Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Phil H]

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

Well, an accomplice could simply be someone who knew what he had been up to - a family friend or family member. They might know his comings and goings, even that he had blood on clothes or himself, and helped him wash or hide such evidence.

I don't think an "accomplice" (in this sense) has to be a party to the crimes, just someone who aids and abets.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"I don't think an "accomplice" (in this sense) has to be a party to the crimes, just someone who aids and abets."

True enough - but why would Phillips, of all people, instigate the search for such a person..?

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

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.

Well I do have the advantage of also being a crazy Polish (ish) Jew... Actually my grandmother was from Kosminski's hometown. And she was an effing lunatic. So maybe there was something in the water.

[Phil Carter]

I thought Rob House went to pretty great lengths to explore/debunk the issue of what "imbecile" meant in terms of categorizing various forms of mental illness in the context of the day. What part of his analysis do you disagree with, Phil?

Hello Robert,

First of all, thank you for re-posting the Dan Norder transcription of the FULL Scotsman article. Most appreciated.

With the greatest respect to Rob House and his sterling efforts, along with anyone else that have (to quote Roy) "bent over backwards" to try to be fair on the Kosminski subject...

I would rather take the word of Dr. Sir John Batty Tuke, contemporary medical expert.. and I mean EXPERT in this field. Tuke is so highly regarded in his field, over many many years, that I am yet to, after trawled through countless British Medical Journal articles on the subject of lunacy anf the like, find anyone that disagrees with the man.

I really dont think the reputation and eminency of this man is being fully appreciated.

Next..and a somewhat prickly question.

If the Scotsman/BMJ article has been around for so long, and known about, why wasn't it used in the effort to be "fair" in the book? Was it overlooked? Was it even seen? Was it deliberately discarded? (Sorry, but in a suspect book such evidence of contenporary expertise on this level would be the equivilant to sinking Kosminski as his personality, as we know it in all the records, actually proves Dr Tuke completely correct. In one line, and in plain English.. Aaron Kosminski wasn't the right type of madman. He doesn't, personality wise, fit the bill.
As I said earlier..he is a typical example of what used to be called "feeble minded"...a term that those of us of a certain age still remember being used in England.

So the crux of the point id this... how can anyone actually argue with the accepted views of the top man in his field at the time of the murders themselves? Because Kosminski was treated in the same fashion as one would for a person of that era.

That's why it is wrong to try to get modern authority in on this.. contemporary medical expertise..of Tuke's rank, trumps everything, imho.
Even Howden refers to him in his presentation as PRESIDENT of this medical section.

That's what Ive got against it Robert. Simple.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

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

Well, an accomplice could simply be someone who knew what he had been up to - a family friend or family member. They might know his comings and goings, even that he had blood on clothes or himself, and helped him wash or hide such evidence.

I don't think an "accomplice" (in this sense) has to be a party to the crimes, just someone who aids and abets.

Phil H

Hello Phil H,

Forgive me...no offence.. but that sounds like the biggest set up for SRA and HIS comment of "his people" to be correct Ive ever seen.
I'm not buying it, sorry. No disrespect. I personally wouldn't trust Anderson's words in combination with anything. The man had himself and EGO at the front of his intentions in that book. Throughout it.

best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

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?

Two different footprints..... in the blood .....on the floor?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

Dr. Phillips was not a detective, so probably not party to the Scotland Yard investigation and therefore unlikely to have plucked such a conclusion out of thin air.

There must have been scene of crime evidence, which Dr. Phillips appears to have only revealed at a meeting at the House of Commons on the evening of 9th November, and which led to a Cabinet decision on 10th November to issue a reward to an accomplice.

Dr. Phillips may have been treading a fine line between Whitechapel and Whitehall.

Echo, 10th November 1888—

Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

Star, and Daily Telegraph, 15th September 1888–

"Mr. Phillips personally has hitherto withheld information from reporters upon conscientious grounds, and Inspector Abberline himself says that the surgeon has not told him what portions of the body were missing."

Secrets.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

I did. But I expect Phil has not picked up on that yet.

Hello Rob,

And there we were trying to get away from silly infantile sentences. Learn from Chris.

Try adressing the eminent contemporary expert's (Dr. Tuke's) words, instead.
Or are you going to try and invent something like a week or two ago to combat this evidence?.. a la "Swanson was "itching" to tell the great "British public" his secret" again?

And why wasn't this eminent expert's contemporary opinion in your book?

Aaron Kosminski's personality is the total antithesis of a killer. That's from an expert who has described a typical "Aaron Kosminski" to a tee. He was a feeble minded, poor wreck of a man. And that's all.

Look Rob. The book was excellent. But it really does say something if THE expert of the time ISN'T even quoted. And CONTEMPORARY medical expertise of the level of Tuke trumps anything of a modern ilk. It comes without all the modern technical labels.

Now if I know you well enough..this evidence WILL actually sit deep within you, and be properly considered. If you can find the same quality of comment from an equal of Tuke's calibre, taking him to task..I'll consider it too, just as deeply. But DO please remember that the President of the section, regarding lunacy, Dr Howden, also thought of the same ilk in his attitude and comments during an important presentation to the faculty in this genre, referring to Dr Tuke.


best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Chris,

Then you will be delighted to hear that at no point in time did I consider your question, with what you have now revealed, as having been linked to playing silly games like entrapment... or trying to trick a volatile statement out in order to attack it...or me.

Furthest thing from my mind Chris. Because I don't start looking for black cats that don't exist in people's personalities.

