Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

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.

Well, I am sure each side regards the other as deranged and possibly dangerous to others. But some have actually read a book that is directly about the question asked in the first post, "Is Kosminski the man really viable?" So there is some information there, such as detailed exposition about what the imbecile category really meant at that time. Being a Maybrickian I've learned more than I care to about Victorian medical thinking; glad to see others suffer lol.

So if you call Kosminski an imbecile and use the term as we do today, you're wrong and you haven't read Rob House's book. (I don't mean you Michael; it's the rhetorical "you") If you call Kosminski feeble minded, you're wrong and you haven't read Rob House's book. Etc etc. Things that shouldn't be controversial. There is plenty to argue about but it shouldn't be the various categories of insanity and madness and what they meant both theoretically and in practical terms.

Perhaps you were referring to other pieces of "information".....

[Lechmere]

Who was the accomplice? Surely it was Tumblety.
That would square the circle and keep a lot of traditionalists happy.
Even better of there were two accomplices – with Montague Druitt making up the threesome.

However I rather think that the good Doctor Phillips merely offered an unsupported opinion that there was an accomplice and that a reward might get this person to dob in the culprit. As Phillips had become a minor personality and professional man associated with the case his views were given credence. I don’t think he ‘knew’ anything in particular.
One of the lingering police theories was that there was an accomplice as they did not understand that serial killers nearly always work alone and they could not fathom how someone would do this alone and get away with it. They didn’t understand what would motivate someone to do these sorts of crimes.

[m_w_r]

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?

Hi Simon,

I don't see why this is particularly odd. Houchin could hardly have determined that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper - or even that he was suspected by the police of being Jack the Ripper - by examining him personally, unless Kosminski had said so, which he evidently didn't (and even if - purely hypothetically - he did, Houchin must have had cause to doubt whether it was true). Nor did Woolf Abrahams mention anything about Jack the Ripper. Houchin had no other sources at the time he made the report you quote. So I don't see how he ought to have known that the man before him was 'the 19th Century's serial killler sine pari'. If you were in Houchin's position, how would you have been able to tell?

Regards,

Mark

[Errata]

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.


Best regards

Okay, so back to basics then. What do we know? Not what we assume, or what we think we know, what do we actually know? Because at this point, I've seen certain assumptions presented as fact (such as Kosminski being a compulsive masturbator) but other things I thought were assumptions were facts, such as Kosminski's previous stay in an asylum (I think I assumed he was being confused with Jacob Levy).

We know Anderson favored a suspect who was an insane low class Polish Jew with masturbation issues and may have been protected by his peers.

We know Swanson says Kosminski, but got his disposition wrong if he was referring to Aaron Kosminski.

We know Aaron Kosminski was a low class Polish Jew, delusional and hallucinating at least some of the time, who was committed (with his cooperation) by his family.

We know Aaron Kosminski has no record of violence, other than throwing a chair at an orderly, and for all we know the orderly totally deserved it. I don't really count the threat against his sister as violence, I consider it a threat. The two can often be miles apart from each other.

What else do we know? I'm serious, lay the facts out there.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mark,

If Kosminski had been suspected of being JtR do you honestly believe Dr. Houchin would have examined him in blissful ignorance of this?

Regards,

Simon

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

However I rather think that the good Doctor Phillips merely offered an unsupported opinion that there was an accomplice and that a reward might get this person to dob in the culprit. As Phillips had become a minor personality and professional man associated with the case his views were given credence. I don’t think he ‘knew’ anything in particular.

Phillips also lived in Spitalsfield. Ear on the ground and all that. Not a stretch to envision someone who knew of a friend of a friend with family members that thought a loved one was a bit odd getting in touch.

[m_w_r]

Hi Simon,

I think I understand where you're coming from now - you're working on the premise that Houchin, as an H-Division surgeon, would have been told about Kosminski by his police contacts some time before encountering him professionally. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why is it necessary to suppose that Houchin was told anything about Kosminski by anybody? What if he just wasn't told anything? I don't find that particularly hard to accept.

