. However, although we cannot be sure of the nature of his madness, it seems clear that the signs of ‘madness’ that led to his committal would prevent him from being a credible, calculating repeat stealth killer – if the killing was caused by his madness.
If he did not kill due to the madness that led to his detention, then his madness is irrelevant to his candidacy as a prime suspect. It is lose-lose for those who wish to promote Kosminski as the culprit.
Furthermore there is not the slightest hint in his surviving medical records to suggest that he was anything else but an ordinary patient. To me this alone is almost enough to rule Kosminski out as a viable culprit.

Lastly we have the thorny issue of Kosminski’s suspect status in the eyes of Swanson and Anderson – presuming that the person they mention was Aaron Kosminski. If he genuinely was an official no. 1 suspect then is it at all likely that they would have not known that Kosminski did not die soon after his incarceration? This beggars belief. Macnaghten’s mention of Kosminski is also inaccurate which again speaks of his not being a leading suspect.
We have the difficulty over the Seaside Home ID. How could it possibly have resulted in a firm ID of the culprit? No scenario can be presented to suggest this (contrary to some claims here) unless some unknown witness saw the murderer in the act.
We also have a major problem that the City Police were supposedly involved in building the case against Kosminski yet none corroborate Anderson and Swanson (even Saggar) and some flatly contradict their account (Cox and Smith).
There is a further problem that none of the operational Metropolitan officers confirm Swanson and Anderson and many flatly contradict them (e.g. Reid and Abberline). The idea that Swanson would not communicate down the chain of command his belief (that indeed could have come from other sources) that Kosminski was the Ripper is faintly ludicrous, as the men on the ground would have to ‘check out’ Kosminski.
Other senior Scotland Yard officers who would have been in a position to know contradicted them (Littlechild and Macnaghten). The idea that it was Anderson’s and Swanson’s secret (why?) holds no water. Anderson blabbed to Griffiths after all.

My opinion is that Anderson and Swanson were going on second hand accounts. They were both desk bound and I think they got their facts garbled up. (Swanson was on the ‘bridge’ with Anderson, not wandering the streets of Whitechapel). I think they mixed up details of different suspects and different IDs and reinforcing each other’s misconceptions in their offices far from the events in distance and increasingly in time.
There is an issue as to whether Kosminski fitted Anderson’s pre-existing prejudices as to the likely characteristics of the culprit, or whether he subsequently tailored his supposed original conceptions around his later favourite suspect to paint himself as a very clever fellow indeed.
That is the simplest explanation for the mistakes and inconsistencies contained in their accounts.
This again undermines Kosminski’s status as a strong suspect.

As the area was heavily populated by Jewish people, who largely kept themselves to themselves and who naturally tended to protect their own, it was not unnatural for Anderson to suspect that the culprit would be Jewish. This however does not hold any implication that Anderson was anti-Semitic.

So why was Kosminski promoted by Anderson and Swanson? In my opinion, in the absence of any more worthy suspect within their knowledge, Kosminski simply fitted their template. He was a single mad Jew, with a sexual angle to his behaviour. He threatened his sister with a knife so could be regarded as violent. He lived in the immediate area, who was taken out of circulation and the murders ceased (although the exact timing there is awry).
I suspect he only came to the authorities attention when he was detained, and they effectively heard no more about him – but probably got him muddled up with another mad Jew such as Cohen.
This explains how they got his basic details wrong and why the whole Seaside Home business lacks a rational explanation.
There is nothing else to back up a case against Kosminski, but back then that would have been enough for him to be elevated to suspect status – as we should know from how Ostrog (and Ischensmidt for a while) was so regarded.
It does not imply that Swanson or Anderson lied.

[lynn cates]

Serial Killers R Us

Hello Mac.

"This is just another serial killer. . . "

Evidence would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

clearly

Hello Errata.

"have you ever noticed that when people say "undoubtedly" what they really mean is "I can't prove it, but my personal conviction is"?"

Yes, I have. One of my old logic profs said of our proofs, "Guys, when you write "clearly" in the proof, that means you've already lost the thread."

