Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

Whose post was deleted and why?

My own, I am not a mod, I can't delete others posts.

[Elamarna]

I think Steve "Elamarna" deleted his own post. I would too if I had second thoughts about responding to you.

Where is John Malcolm when we need him?

I had dealt with about half the issues claimed, but decided I was probably wasting my time Scott.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think Steve "Elamarna" deleted his own post. I would too if I had second thoughts about responding to you.

Where is John Malcolm when we need him?

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I've been posting here for about two days.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I had dealt with about half the issues claimed, but decided I was probably wasting my time Scott.

Steve

That suggests to me you did not think your argument had quite as much merit as you had thought it had.

[Elamarna]

That suggests to me you did not think your argument had quite as much merit as you had thought it had.

Just the opposite.

Unfortunately it is clear to me that I would be wasting my time pointing out the numerious flaws, mistakes and misunderstanding in previous comments.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just the opposite.

Unfortunately it is clear to me that I would be wasting my time pointing out the numerious flaws, mistakes and misunderstanding in previous comments.

Steve

I suppose I'll just have to guess what they were!

[Elamarna]

I suppose I'll just have to guess what they were!

Well maybe having a read of Malcolm, House or even My chapter in the pen and sword book who was Jack the Ripper, would prevent such factual faults.


Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well maybe having a read of Malcolm, House or even My chapter in the pen and sword book who was Jack the Ripper, would prevent such factual faults.


Steve

Who is House?

House of Lechmere?


Since you seem to be claiming that my posts abound with factual faults, would you please point out the faults in my # 12 on the thread Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”


I am still waiting for a response to it.


Since your deleted post is # 13, am I to take it that it was intended to be a refutation of # 13?

[Elamarna]

Who is House?

House of Lechmere?

Seriously, you are posting on Kosminski and you don't know who Robert House is?
One must assume you have not read his book.

That speaks volumes.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Seriously, you are posting on Kosminski and you don't know who Robert House is?
One must assume you have not read his book.

That speaks volumes.

Steve

Well, you didn't mention his first name, so how was I supposed to know whom you had in mind?

But the thing is, you and others have implied that what this is all about is that I have arrived on this forum and behaved condescendingly, and made out that everything I write is a fact when I don't know it to be a fact, and then you make a condescending remark!

[Elamarna]

Well, you didn't mention his first name, so how was I supposed to know whom you had in mind?

But the thing is, you and others have implied that what this is all about is that I have arrived on this forum and behaved condescendingly, and made out that everything I write is a fact when I don't know it to be a fact, and then you make a condescending remark!

Firstly I have not said you are condescending.

However, when talking about Kosminski, or Anderson's suspect in general as in this specific thread, there are names one should recognise:

Fido, House, Malcolm, Nelson, Giese Leahy, Wood and Marshall to start with.

They don't all agree that Kosminski equals Aaron, but if one reads the work, one wouldn't confuse the visits to the workhouse.
The possible time of the identification ( and they don't all agree) or the committal to the asylum, which is directly from the workhouse in Feb 91.

In a nutshell, some speculate that the identification occurred in the 3 days AK is at the workhouse in 90, he's released, then is taken by his family again in 91, apparently after threatening either his sister, or the possibly sister of the man who gave the information to to the doctor, Jacob Cohen. In which case it's very possible the woman is Woolfs wife, and if so cohen is cousin to AK. And it's from that visit he is sent directly to the asylum as per Swanson.

You listed Swanson's Errors, can one ask If You have read Swanson, by Adam Wood?


The City Press report of the dog muzzling incident clearly shows, by a verbatim report the exchange between AK and De Keyser on the Bench, in which he speaks, in English.

I accept many won't know this, but if one is writing a long post with reasons to dismiss Kosminski as a suspect, one expects that to be known.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Firstly I have not said you are condescending.