Now that's out of the way, may we continue as we have been? Thanks.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil H,

Dr. Phillips was not a detective, so probably not party to the Scotland Yard investigation and therefore unlikely to have plucked such a conclusion out of thin air.

There must have been scene of crime evidence, which Dr. Phillips appears to have only revealed at a meeting at the House of Commons on the evening of 9th November, and which led to a Cabinet decision on 10th November to issue a reward to an accomplice.

Dr. Phillips may have been treading a fine line between Whitechapel and Whitehall.

Echo, 10th November 1888—

Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

Star, and Daily Telegraph, 15th September 1888–

"Mr. Phillips personally has hitherto withheld information from reporters upon conscientious grounds, and Inspector Abberline himself says that the surgeon has not told him what portions of the body were missing."

Secrets.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon, all,

Thanks for bringing up the Echo articles, et al.

Quite some time ago I put up a thread about the Echo, 10th November, which I found rather interesting. You may recall it.

It can be found here..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4220

best wishes

Phil

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Forgive me...no offence.. but that sounds like the biggest set up for SRA and HIS comment of "his people" to be correct Ive ever seen.

I realize you don't care for it but I confess I never in all these years until now thought about accomplices in terms of family and friends. And it isn't that bad a line of reasoning. I've always thought of a lookout, the Fenians etc etc but not someone's relatives. And the police knew by then that Pizer's family had sheltered him.

Seriously - if everyone thinks Anderson was a rabid anti-Semite looking for a Jew to pin this all on you can now say he probably thought they needed to offer a little gelt to get any assistance from those "people".

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

And there we were trying to get away from silly infantile sentences. Learn from Chris.

Try adressing the eminent contemporary expert's (Dr. Tuke's) words, instead.
Or are you going to try and invent something like a week or two ago to combat this evidence?.. a la "Swanson was "itching" to tell the great "British public" his secret" again?

And why wasn't this eminent expert's contemporary opinion in your book?

Aaron Kosminski's personality is the total antithesis of a killer. That's from an expert who has described a typical "Aaron Kosminski" to a tee. He was a feeble minded, poor wreck of a man. And that's all.

Look Rob. The book was excellent. But it really does say something if THE expert of the time ISN'T even quoted. And CONTEMPORARY medical expertise of the level of Tuke trumps anything of a modern ilk. It comes without all the modern technical labels.

Now if I know you well enough..this evidence WILL actually sit deep within you, and be properly considered. If you can find the same quality of comment from an equal of Tuke's calibre, taking him to task..I'll consider it too, just as deeply. But DO please remember that the President of the section, regarding lunacy, Dr Howden, also thought of the same ilk in his attitude and comments during an important presentation to the faculty in this genre, referring to Dr Tuke.


best wishes

Phil

I did not include this in my book because a) I had never seen it before and b) I don't think it is particularly relevant.

Why is the opinion of one psychiatrist in the Victorian particularly relevant in giving his opinion re: the profile of a sexual serial killer. Knowledge of this type of killer in the victorian era was effectively non-existent. Why should this doctor be expected to have the level of understanding of serial killers that we have today? Are you claiming this guy was an expert in serial killers? Particularly lust murderers? Is he an expert in criminal pathology? An expert in schizophrenic serial killers? He may never have encountered one... and probably never did.

Moreover, are you claiming that his opinion trumps those of other reputable psychologists of the era who had a different opinion?

You seem to think you have discovered something big, and I am trembling over here. I think this opinion is borderline worthless.

You say "And there we were trying to get away from silly infantile sentences. "... since when are you doing this Phil? That's a new one to me. To be honest, I am sick of your snide backstabbing and puerile remarks. You want me to cite a list of the many derogatory things you have said lately about me (indirectly) and people supporting Kozminski?

Also... how is it that when I respond to your various allegations and statements that are flat-out wrong, you never mention this or concede that you were wrong. For example, your unsupported statement that Swanson wrote a document that claimed Coles was a ripper victim. You glossed over that, and moved the goalposts... claiming a new one... now Swanson is dishonest because he pilfers police documents. Well played sir!

RH

[robhouse]

He was a feeble minded, poor wreck of a man. And that's all.

Moreover, you still haven't picked up on it. You said Kozminski was an imbecile, am I right? Now you say he was "feeble-minded".

I would like to see you post any evidence of these assertions, because I can tell you, there is none. Zero.

And if you want to know why my tone toward you is so sharp, it is that I am sick of seeing you make these snide, derogatory type comments towards people (like myself) who support the Kozminski theory, while at the same time, you relentlessly post stuff that is blatantly wrong, and you never concede the point.

RH

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

After reading the posts on this thread its clear that some members either have information that the rest of us dont even know exists, or that assumptions of truth and accuracy are being used as bread crumb trails to some kind of revelation.

In the world Im familiar with criminal witnesses are invalid unless corroborated by others or unless physical evidence supports their statements. I use Israel as my example,..not only is there zero physical evidence that he was where he said he was when he said he was there, or that he actually saw anyone else on the street at that time if he was there, there is no evidence that he attended the Inquest, was sequestered or suppressed, or that he was used in subsequent line-ups and further inquiries.

Seems like people assume a pot of gold lies at his feet, when in actuality, based on the known records, all we got from him is colorful commentary.

Best regards

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

"I, the undersigned Edmund King Houchin do hereby certify as follows . . . On the 6th day of February 1891 at the Mile End Old Town Workhouse in the county of London I personally examined the said Aaron Kozminski and came to the conclusion that he is a person of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment."

Not a sniff of suspicion about him perhaps having been the 19th Century's serial killer sine pari.

Odd, n'est-ce pas?

Regards,

Simon