Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[Elamarna]

Whose post was deleted and why?

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

[Scott Nelson]

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?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Deleted post

Whose post was deleted and why?

[Elamarna]

Deleted post

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

what evidence do you have that Anderson was "known to be a fantasist"? and what, other than the suspect dying soon after incarceration, was the marginalia wrong about? There certainly was a Polish Jew suspect named Kosminski, because McNaghten named him independently in 1894. He was insane, and he did indeed go from Stepney Workhouse to Colney Hatch. No more murders of that kind took place after he was incarcerated. So when you say the marginalia is "wrong in almost every detail", you mean it was wrong in only ONE detail- that Kosminski died soon after being incarcerated. There is no evidence to prove that the identification- whether accurate or not- did not take place. If we look at a preponderance of what Swanson got right vs wrong, we'd have to accept the likelihood of some form of identification process taking place.




There was no "case against Kosminski", nor did anything affect a conviction of him one way or another. After the murder of Mary Kelly, it became plainly obvious that no conviction of "Jack the Ripper" would be forthcoming because the person who committed that crime was very much insane. As I said in the opening post, it is likely the police only wanted the identification for their own sake of knowing he was off the streets and NOT for a conviction. It's very possible that the police weren't able to convince the witness that they weren't actually going to be able to get a conviction. Anderson/Swanson and others seemed to have no problem understanding that the killer was not convictable due to insanity, just as someone with a psychological background such as John Douglas understands. It's only in modern times that some people who apparently don't understand anything about psychology have adopted ridiculous notions that the killer may have changed to a less messy MO or settled down for a nice quiet life.



Like what? Because there is literally nothing commonly known about Kosminski that rules him out as a suspect.




If you're suggesting that the killer was very familiar with the area, I agree. He lived in the area after all. And I don't know of any serial killers, no matter how mentally sick, who haven't been "with it" enough to not commit their murders in front of policemen. Being "insane enough to kill and mutilate beyond recognition" is not exclusive from knowing the difference between right and wrong or knowing not to commit murders in front of the people who are looking for you. You seem to be suggesting that because he knew the area and knew not to kill in front of cops, that indicates a level of "planning". it doesn't. The killer certainly had an illness that had allowed his understanding of sex to become twisted and formed sick fantasies, but there is no indication that these murders were anymore "planned" than Richard Chase's murders were planned.




There's nothing that would make that speculation obvious at all. What evidence do you have of this? Do you think every killer who ever mutilated someone had experience in cutting up dead animals? If someone had the sick fantasy to do these things and the stomach to be able to handle it, there would be no experience needed. If you could stomach it and actually WANTED to do it, how much effort do you actually think it takes to open up an abdomen, reach both hands in and yank out the intestines in one go, and then use the knife to rip out the first internal organs that they happen to hit on? that takes no experience at all, it just takes a strong stomach and a desire to do it.




I also agree that the killer had some level of social skills to be able to get the victims to trust him. I have also stated that I believe that alcohol was a precipitating factor leading up to each of the crimes, a "personality changer" that lowered his inhibitions in communicating with the victims and triggering the desire to follow through with the sexual fantasies that his mental illness had formed. There's a good amount of circumstantial evidence that would point to JtR being a drinker.

I believe that Kosminski did have some sort of speech or communication issue. Where many first think of a stutter when they think of a speech or communication problem, my belief is this issue was probably some form of mutism, which was alieved to some extent by alcohol. 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.

As far as what Kosminski was or how he behaved in a controlled institution years later, it would have no bearing at all on what he was or how he behaved free on the street in 1888.

Do I think that Catherine Eddowes -who was likely still buzzed or even half drunk, who was incredibly desperate for money or drink and had likely been conditioned by news reports or street rumor to be wary of either (1) a middle-aged man, (2) probably carrying a shiny black medical bag, (3) possibly being a burly man wearing a leather apron, or (4) a mouth foaming lunatic- could easily be persuaded to go off with a seemingly shy, unassuming, non-threatening, young man? yes, I sure do think that. These weren't discerning women even by today's standards of street hookers, these were absolutely desperate bottom rung women.

'what evidence do you have that Anderson was "known to be a fantasist"?'