However, when talking about Kosminski, or Anderson's suspect in general as in this specific thread, there are names one should recognise:

Fido, House, Malcolm, Nelson, Giese Leahy, Wood and Marshall to start with.

They don't all agree that Kosminski equals Aaron, but if one reads the work, one wouldn't confuse the visits to the workhouse.
The possible time of the identification ( and they don't all agree) or the committal to the asylum, which is directly from the workhouse in Feb 91.

In a nutshell, some speculate that the identification occurred in the 3 days AK is at the workhouse in 90, he's released, then is taken by his family again in 91, apparently after threatening either his sister, or the possibly sister of the man who gave the information to to the doctor, Jacob Cohen. In which case it's very possible the woman is Woolfs wife, and if so cohen is cousin to AK. And it's from that visit he is sent directly to the asylum as per Swanson.

You listed Swanson's Errors, can one ask If You have read Swanson, by Adam Wood?


The City Press report of the dog muzzling incident clearly shows, by a verbatim report the exchange between AK and De Keyser on the Bench, in which he speaks, in English.

I accept many won't know this, but if one is writing a long post with reasons to dismiss Kosminski as a suspect, one expects that to be known.

'Fido, House, Malcolm, Nelson, Giese Leahy, Wood and Marshall to start with.'

You mention Martin Fido.

He thought that Swanson meant Nathan Kaminsky and I have had exchanges with people who in all seriousness insist that Kaminsky was the murderer and Swanson and MacNaghten meant Kaminski but mis-reported his name.

I don't think that's credible.

The other argument is that Kaminsky was the murderer, but that the police mistook Kosminski for Kaminsky.

I don't think that's credible, either.
Why would they have suspected Kosminski, whose carers later described him as harmless?


'You listed Swanson's Errors, can one ask If You have read Swanson, by Adam Wood?'

Could Adam Wood refute the six errors I listed?
Could he produce evidence to corroborate Swanson's claim that Kosminski's house was watched day and night by CID, an assertion for which there is not a shred of evidence in the Scotland Yard files?


'The City Press report of the dog muzzling incident clearly shows, by a verbatim report the exchange between AK and De Keyser on the Bench, in which he speaks, in English.
I accept many won't know this, but if one is writing a long post with reasons to dismiss Kosminski as a suspect, one expects that to be known.'


Well, now you seem to be talking about knowing something to be a fact!

Are you referring to the following comment attributed to Kosminski?

'I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell.'

Is it that instead of the word 'go', the word 'goes' appears and that proves that Kosminski spoke English?
Is that what you are saying?

[Elamarna]

'Fido, House, Malcolm, Nelson, Giese Leahy, Wood and Marshall to start with.'

You mention Martin Fido.

He thought that Swanson meant Nathan Kaminsky and I have had exchanges with people who in all seriousness insist that Kaminsky was the murderer and Swanson and MacNaghten meant Kaminski but mis-reported his name.

I don't think that's credible.

The other argument is that Kaminsky was the murderer, but that the police mistook Kosminski for Kaminsky.

I don't think that's credible, either.
Why would they have suspected Kosminski, whose carers later described him as harmless?

Martin himself, rejected it , in an article in Ripperologist magazine in and article "rethinking Cohen and Kosminski "

The Kaminsky theory is old, rejected by the man who proposed it, I am amazed people still quote it.

'You listed Swanson's Errors, can one ask If You have read Swanson, by Adam Wood?'

Could Adam Wood refute the six errors I listed?
Could he produce evidence to corroborate Swanson's claim that Kosminski's house was watched day and night by CID, an assertion for which there is not a shred of evidence in the Scotland Yard files?

Your so called errors on the part of Swanson show a misunderstand of the events.

You didn't actually answer my question, have you read Swanson?

As for watching Kosminski's house.

1. Why woukd you expect to find City Police files in Scotland yard.

2. We have two city detectives who are watching a suspect, Cox in late 88 early 89
And Sagar who watches possible at a different time and location.
No proof that it's Aaron, but they are watching someone.