Regards,

Mark

[Michael W Richards]

Well, I am sure each side regards the other as deranged and possibly dangerous to others. But some have actually read a book that is directly about the question asked in the first post, "Is Kosminski the man really viable?" So there is some information there, such as detailed exposition about what the imbecile category really meant at that time. Being a Maybrickian I've learned more than I care to about Victorian medical thinking; glad to see others suffer lol.

So if you call Kosminski an imbecile and use the term as we do today, you're wrong and you haven't read Rob House's book. (I don't mean you Michael; it's the rhetorical "you") If you call Kosminski feeble minded, you're wrong and you haven't read Rob House's book. Etc etc. Things that shouldn't be controversial. There is plenty to argue about but it shouldn't be the various categories of insanity and madness and what they meant both theoretically and in practical terms.

Perhaps you were referring to other pieces of "information".....

Hi Sir Robert,

To be honest Ive never seen much of a reason to delve too deeply into this controversy because for one, Im unfamiliar with any information about the chap that suggests he killed any Canonical and I personally dont see the handiwork of mentally challenged individuals in the murders I would personally assign to one man. To kill in that manner is certainly a result of some uncontrolled mental affliction, sure, but I havent been scouring the mental health ward records looking for any viable suspects myself. From what Ive read this man was ill, ...how anyone wants to categorize that is their business,... but that alone doesnt make him any kind of suspect for any crime.

I believe Ive seen misdirection throughout the contemporary data that survives about these cases, Ive wondered if this isnt just another one of those situations.

Best regards

[Michael W Richards]

Okay, so back to basics then. What do we know? Not what we assume, or what we think we know, what do we actually know? Because at this point, I've seen certain assumptions presented as fact (such as Kosminski being a compulsive masturbator) but other things I thought were assumptions were facts, such as Kosminski's previous stay in an asylum (I think I assumed he was being confused with Jacob Levy).

We know Anderson favored a suspect who was an insane low class Polish Jew with masturbation issues and may have been protected by his peers.

We know Swanson says Kosminski, but got his disposition wrong if he was referring to Aaron Kosminski.

We know Aaron Kosminski was a low class Polish Jew, delusional and hallucinating at least some of the time, who was committed (with his cooperation) by his family.

We know Aaron Kosminski has no record of violence, other than throwing a chair at an orderly, and for all we know the orderly totally deserved it. I don't really count the threat against his sister as violence, I consider it a threat. The two can often be miles apart from each other.

What else do we know? I'm serious, lay the facts out there.

That last part I emboldened is the point I was making Errata....we know nothing about this man that suggests he is, or rather was,... or whether he should be, considered a murderer.

Combing institutions for unstable viables is going to prove without a doubt that there were many people with mental illness during the period in question, however its going to prove nothing about which one of them if any should be considered a genuine suspect for any of these murders.

Quotes from the Police involved with Intelligence or National Security should be taken cautiously, misdirection is part of their trade and we know the press was manipulated by some of them so they could carry on legitimate investigations with impunity and very little scrutiny.

Perhaps the Seaside ID story itself was that type of disinformation.

Cheers errata

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mark,

Are you suggesting that Houchin examined Kosminski at Mile End Old Town Workhouse in ignorance of his suspected involvement in the Whitechapel murders?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

*-+/

Hi Mark,

If Kosminski had been suspected of being JtR do you honestly believe Dr. Houchin would have examined him in blissful ignorance of this?

Regards,

Simon

I somehow doubt the police would voice their suspicions so casually, couldn't that be verging on slander, seeing as how they had no proof?
Wouldn't they merely request Dr. Houchin to give this man a thorough assessment with emphasis on "thorough"?

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Rob,

Snide remarks like quoting YOU saying that Swanson was "itching" to let the "British Public" in on the big secret? And the evidence for this is where?

Seeing as the family of the good man themselves bend over backwards to explain how he wouldn't have gone over the line of moral duty in revealing anything job related, I find this.. well..amazingly...