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

As far as I know about it, the asylum does not declare people insane. Henry Chambers, a Justice of the Peace for the County of London, signed a committal order, based on the certificate of Dr. Houchin (a police surgeon) who certified Kozminski to be "a person of unsound mind". This is how it worked.

But I do not see the point...(?)

Potentially there is no point. But it was easier to get someone declared mad than to be convicted of a crime. Especially if they in fact have a history of problems. I would have thought that having identified Jack the Ripper, and being unable to prosecute him, the next logical step would be to have him declared insane as that would also get him off the streets. And it's not really an abuse of power if they believe that a man who commits such crimes must be insane.

I don't think it always had to be a police surgeon. Certainly there were civil commitments. I think typically a person was brought in for evaluation and intake, and one of the facility's doctors would make the declaration, and send the certificate to the appropriate person to be signed. But the truth is, any number of people were sent to asylums who were not mad. Some were being punished, some were alcoholics or drug addicts, certainly some were suffering from industrial poisoning, some were engaging in behaviors that we now know are perfectly normal, and some were suffering transitory phenomena. (I wish like hell I could type that word without little Muppets popping up in my head singing "Doo dooo do doo doo") So really it's just saying that being committed does not mean a person was insane, although if they weren't when they went in, they probably got there pretty quick.

Now, I had thought that the doctor who transferred him was from Mile End. I really don't know why a Police surgeon would be called in to transfer an "inmate" of a workhouse to an asylum. Kos wasn't in any sort of custody. So did Houchin actually talk to Kosminski? Or did someone else do it, make the recommendation, and then Houchin filled out the paperwork? But why? These places had infirmaries. Surely the doctor there could have done it. I feel like I'm forgetting something, but as of now this doesn't make much sense to me.

[Phil Carter]

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that.

Hello Chris,

It is very hard to explain an odd feeling Chris. It's a bit like I had the feeling, straight after it's announcement, that the "Definitive" Documentary was going to end up slanted towards Kosminski being presented as the main suspect and that it (the show) would show suspect bias. Call it a lucky guess? Or logical cynicism? (And before anybody starts, the bias has been shown and recognised by greater enthusiasts than I, SPE included.)
It's an odd feeling. The above is as near as I can get in attempting an explanation. Apologies if it isn't good enough. But that's the way it is!

Perhaps you can now adress and comment upon the Dr. John Batty Tuke article? A request that you have twice let go by? I understand, of course if you wish to ignore it a third time. The contemporary expert medical opinion on the mind of the Whitechapel murderer isn't going away. And no matter how you may or may not feel compelled or have a wish to swing it around, it still doesn't do Aaron Kosminski's candicacy any good at all, based on what we know of his personality and traits anyway.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil C. I haven't yet taken the time to watch the 'Definitive' documentary. Is it really that bad? As for your premonition of new finds coming out that fill in the holes, how is that cynical thinking? Sounds pretty optimistic to me. I only hope you're correct!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Errata
If Aaron Kosminski was committed as a means of incarcerating him due to a lack of evidence that would stack up in court then:
(1) I would expect to find some hint of this in his existing medical notes.
(2) I would expect the police to keep close tabs on him in case he was released as ‘cured’. It is clear that Swanson knew nothing of his fate once interred.
(3) This would smack of a dreadful French type of quasi legal practice.

Forgive me for resurrecting some discussions some pages back in this thread (I have been too busy to comment), but...

Phil H
It seems to me to be a bit nonsensical to imagine that Swanson, in his annotations, would use a codeword to identify a suspect that is unnamed in Anderson’s book.