3. If you are aware of some of the theories regarding why no name is ever official mentioned, you might see why there may be no suriving records.

But of course we are back to was Kosminski Aaron. ? And we have to say we don't know.

The killer not being Aaron does not discredit Anderson or Swanson.

'The City Press report of the dog muzzling incident clearly shows, by a verbatim report the exchange between AK and De Keyser on the Bench, in which he speaks, in English.
I accept many won't know this, but if one is writing a long post with reasons to dismiss Kosminski as a suspect, one expects that to be known.'


Well, now you seem to be talking about knowing something to be a fact!

Are you referring to the following comment attributed to Kosminski?

'I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell.'

Is it that instead of the word 'go', the word 'goes' appears and that proves that Kosminski spoke English?
Is that what you are saying?

Let's look at this

Aaron appeared in court is an established fact.

The report in the City Press is an established fact.

That Aaron was found guilty and fined is an established fact.


If what the City Press reports is factually accurate is of course rightly open to debate, but one would need a reason to dispute it.
Let's see..

And the City Press
The full text of the report

"AARON KOSMUNSKI also appeared to a summons for having a dog unmuzzled in Cheapside. When spoken to by the police he gave a wrong name and address. Defendant: I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell. (Laughter.) The defendant called his brother, who corroborated that part of the evidence which related to his name. The Alderman said he would have to pay a fine of 10s., and costs. Defendant: I cannot pay; the dog belongs to Jacobs; it is not mine. The Alderman: It was in your charge, and you must pay the fine, and if you have no goods on which to distrain you will have to go to prison for seven days"

So clearly we have a part verbatim report.
That is normally suggestive that the reporter is in attendance and the report is reasonably accurate.

It seems abundantly clear that the defendent(AK) both understands what is said to him and is able to carry on a conversation with the Bench in English.
Therefore he speaks English.

Do we have any other reports of this

the Globe: “A THOUGHTFUL GENTLEMAN is Mr. Aaron Kosmunski, who was charged at the city summons court on Saturday with allowing a dog to be unmuzzled in Cheapside. Upon the officer stating that the defendant had given a false name and address, Mr. Kosmunski explained that he went by the name of Abrahams because his proper name was so difficult to spell. But Mr. Kosmunski’s desire to save the constable trouble was all thrown away, and, unless he produces 10s. and costs, he will have to take a spell in prison.”

So nothing there to refute the City Press report. But it is in the 3rd person, no quotes given, nothing verbatim.
The reporter may not have been present


We also have the report in Lloyds weekly

“Aaron Kosminski was summoned for a similar offence. – Police-constable Borer said he saw the defendant with an unmuzzled dog, and when asked his name gave that of Aaron Kosminski, which his brother said was wrong, as his name was Abrahams. – Defendant said that the dog was not his, and his brother said it was found more convenient here to go by the name Abrahams, but his name was Kosminski. – Sir Polydore de Keyser imposed a fine of 10s. and costs, which the defendant would not pay as it was the Jewish Sunday, and it was not right to pay money on Sunday. He was given till Monday to pay.”


The major difference here is the report appears to imply his brother spoke more than in the other reports. However, it seems to repeat the same point twice.
Its like the Globe in the 3rd person with no quotes or verbatim reporting.


Not sure what "go" or "goes" as to do with it, people speaking a 2nd language often use the wrong tense, especially they have not been formally taught it.

It seems clear from the above that it's reasonable to conclude that in 1889 Aaron KOSMINSKI could speak English

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Martin himself, rejected it , in an article in Ripperologist magazine in and article "rethinking Cohen and Kosminski "

The Kaminsky theory is old, rejected by the man who proposed it, I am amazed people still quote it.




Your so called errors on the part of Swanson show a misunderstand of the events.

You didn't actually answer my question, have you read Swanson?