But I am not going to resort to personal insults Rob. It only digs graves.
Just because one person has been thrown off of here to the delight of some, doesn't mean I will raise to the bait and respond in kind for the same happy thing to happen. Shame.
Now...to business....

Aaron Kosminski is not in any shown way, related to the Whitechapel murders.
If you have evidence that he is, in direct written word or quote. Show it.
Until then, put up with the fact that whether you have writen a book or not, you are going to get it in the neck from people who think..

a) Aaron Kosminski is innocent of the Whitechapel murder crimes.
b) Sir Robert Anderson was as trustworthy as a deflated cut balloon.
c) DSS was writing of Anderson's suspect, next to Anderson's story, not his own.
d) That Dr Tuke's contemporary comment IS relevant. And VERY expert,
e) The Seaside Home story totally smacks all known JTR suspect ID's into the river..all others KNOWN to have happened happened locally, not 60 miles away.(Ex. Pizer and x amount of people brought in for questioning)
f) The Seaside Home has never been identified..only a suggested possibility for it's location.
g) That DSS, IF he was involved in or had intimate knowledge of the great Ripper ID as is suggested, didn't know the correct "Ripper"'s life span from Great Uncle Bulgaria's.
h) That many of us, not just we who despise the term "Aaron Kosminski was JTR", cannot for the life of us understand why DSS got so many details that should be perfectly obvious, wrong.
i) That Anderson and Swanson are NOT the dynamic duo who solved Gotham City's biggest ever mystery through secret movements no one else knew about.
j) That contemporary high ranking policemen heavily involved in the case either said that they had heard of the Polish Jew theory and maintained there was nothing to it, or said that no one ever caught nor had a clue whom the murderer was. And they weren't secret about it either.
k) That Anderson has a reputation, correct or not, for being somewhat unfair towards the Jewish population of East London.
l) That Anderson himself was without a doubt, a boaster.
m) That Anderson made a point of calling people guilty even when they were not even tried for a crime. He used the excuse "morallly gulity" as a way of covering up a lack of evidence. This isn't the work of a professional policeman. It is the work of an ego always wanting to be right and never wrong.
n) That Anderson, if not lying, embellished his memoirs on various occasions, as shown by Simon Wood, twice. This does not bode well for the candicacy of an unaned Polish Jew as the Greatest non-caught killer the world had seen yet one who Anderson claims was put away. He even got some of those details wrong if it were Aaron Kosminski. Thereby, his testimony is not only embellished, boastful and incorrect in places, it is seriously considerate of being under grave doubt as being true.
o) That Dr Sir John Batty Tuke was THE most eminent person in the field of lunacy. His contemporary comment on the state of the mind of the killer is of great worth and value to our learnings. The man's credentials are without doubt of the highest, and his peers held the man in the greatest of respect. Yet you Rob, the man who has bent over backwards, quote Roy, to be as fair as possible in all of this throughout your book, dismiss this man's testimony with one sweep of your hand..because you know full well that this man's expert and unbiased comment will put the personality issue of the killer, in your case, aaron Kosminski, to bed. i.e. he isn't the killing type, as demonstrated by the comments of Dr Tuke. You don't like that. Shame. It won't go away.
p) If you maintain that Dr Tukes comments are of no value... then may I remind you that it is tantamount to me saying that WRITTEN opinion, AT THE TIME of the murders, by top notch medics, i.e. Bond and Co, are equally worthless...trouble is there isn't one medical person to match Dr Tuke's credentials in the whole of Ripperology in his field. The nearest regarded as an expert in a specific field is the expert on vivisection..Sir William Withey Gull..who has nothing to do with any direct comment on the murders themselves.
q) Aaron Kosminski is never identified anywhere near the murder sites on the nights of the murders.
r) Aaron Kosminski has never been charged with any crime of violence, ever.
s) Another of the intrepid three, Macnagthen, reduces Kosminski to a poor second or even third in his list of those more likely than Cutbush to be the Ripper. Oh yes, I forgot, MM was a high ranking policeman who's coments are regarded of the same import as Anderson and swanson in Ripperology.
t) Anderson doesn't name Aaron Kosminski. Neither does Swanson.
u) Aaron Kosminski's antecedants do not ally themselves with him being of a violent nature, except for one recorded occasion threatening his sister with a knife. I'm sure that many people on here have threatened to knock seven shades oh poop out of someone in a bar..some may have actually done it.. but it doesn'tmake any of them a killer, let alone being capable of murdering, let alone being capable of delicately, at times, making nicks and cuts in an intricate manner on the body of a dead woman, let alone have knowledge of where the organs lie in those bodies.
v) The Memoranda is NOT official. It was never stamped as such, never officially recieved into the archives and it is not adressed to any person in any department in the police force or Home Office. Therefore it cannot be quoted in OFFICIAL evidence. It is one man's personal views, that may or may not have been inserted into the files at the time of the murders, although dated from that time. Everyone that has semi-quoted from it in books and articles from the time (Sims etc), used it NOT to promote the Polish Jew theory mentioned in it. That in itself is telling.
w)There is contemporary evidence written on a sheet in copper plate writing that directly contradicts the amount of victims of the Whitechapel murderer.
x) Swanson himself was still chasing the Whitechapel murderer long after Aaron Kosminski was incarcerated.
y) Ditto Anderson. Both he and Swanson are the lynchpins of the Polish Jew story, yet are shown to work on the case long after they should have known that they had their man locked up in an asylum...so why carry on the chase?
z) It is physicaly impossible for any human being to know, conclusively, the definitive and finite number of murders in an unsolved murder case. Ipso fact, the finite names of every victim. The Memoranda written in 1894 does this. It confirms the memoranda's unreliability as a document in it's entirety.
æ) None of Aaron Kosminski's known relatives have ever given any evidence or produced any comment to back up the story Swanson/Anderson tell.
ø) There is no evidence that Swanson and Anderson were the exclusive two that knew the truth. The unoffical annotations are not evidence of such official use of police resources.
å) The mention of the Polish Jew's naughty street habits show no indication of cadaver ripping violence nor frenzy. Unless frenzy has another meaning.

