Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"Surely you aren't implying that Anderson still hadn't "decided on Kosminski" by 1904?"

The passage I refer to is dated 1892, Chris. The "Otago Witness" article was 1904.

To begin with, I wish to stay away from "implying" things. I prefer to say things straight out, whenever I feel the need to do so. So no, I am not referring to when Anderson decided on Kosminski - I am referring to the parallel in "undecided", if you will, language.
I mean when Anderson really wanted to press the point that the Ripper was identified, he had no problems doing so - "definitely ascertained facts" and all that.

So, Chris, Anderson COULD have said in 1892 that the gruesome Kelly pictures confirmed what they already had had proven, that the perpetrator was insane - IF Kosminski had been his choice at that stage, and in some manner tied to the deeds. But he did not even go as far as to conclusively lay down that the killer WAS insane, not even in 1904, when he settled for saying that the killer was "undoubtedly insane" - and strangely, when we say "undoubtedly" we speak of things that are contested. We donīt use the expression about static, established facts - we donīt say that shoes are undoubtedly worn on the feet until somebody questions it. For whatever reason, good or bad!

Of course, the "Otago Witness" has the asylum thing attached to the allegations, and so it seems pretty clear that we are dealing with the Kosminski theory at this stage - but I very much wonder about the vague language, as I have already said.

Out of interest, and since there are many interpretations of it - when would YOU say that it is beyond doubt that Anderson had decided that "Kosminski" was the perp? And why?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Of course, the "Otago Witness" has the asylum thing attached to the allegations, and so it seems pretty clear that we are dealing with the Kosminski theory at this stage - but I very much wonder about the vague language, as I have already said.

The Otago Witness article of 1904 is what I was asking you about, because you said its language was "in line" with that of the Cassell’s Saturday Journal in 1892 - and the latter prompted you to ask why he would use that language if he had already "decided on Kosminski". That's why I asked whether there was an implication that he still hadn't decided by 1904.

Out of interest, and since there are many interpretations of it - when would YOU say that it is beyond doubt that Anderson had decided that "Kosminski" was the perp? And why?

I think certainly by the time of his articles in 'The Nineteenth Century' in 1901, when he wrote of "the fact of that fiend's detention in an asylum" [my emphasis].

http://books.google.com/books?id=o-AaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA952

Personally I'd also say that - in the light of his later statements - the reference in the 'Windsor Magazine' in 1895 to Anderson having a "perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum" implies he had a particular suspect in mind, though the language leaves that arguable:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tvua_8Qn_fIC&jtp=507

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"The Otago Witness article of 1904 is what I was asking you about, because you said its language was "in line" with that of the Cassell’s Saturday Journal in 1892 - and the latter prompted you to ask why he would use that language if he had already "decided on Kosminski". That's why I asked whether there was an implication that he still hadn't decided by 1904."

Well, as I said, the mentioning of the asylum business in the 1904 article means that we are on safe ground suggesting that Kosminski was referred to. But like I also said, I am not happy about the phrasing. The "undoubtedly" part speaks to me of uncertainty; not necessarily on Andersonīs behalf but it is there nevertheless. Itīs as if Anderson is labourously trying to bring his vessel to the shore but is prohibited to berth it there, is it not? Some idiot (Smith? Abberline? Littlechild?) will not allow him to do so.

Therein lies the rub, I believe. I have no problems accepting that Anderson was of the meaning that "Kosminski" was the Whitechapel killer - but I think the way he words himself gives away that he didnīt receive the kind of recognition he was striving for.
The killer was UNDOUBTEDLY insane, this I know and this you must trust me on. Surely it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe in a sane killer when one has seen the photos of Kelly?

I of course arranged these two sentences in the wrong chronological order, but I hope you can see what I am after anyway - a desperation on Andersonīs behalf to find acclaim and recognition.
From for example Sagar we know that people were suspected who were able to manage a number of shops, and that would seem to imply a person who on the surface of things was rationally functioning - not an insane man who had not attempted any work for years, like you-know-who!

So, Chris, since I will not buy - or even bid on - the notion that Anderson and Swanson were guarding any Kosminski secret between them, I instead think that there was a battle between the ones in charge, a battle that Anderson could not win since he never had the goods to show for it. And THAT is why I think we may see linguistic expressions of frustration and defeat in Andersonīs writings, no matter if they are dated 1892 or 1904 - or, for that matter, if they are dated much later and signed by Donald Swanson. Not that the latter admits any defeat, not at all - but I read the marginalia as a slightly tired reminiscence of the old fighting days, long since gone. The Anderson/Swanson team could not pull their identification off, not in the specific meaning nor in the overall context in spite of their labour; He WAS insane, he MUST have been, just look at the photos - and we had just the man!

I hope this helps to show where I am coming from, Chris!

All the best,
Fisherman

PS: I agree that the 1895 article is a useful starting point! But I also retrospectively agree with the Windsor Magazine that what Anderson had was a "perfectly plausible theory" (a deranged Jew with sexually deviant behaviour), and nothing more. Today, however, such grounds would not be admissible as evidence of a mindset to kill and eviscerate, would they? Not that we can be certain that these WERE the grounds disclosed to the Windsor Magazine - but surely it is a "perfectly plausible theory"....?