As for watching Kosminski's house.

1. Why woukd you expect to find City Police files in Scotland yard.

2. We have two city detectives who are watching a suspect, Cox in late 88 early 89
And Sagar who watches possible at a different time and location.
No proof that it's Aaron, but they are watching someone.

3. If you are aware of some of the theories regarding why no name is ever official mentioned, you might see why there may be no suriving records.

But of course we are back to was Kosminski Aaron. ? And we have to say we don't know.

The killer not being Aaron does not discredit Anderson or Swanson.





Let's look at this

Aaron appeared in court is an established fact.

The report in the City Press is an established fact.

That Aaron was found guilty and fined is an established fact.


If what the City Press reports is factually accurate is of course rightly open to debate, but one would need a reason to dispute it.
Let's see..

And the City Press
The full text of the report

"AARON KOSMUNSKI also appeared to a summons for having a dog unmuzzled in Cheapside. When spoken to by the police he gave a wrong name and address. Defendant: I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell. (Laughter.) The defendant called his brother, who corroborated that part of the evidence which related to his name. The Alderman said he would have to pay a fine of 10s., and costs. Defendant: I cannot pay; the dog belongs to Jacobs; it is not mine. The Alderman: It was in your charge, and you must pay the fine, and if you have no goods on which to distrain you will have to go to prison for seven days"

So clearly we have a part verbatim report.
That is normally suggestive that the reporter is in attendance and the report is reasonably accurate.

It seems abundantly clear that the defendent(AK) both understands what is said to him and is able to carry on a conversation with the Bench in English.
Therefore he speaks English.

Do we have any other reports of this

the Globe: “A THOUGHTFUL GENTLEMAN is Mr. Aaron Kosmunski, who was charged at the city summons court on Saturday with allowing a dog to be unmuzzled in Cheapside. Upon the officer stating that the defendant had given a false name and address, Mr. Kosmunski explained that he went by the name of Abrahams because his proper name was so difficult to spell. But Mr. Kosmunski’s desire to save the constable trouble was all thrown away, and, unless he produces 10s. and costs, he will have to take a spell in prison.”

So nothing there to refute the City Press report. But it is in the 3rd person, no quotes given, nothing verbatim.
The reporter may not have been present


We also have the report in Lloyds weekly

“Aaron Kosminski was summoned for a similar offence. – Police-constable Borer said he saw the defendant with an unmuzzled dog, and when asked his name gave that of Aaron Kosminski, which his brother said was wrong, as his name was Abrahams. – Defendant said that the dog was not his, and his brother said it was found more convenient here to go by the name Abrahams, but his name was Kosminski. – Sir Polydore de Keyser imposed a fine of 10s. and costs, which the defendant would not pay as it was the Jewish Sunday, and it was not right to pay money on Sunday. He was given till Monday to pay.”


The major difference here is the report appears to imply his brother spoke more than in the other reports. However, it seems to repeat the same point twice.
Its like the Globe in the 3rd person with no quotes or verbatim reporting.


Not sure what "go" or "goes" as to do with it, people speaking a 2nd language often use the wrong tense, especially they have not been formally taught it.

It seems clear from the above that it's reasonable to conclude that in 1889 Aaron KOSMINSKI could speak English

Thanks for providing the three reports, but I had already seen them, and I first heard about that case some time ago.

Can you please explain why you are sure that the record suggests Kosminski spoke and understood English?

Is it that you would otherwise expect to see mention of an interpreter being present?

[Pontius2000]

He was once described by Winston Churchill in the House of Commons as a fantasist.

One reviewer described his book on Parnell as 'another edition of Anderson's Fairy Tales.'

