Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Monty]

Attire.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Gesundheit Monty!

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

Eagle and Dimshits

Hello Phil. Thanks. The drawings of Eagle and Dimshits, however, seem to lack that.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

answer?

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"[H]ow does Elizabeth Long arrive at "looked like a foreigner" in respect of a man she only saw from behind?"

Good question. Any idea for an answer?

Cheers.
LC

[Paddy]

Jewish Looking !

Hi Lynn,

Re your question asking what was Jewish looking.
I would hazard a guess that Hutchinson was refering partly to the way the the man with Mary Kelly was dressed. The Astrakhan coat etc.
Pat

[lynn cates]

costly thy habit as thy purse can buy

Hello Paddy. Thanks.

Of course, I know of an Irish chap who wore astrakhan. Not sure if clothing makes the man.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

For foreigner perhaps we should read Jew.

Lloyds Weekly News, 9th September 1888—

" . . . a gang of young vagabonds marched down Hanbury Street shouting, 'Down with the Jews!' 'It was a Jew who did it!' 'No Englishman did it!'"

Maybe Elizabeth Long was subscribing to this prevailing wisdom.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

translation

Hello Simon. Thanks. That is certainly how it was often understood.

Cheers.
LC

[Boggles]

For foreigner perhaps we should read Jew

But we cant rule out those native Englishmen with a Jewish appearance, either, can we?

Bury anyone...???

[Wickerman]

Hello Paddy. Thanks.

Of course, I know of an Irish chap who wore astrakhan. Not sure if clothing makes the man.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

And let us not forget, this is only Hutchinson's interpretation of what it was to be Jewish, not some authorized Webster's version.
More than likely it was just the overall appearance of the man, (respectable appearance=Jewish appearance) not any one specific detail.
Hutchinson was clearly close enough to hear the man's voice so if he had detected an accent surely there would have been no need to merely suggest "of Jewish appearance". We might tentatively assume there was nothing 'foreign' about his voice.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Monty,
Quite true,but w e can be partially influenced by the comments of officers at the time that there were no suspects or evidence leading to a belief.While it may be foolish to overlook that evidence may have been known to some ,I feel it is even more foolish to accept there w as evidence,untill that evidence is known.

[Errata]

So I have now read the excellent book by Rob House, and I am sort of struck by how Kosminski sort of fits these various descriptions. And there's something glaringly wrong in each. It's not that he's a square peg in a round hole or anything, more like a slightly smaller octagon that totally fits in a round hole, but is not in fact round. And I've been trying to figure out how this is. Basically, all I can do is fall back on the numbers. Now my math skills are truly wretched, so bear with me a second.