[Chris]

PS: I agree that the 1895 article is a useful starting point! But I also retrospectively agree with the Windsor Magazine that what Anderson had was a "perfectly plausible theory" (a deranged Jew with sexually deviant behaviour), and nothing more. Today, however, such grounds would not be admissible as evidence of a mindset to kill and eviscerate, would they? Not that we can be certain that these WERE the grounds disclosed to the Windsor Magazine - but surely it is a "perfectly plausible theory"....?

In the light of what Anderson wrote later, I think his theory in 1895 was already that Kosminski, specifically, was the murderer. But admittedly it could alternatively be read as a reference to a more general theory about the kind of man the murderer was.

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"In the light of what Anderson wrote later, I think his theory in 1895 was already that Kosminski, specifically, was the murderer."

That may well be the case, Chris, I agree. We have MacNaghten acknowledging Kosminski as a useful suspect the year before. Itīs WHY he did so that would be interesting to hear, for that would disclose just how useful Kosminski really was. Did it put him on par with Ostrog? Apparently. And Druitt was awarded the same approximate status. Three links in a chain - and we know that one of them was faulty and would break under pressure ...
OK, Chris - this time I AM implying something, admittedly!

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the reply.

Thanks. It was just that it sounded for a moment as though we might have gone back to the bad old days of "hypothetical scenarios" about documents having been faked with the collusion of Ripperologists. I hope the article by Adam and Keith has finally put paid to that sort of thing.

I was once told by an eminent medical man of repute, a joke. He said..

What's the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist?

A psychiatrist is a man looking for a black cat in a dark tunnel.
A psychologist is a man looking for a black cat in a dark tunnel ...that isn't there.

If you really want to look for things that aren't there, by all means be my guest. If it's there. I'll tell you...until then if it sounds like a giraffe and walks like a giraffe..chances are that on assumption... it isn't a black cat.

People can have odd feelings. It's been known to happen. Simple.

I have no strong feelings about it, and I'm sure others are far better placed to comment. (As I've said, on the whole I am sceptical about the likelihood of Aaron Kozminski's having committed the murders.)

But what about Aaron Kosminski?....lol

Thank you for this reply.

best wishes

Phil

[Errata]

Those from Mile End Old Town poor law union were normally certified by Dr Houchin at that time. (My notes say that he signed all the reception orders I could see - though unfortunately I didn't note how many I checked.)

The other thing to bear in mind when considering the possibility that the police somehow arranged for him to be committed is that he had previously been admitted to the workhouse "Qy Insane" seven months earlier, in July 1890, but had been returned to his family.

It's fascinating to me that Dr. Houchin would do this. Police surgeons were busy folks. I mean, I could see an argument that the nearest doctor at the time gets the call, so sometimes it would be Houchin. But all of them suggests that it was his job to do this, and I can't think why.

Secondly I don't think the police arranged for his commitment. Clearly he cooperated to a certain extent. But I am unsure as to whether or not the police had a hand in keeping him in there for the rest of his life. And since I can't find Kosminski's medical records again, I can't check them. And it's irritating. At this point, all I know is that it is possible that he never stopped being a danger to himself, but it is not in either a patient's or the institutions best interests to be kept there for the rest of their life when they appear functional, which I think he did. So that's the only reason I thought it strange that he spent 30 years there. My recollection is that he appeared to spend a good portion of his time there as a benign soul, so why waste bed space and resources on a guy who could probably make it on the outside, at least for awhile?

[Chris]

It's fascinating to me that Dr. Houchin would do this. Police surgeons were busy folks.

I've always assumed it wasn't a full-time job. In the 1891 census he was just described as a General Practitioner:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1624

[Chris]

If you really want to look for things that aren't there, by all means be my guest. If it's there. I'll tell you...until then if it sounds like a giraffe and walks like a giraffe..chances are that on assumption... it isn't a black cat.

The reason I asked was that it looked just like the kind of innuendo we've seen in the past. Suggestions that documents had been faked or stolen, or that there was some sort of secret conspiracy or cartel based on vested interests. That kind of thing.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

And since I can't find Kosminski's medical records again, I can't check them. And it's irritating. At this point, all I know is that it is possible that he never stopped being a danger to himself, but it is not in either a patient's or the institutions best interests to be kept there for the rest of their life when they appear functional, which I think he did. So that's the only reason I thought it strange that he spent 30 years there. My recollection is that he appeared to spend a good portion of his time there as a benign soul, so why waste bed space and resources on a guy who could probably make it on the outside, at least for awhile?

The medical records are all gone over in detail in Rob's book. I don't see how an argument can be made that the man was functional as the years ground on. Expected really given the appalling standards of care and lack of modern medications.

[Errata]

The medical records are all gone over in detail in Rob's book. I don't see how an argument can be made that the man was functional as the years ground on. Expected really given the appalling standards of care and lack of modern medications.