I don't know specifically what you're referring to when you say Churchill described him as a "fantasist", but Anderson was retired for years before Churchill was at the Home Office. I would have to guess you are talking about some political case that was being discussed in one of Anderson's books. I bet it wasn't the JtR case through was it?

the "reviewer" you're referring to I believe was one who was miffed because Anderson said JtR was Jewish. This in no way points to Anderson being some kind of fantasist. Whether he was ultimately right or wrong, Anderson would've had a lot more insight into where the evidence and circumstances were pointing towards particular suspects or ethnicity of the suspect more than someone on a high horse who was upset that Anderson was stating the ethnicity of the suspect.

At the end of chapter nine of his memoirs, he described the death of Rose Mylett as 'death from natural causes', and implied that the people who thought that she was a murder victim were influenced by the Whitechapel Murders, but the truth is that it was Anderson who didn't know what he was talking about.


Mylett was found by two pathologists, working independently, to have been murdered.

And Dr Bond also stated that there was no evidence that she had been murdered. It was stated that the ligature marks that the pathologists suggested were signs of strangulation only went one quarter of the way around her neck/throat, which made them believe it was more likely she had choked on her own clothing than with a rope. and Anderson wasn't the only police official who didn't believe she was murdered, it said the police in general did not believe it.

SWANSON'S ERRORS

(1) He wrote that Kosminski was sent to Stepney Workhouse. He was not. He was sent to Mile End Workhouse.

I agree with this. It was Colney Hatch to Leavesden and before that, it was Mile End Workhouse. Which of course, would've been a very easy mistake after 20 years to confuse Stepney with Mile End.

(2) He wrote that he was sent there by the police. He was not. He was sent there by his brother.

He did not say Kosminski was sent to Stepney by the police. He said he was sent to "the seaside home" for identification by the police.

(3) He wrote that he was sent there because he was suspected of having committed the murders.
He was not. He was sent there because of his deteriorating mental condition.

No, he didn't say that. Naturally, if he were sent for an identification process at the seaside home, then certainly he would've been sent THERE because he was a suspect.

(4) He wrote that he was incarcerated there with his hands tied behind his back.
He was not.
He was released three days later.

No, he didn't say that either. He said he was SENT to the work house with his hands tied behind his back. He never said the police sent him there and he never said the police had his hands tied behind his back.

(5) He implied that he was sent directly from the workhouse to the mental asylum.

He was not. He was released and sent to the asylum seven months later.

I agree that the wording makes it SEEM he was sent directly from one to the other. But it does not specifically state that and could just as easily be interpreted to say that he was sent to a work house and then to Colney Hatch at a later date.

(6) He wrote that after Kosminski was allegedly identified, and he knew he had been identified, no more murders took place.
He therefore implied that the murders stopped because of the alleged identification.
That is not true; the alleged identification took place twenty months after the last murder.

Where exactly have you seen that the seaside home identification took place 20 months later? that would be interested, even though that wouldn't necessarily rule Kosminski out as a suspect. But I believe you are confusing the seaside home identification with an attempted identification of Sadler, which would've probably taken place around 20 months later.

That is not true.

Anderson claimed that the alleged witness 'refused to give evidence against' the suspect and Swanson added 'because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect'.

So the whole story is about the police trying to secure the conviction of the suspect, but being foiled by a Jew who wouldn't testify against him.

And Anderson's claim was so obviously untrue that he was condemned for it by both the Acting Commissioner of the London Police and Abberline's predecessor as the detective leading the investigation.

numerous police officials- including Anderson and Swanson- have stated that Kosminski (and other suspects as well) was insane. It was also understood, especially after the murders of Eddowes and Kelly, that the killer was insane. These weren't stupid people. They understood full well that an insane person could not be convicted and hanged of these murders. Whether the WITNESS could've been convinced of that one way or another is another matter.

He was socially too inept to have persuaded a woman to go with him; he couldn't speak English; he was emaciated; he was imbecilic; he ate from the gutter; there is no evidence that he associated with prostitutes; there is evidence that he was harmless.