Fleetwood Mac
I think your view of Public School attitudes is way off the mark. They are a place where you must fit in and if you don’t or if you show weakness you are bullied mercilessly. I am certain it would have been even more extreme in this regard back in the latter part of the 19th century.
If you were deemed to have let the side down then it was curtains and there was no restraint in cashiering or ruining a bad egg – publicly too.
If you doubt this look at what happened to Valentine Baker or Charles Dilke (there are interesting but unconnected Ripper connections via Dilke)

Rob House and Sir Robert Anderson were suggesting that perhaps the Jewish person who made the ID at the Seaside Home was reluctant to put the finger on the suspect (Kosminski) because he may not have been 100% sure - rather than because he didn’t want to identify a fellow Jew. Or that because he wasn’t sure about the identification it wouldn’t have resulted in a conviction.
This is a remarkable construction to put forward – even as conjecture obviously.
Remarkable, as in Swanson’s annotation the identification was unequivocal.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil C. I haven't yet taken the time to watch the 'Definitive' documentary. Is it really that bad? As for your premonition of new finds coming out that fill in the holes, how is that cynical thinking? Sounds pretty optimistic to me. I only hope you're correct!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

When I said it on JTRForums the day of the announcement I believe.. it just "felt" that way...premonition?..Nah.. just an odd feeling in my bones.
Perhaps because I knew the main man behind the whole idea was a Kosminskiite? Nah... an odd feeling I'll call it.

The cynicism was said with a smile. But I forgot to post a smiley...

best wishes

Phil

[Lechmere]

The ‘Definitive’ documentary was excellent – just as the CSI Whitechapel book is.
However both undoubtedly suffer from institutional suspect bias. Which is also no doubt unintended.
Vital aspects of the Nichols murder are mishandled, no doubt as they are regarded as being unimportant – but I will revert to topic that on the CSI book thread once I have retrieved my copy from the person I have lent it to!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lechmere,

If Aaron Kosminski was committed as a means of incarcerating him due to a lack of evidence that would stack up in court then:
(1) I would expect to find some hint of this in his existing medical notes.
(2) I would expect the police to keep close tabs on him in case he was released as ‘cured’. It is clear that Swanson knew nothing of his fate once interred.
(3) This would smack of a dreadful French type of quasi legal practice.

(1) Certainly.
(2) Absolutely.
(3) Indeed.

It seems to me to be a bit nonsensical to imagine that Swanson, in his annotations, would use a codeword to identify a suspect that is unnamed in Anderson’s book.

Ahh, but this is obviously an example of the secrecy of the pair and how they worked on the case is explained.....or so I'm led to believe...

Rob House and Sir Robert Anderson were suggesting that perhaps the Jewish person who made the ID at the Seaside Home was reluctant to put the finger on the suspect (Kosminski) because he may not have been 100% sure - rather than because he didn’t want to identify a fellow Jew. Or that because he wasn’t sure about the identification it wouldn’t have resulted in a conviction.
This is a remarkable construction to put forward – even as conjecture obviously.
Remarkable, as in Swanson’s annotation the identification was unequivocal.

Indeed, encore.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Vital aspects of the Nichols murder are mishandled,

You mean like the date the murder happened? Oh wait, that's The Facts. I get confused because reviews for The Facts are being used to sell CSI: Whitechapel.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

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

If you don't mind me asking, is this John Batty Tuke one of the Tuke brothers referred to by David Anderson?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=245035&postcount=18

Would you mind communicating with David A. on this point Phil?

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

If you don't mind me asking, is this John Batty Tuke one of the Tuke brothers referred to by David Anderson?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=245035&postcount=18

Would you mind communicating with David A. on this point Phil?

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

Doen't life throw up remarkable co-incidences?

I believe, although off the top of my head cannot be certain, that the "Tuke brothers" referred to in David Anderson's posting were Daniel Hack Tuke, b.1827, d.1895 and James Hack Tuke, b.1819, d.1896.

If so, Daniel Tuke was also a specialist in mental diseases. In 1880 he became joint editor of the Journal of Mental Science. He lived in London during the last 20 years or so of his life. He was buried in Saffron Walden.
His son, Henry Tuke, (1858-1929), is the famous artist, who met and knew Oscar Wilde.

Daniel Tuke's brother, James, took over the Retreat, in York, a home for the mentally ill set up and co-founded by his Great grandfather and grandfather, I believe.

OUR Dr Tuke, Sir John Batty Tuke, was Edinbrough based. The Tukes above are Yorkshire based, and come from a Quaker family.

There is a thread discussing this family..

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-1512.html

Hope this helps!

best wishes

Phil