There were 8 million people in London in 1888.
800,000 of those were Jews.
500,000 of those lived in the East end.
All things being equal, we will say that a third of them are Polish. (It might be more, but I think it was equal between Russian and Polish Jews, and then you get a lot less Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, and Sephardic groups.)
Half of those are male.
Another half are the appropriate age.
Mental illness occurs in 2% of the population, But in Ashkenazi Jewish populations, it is higher at 5%. Russians are also at 5%, and those who come from extreme northern or southern latitudes are at maybe 3%. So we'll say 5%.
And of those 5%, only half are so severely incapacitated that they require a lifelong trip to an asylum.
So that gives us (lemme pull out the crappy computer calculator)... 1041 mentally ill Polish men in the East End of the appropriate age to be a Jack the Ripper suspect. And we'll say fully half of them were incarcerated or in an asylum at the time. Which gives us 520 guys.
And Aaron Kosminski is indeed one of them. Being one of the 520 guys out a city of 8 million makes him at the very least, a good fit.
But there are 519 other guys. Probably none of them were named Kosminski, I'll give you that. But some probably did live in their shops or in their places of business. Some may in fact have died a few years after confinement. Some may have been left alone at night. One or two may have been butchers, or worked in a hospital.
I don't think that everyone could have gotten it wrong. Anderson, Swanson, Cox, etc. all appear to be talking about Kosminski. Swanson even says he is. But they all get it wrong. When he died, when he was institutionalized, his work history, his residence, they get it wrong. Why can't even one of them get it right? Actually describe Kosminski with no errors or assumptions? This is Jack the Ripper they're talking about, and it's like none of them can be bothered to remember important details about the most notorious killer to date. These guys got beaten up in the press for not finding him, and evidently they took that beating despite the fact that they DID find him, they just couldn't prosecute. These people were made fun of, reviled, accused of conspiracy, and not a single one of them can remember the details of the man who cost them so much personally? It doesn't track.
It makes more sense that Swanson got the name wrong, or wrote down a different name on purpose. Which is possible. He had kids, there were people in the house. He did not tell the forces secrets. I don't think he would casually write down the one name that he could never discuss. Even if he was positive he would be the only one reading it.
The other possibility is that he was not identifying the suspect, he was identifying the witness. And wrote suspect accidentally. Which would make a sort of sense. You can't prosecute someone based on the word of an insane man. He may have been lucid enough to ID the killer, but no judge in the world would have put him on the stand. And the man had issues with scrupulosity, so the whole "God told me not to rat out a fellow Jew" could have come up. Weirder things have happened. And there were other Kosminskis who could have been a witness. And I would think given the secrecy surrounding the discovery of the killer and his eventual fate, Swanson would be far more likely to name the witness than the killer.
But if not Kosminski then who? I don't know. I would be more than happy to make it my day job to plow through asylum records for the 10 years after the Ripper murders for all of England. But living in the US puts a crimp in that. If I can find a way around it that doesn't cost a fortune, I will totally do it.

[Colin Roberts]

There were 8 million people in London in 1888.
800,000 of those were Jews.
500,000 of those lived in the East end.

?????????

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Hi Dave.
Three senior policemen all holding the same opinion can appear impressive, or at least significant. However, we are not talking about three independent opinions. It would only take one written report, emanating from Swanson, to spread one opinion among the three men.

Goal posts keep getting moved.

There have been an avalanche of posts claiming the Marginalia only indicates Swanson was expanding on "Anderson's Suspect" and not in agreement with Anderson.

So now Kosminski orginates with Swanson??

Which is it???

Even though we can name three men (Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson), it is essentially the same opinion voiced three times, because all three men worked as a team together.

One would hope so. Is that now a bad thing?

He was a suspect we can't deny that, but how significant we he?

Plenty of posts have been generated that try to deny him even as a suspect.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

There were 8 million people in London in 1888. 800,000 of those were Jews.500,000 of those lived in the East end.

Could you cite the source for this?

And Aaron Kosminski is indeed one of them. Being one of the 520 guys out a city of 8 million makes him at the very least, a good fit.But there are 519 other guys. Probably none of them were named Kosminski, I'll give you that.

Well, thanks....but that's the entire point isn't it? Doesn't matter if there were 10,000 IPJs (Insane Polish Jews).....we're looking for a guy named Kosminski.

Why can't even one of them get it right? Actually describe Kosminski with no errors or assumptions? This is Jack the Ripper they're talking about, and it's like none of them can be bothered to remember important details about the most notorious killer to date.

I think it is clear that the case, while infamous, wasn't as important to senior police officials as it is to us. We're obsessed. They weren't. And they weren't writing in 1888 or 1889 but years later.

And I would think given the secrecy surrounding the discovery of the killer and his eventual fate, Swanson would be far more likely to name the witness than the killer.

Everything we know about Swanson indicates that he would never give up the name. Didn't even do it in penciled annotations written in privacy.

But if not Kosminski then who? I don't know. I would be more than happy to make it my day job to plow through asylum records for the 10 years after the Ripper murders for all of England. But living in the US puts a crimp in that. If I can find a way around it that doesn't cost a fortune, I will totally do it.

As I said, we're obsessed. Anderson and Swanson weren't.