I can carry on with much much more. But won't.

And I didnt do this to run YOU down. I did it for the sake of the initial question on the thread. Is Kosminski a viable....

In many people's opinion...no, he isn't. And you are just going to have to take that.. you have nailed your colours to the mast. Don't get cheesed off because some of us don't believe a flying fig of it, and can raise more questions in questioning it than I have listed here.

I ask you again, one very important question. Its a yes or no answer.

Aaron Kosminski is not in any shown way, related to the Whitechapel murders.
If you have evidence that he is, in direct written word or quote. Please kindly show it to the world.

Respectfully, A distant relative living in Berner Street x amount of years before won't help the answer. Interesting though that is.

And my attitude is not sharp nor sniping. Just so you get that straight. I don't need to get personal nor feel the need for playground bullying. Live with it. If Dan Farson was alive and on here promoting his theory, I'd do exactly the same if I felt it warranted critique. Ditto Cullen, ditto Knight, ditto Cornwell.

Oh, yes, I used the word imbecile. It was in the colloquial form. Not the technical one. My apologies.

Feeble minded is the more fitting in Aaron Kosminski's case, imho. A term in common use at that time and also well into my lifetime. It describes harmless individuals that resemble the asylum lunatic Aaron Kosminski.

Happy hunting.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

I can carry on with much much more. But won't.


But you did, all the same!!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Anderson could have been sued for slander in 1910.

Perhaps that's why he cautiously didn't name the Polish Jew he'd earlier plucked from Macnaghten's memorandum.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

In the world I'm familiar with criminal witnesses are invalid unless corroborated by others

Michael,

In the criminal courts the evidence of a witness is not invalidated by lack of corroboration.

Regards, Bridewell.