Unfortunately, I do not have the good Mr. House's book. I wish I did, but since I'm putting a guy through med school, all of my reading material comes from being a reader for a publisher, which is not a literary situation I recommend. For example, the current travesty I have been assigned is a terrible classic noir set up taking place in Panama. There have been four murders, two separate mafia threats, two affairs, three clients for the good detective, a botched back alley abortion, and a tango competition all in the first six chapters. In Panama. Good thing I have a sense of humor.

I don't even have the requisite JTR A-Z. I am woefully underbooked.

But to Kosminski. I don't doubt that his commitment took a huge toll. But despite the appalling standard of care and total lack of treatment, it really depends on his illness as to whether or not he remained functional, and for how long. And we don't know what he had. But, for example, if he was bipolar, there would be long stretches of time where he would appear perfectly normal. Where he would be perfectly normal, since his brain chemistry wouldn't be acting up. The same with OCD, the same with straight Mania, even some presentations of Schizophrenia. There is something of a rule that psychiatrists don't note when people are functioning normally, unless they think it's because of something they did. Like, if they think you got better because of a medication they gave you. But they note the bad parts. So when you see a note saying that a patient is depressed, and then you see another note six months later that a patient is depressed, likely they weren't depressed that whole time. Or there would have been no need for the second note.

And there is something of a saturation point with critical institutionalization (where someone can no longer function on the outside) and it almost never happens within the first five years. Usually it's after ten years. Assuming Kosminski was not a danger to himself or others, and was not blatantly symptomatic for even a few weeks, I would have expected him to be released sometime in that first ten years. He probably would have ended up right back in the next time it got bad, but it's feasible that he could have functioned on the outside for at least a couple of years before it got that bad again. The revolving door of crap mental health care is by no means a new thing. Especially in a public facility that caters to the indigent.

Even a perfectly sane man breaks in an asylum like that. But certainly for the first five years or so, there would have been an expectation of the patient getting released, which faded as time wore on. Once you were in for ten years, I can't imagine a person getting out. But there was that first ten years. Which is a long time for someone with any kind of cyclical illness to go into remission. And since mental illness was so poorly understood, a long enough remission would appear to be a cure. So if Kosminski had a cyclical illness that had periods of dormancy (and there are many of them), he should have been released. But wasn't, and that deserves a look. On the other hand, if he lost his marbles and never found them again, no he wasn't getting out ever. And even if he got significantly better after the 10 year mark, he wouldn't be released because he would have been too institutionalized. And even though doctors back then didn't know what that was, they knew that long term residents never lasted long back in the real world.

Essentially, if there was any interference in his commitment, like the cops telling the facility not to let him go, that would really only have affected him in that first ten years. After that he wasn't going anywhere anyway, so it wouldn't have affected his disposition. And the only reason I even mention it as a possibility is that I was under the impression that he had long periods of lucidity and relative normalcy. Which if that pattern persisted in the asylum, he should have been released during one of those periods, and it's odd that he was not. But if he just tossed his wits to the wind, then it isn't odd.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

But to Kosminski. I don't doubt that his commitment took a huge toll. But despite the appalling standard of care and total lack of treatment, it really depends on his illness as to whether or not he remained functional, and for how long. And we don't know what he had.

Rob House does a pretty detailed job of discussing Kos's mental condition over the years and what we might deduce from that what he was suffering from.

Ask Rob for a copy. I think it's hard to discuss matters like this when there is a 300 page book that goes into far greater detail than I can on all these issues. You have posted some great insights on this thread and I would imagine you'd have plenty on the book itself.

[Wickerman]

I've always assumed it wasn't a full-time job. In the 1891 census he was just described as a General Practitioner:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1624

Quite so Chris, Dr. Phillips was also a Police Surgeon, which meant, I think, that he was attached to the local H Division on an "on-call" basis. I thought Houchin was also attached to H div. but, just incase some were wondering, should not mean Houchin could be expected to do whatever the police asked him to do, ie; certify someone because "they thought it best".
I'm not saying anyone was thinking that, but the thought once occurred to me a long while ago.

Some years ago in a "what happened to John Saunders" debate the question arose that, if the authorities committed a person to an asylum then that person was essentially 'locked up'.
However, in the case of Saunders, his family committed him, so does that mean that he could check out at their (the families) discretion ?
If so, the reason Houchin was asked to commit Kosminski may have been to take him out of the care & control of his family, who had brought him in the first place?

I don't know if only a court of law could commit a person (outside of family) in the 1800's, or if a medical practitioner did have the independent authority to do so without the say of the authority or the family?

Just a few thoughts...

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Wow! Houchin was listed in the medical register until he died aged 88 (1936).

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Echo, 12 November 1888—

"It is asserted that the Home Secretary's offer of a pardon to any accomplice was mainly at the instigation of Dr. G. B. Phillips, the Divisional Surgeon of the H Division, who pointed out to the authorities at the Home Office the desirability of such a step being taken."

What did Dr. Phillips know? Why would Her Majesty's Government take the advice of a Divisional Surgeon in the matter of pardons to accomplices?

Also, seeing as we're on the subject, who might Kosminski's accomplice have been?

Regards,

Simon