I don't think you fully understand how desperate these women were. Further, as I've already stated, I doubt they were being wary of someone matching Kosminski's description. He probably came off as young, quiet, and naive. When what they were ACTUALLY conditioned to be wary of was either a burly butcher type wearing a leather apron or a doctor-type with a shiny medical bag, either of whom would've probably been closer to middle age than to Kosminski's age.


As for eating out of the gutter, it sounds like that was part of his mental illness. First off though, how would the victims know that he ate food from a gutter? And more importantly, eating discarded food was NOT unheard of....Jack London's "The People of the Abyss", a NON-FICTION BOOK, pretty much opens with a group of East End children shoving their arms shoulder deep into a big pile of half-rotten discarded fruit and eating it on the spot. So as gross as it may seem to us, Kosminski was certainly not the only person eating food "from the gutter".

I refer you to my first sentence:
'The murderer was extremely quick and streetwise.'
Kosminski evidently was not.
Now, if someone wants to dispute that by saying that what I have written is not a fact, then maybe they haven't seen Kosminski's medical notes.

I'm not sure of your idea of "streetwise". The killer certainly knew the area and was able to get women, kill/mutilate quickly, and then get away. Most profilers have agreed that the killer was more lucky than smart or scheming. Kosminski certainly would've known his way around the area and there's no indication that he would've been so insane that he wouldn't have been able to negotiate through the east end. And yes, I've seen Kosminski's medical notes, none of which are an indicator of how he would've behaved in 1888, and particularly under the influence of alcohol.

I wrote: 'He obviously had experience of cutting up animals and was able to work incredibly quickly.'
Shall we set aside the first point and look at the second?

'He obviously ... was able to work incredibly quickly.'
That is a fact.
Now if someone wants to argue about that and say that it's not a fact but a supposition or an assumption, then take a look at the medical evidence in the murder of Catherine Eddowes - not just the mutilation and excision, but the many small cuts or nicks made - and the evidence about the missing piece of apron, and the wiping of the knife, which presumably took place before he left the Square.
He did all those things, as well as murder the woman, in the space of about four minutes.
That is quick and that is a fact.

yes, we know that Eddowes was killed and mutilated quickly. And again, there was nothing about it that indicates it was a person trained in cutting up animals. As I said, an insane person who fantasized about mutilating women and had the stomach for it would've had no problem doing that than a butcher would.

'But "couldn't speak English"? You have no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. In fact, if he could open his mouth and speak at all, it would be absurd to suggest that he could live in an English speaking country for upwards of 6-7 years and not have a basic understanding of the language, even if he couldn't write it.'

The evidence, from his medical notes, is that he did not speak English.

The medical notes states that he mumbled in yiddish. It doesn't say or suggest anywhere that he could not speak English, and it surely is not an indicator that in 1888 he couldn't speak English. The facts leading up to his court hearing clearly indicate he could speak English: "Police Constable Borer said that he saw the defendant with an unmuzzled dog, and that when asked his name he gave that of Aaron Kosminski, which his brother said was wrong, as his name was Abrahams. Defendant said that the dog was not his, and his brother said it was found more convenient here to go by the name of Abrahams, but his name is Kosminski. Sir Polydore de Keyser imposed a fine of ten shillings and costs, which the defendant would not pay as it was the Jewish Sunday, and it was not right to pay money on Sunday." That sounds to you like someone as late as December 1889 who couldn't speak English? and his entrance paperwork into one of the asylums stated: "Education: Reading and Writing". Do you think that referred to reading and writing yiddish?

Since his condition is reported to have deteriorated, I agree with you that his condition may have been worse later than it was in 1888.
However, at the time of his admission, according to his medical notes, he had been in that condition for six years, which includes the time when the murders were committed and actually predates the murders by about four years.

He had symptoms of mental illness since approximately 1885. It doesn't suggest anywhere that the condition he was in at his final incarceration was the same as from 1885-1888. In Dec 1889 he certainly was not a mumbling imbecile.