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.'

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.


'what, other than the suspect dying soon after incarceration, was the marginalia wrong about? There certainly was a Polish Jew suspect named Kosminski, because McNaghten named him independently in 1894. He was insane, and he did indeed go from Stepney Workhouse to Colney Hatch. No more murders of that kind took place after he was incarcerated. So when you say the marginalia is "wrong in almost every detail", you mean it was wrong in only ONE detail- that Kosminski died soon after being incarcerated.'

That's untrue!

SWANSON'S ERRORS

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

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

(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.

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

(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.

(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.


'As I said in the opening post, it is likely the police only wanted the identification for their own sake of knowing he was off the streets and NOT for a conviction. It's very possible that the police weren't able to convince the witness that they weren't actually going to be able to get a conviction. Anderson/Swanson and others seemed to have no problem understanding that the killer was not convictable due to insanity'

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.


'Like what? Because there is literally nothing commonly known about Kosminski that rules him out as a suspect.'

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.


'You seem to be suggesting that because he knew the area and knew not to kill in front of cops, that indicates a level of "planning".'

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.


'There's nothing that would make that speculation obvious at all.'

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.


'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.


'As far as what Kosminski was or how he behaved in a controlled institution years later, it would have no bearing at all on what he was or how he behaved free on the street in 1888.'

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.

[Pontius2000]

I think it's obvious that the whole case against Kosminski was dreamed up.
Anderson was known to be a fantasist.
Swanson's notes and marginalia are wrong in almost every detail.

what evidence do you have that Anderson was "known to be a fantasist"? and what, other than the suspect dying soon after incarceration, was the marginalia wrong about? There certainly was a Polish Jew suspect named Kosminski, because McNaghten named him independently in 1894. He was insane, and he did indeed go from Stepney Workhouse to Colney Hatch. No more murders of that kind took place after he was incarcerated. So when you say the marginalia is "wrong in almost every detail", you mean it was wrong in only ONE detail- that Kosminski died soon after being incarcerated. There is no evidence to prove that the identification- whether accurate or not- did not take place. If we look at a preponderance of what Swanson got right vs wrong, we'd have to accept the likelihood of some form of identification process taking place.

The whole idea of a Jewish witness refusing to testify against a fellow Jew and that that caused the case against Kosminski to collapse is unbelievable.
If a Jewish witness had been unwilling to testify against a fellow Jew, then he wouldn't have gone to the police in the first place!

Moreover, it is far fetched that the conviction of the Whitechapel Murderer would have depended upon an eyewitness testifying in court!
Finally, there is no credible candidate for the claimed witness because Lawende would have been willing to testify, as he later did for the prosecution in the murder trial of a fellow Jew, but in any case said he would not be able to recognise the man if he saw him again. And Schwarz did not in fact see the murderer; he saw someone else!

There was no "case against Kosminski", nor did anything affect a conviction of him one way or another. After the murder of Mary Kelly, it became plainly obvious that no conviction of "Jack the Ripper" would be forthcoming because the person who committed that crime was very much insane. As I said in the opening post, it is likely the police only wanted the identification for their own sake of knowing he was off the streets and NOT for a conviction. It's very possible that the police weren't able to convince the witness that they weren't actually going to be able to get a conviction. Anderson/Swanson and others seemed to have no problem understanding that the killer was not convictable due to insanity, just as someone with a psychological background such as John Douglas understands. It's only in modern times that some people who apparently don't understand anything about psychology have adopted ridiculous notions that the killer may have changed to a less messy MO or settled down for a nice quiet life.

There are certain things about Kosminski that rule him out as a serious suspect and they are never mentioned by the people who say he was the murderer.

Like what? Because there is literally nothing commonly known about Kosminski that rules him out as a suspect.

The murderer was extremely quick and streetwise.
He obviously knew the police officers' beats off by heart and if he was somewhere near an officer's beat, he did not approach a woman until the officer had passed, timing everything so that he could get away before the officer's return.

If you're suggesting that the killer was very familiar with the area, I agree. He lived in the area after all. And I don't know of any serial killers, no matter how mentally sick, who haven't been "with it" enough to not commit their murders in front of policemen. Being "insane enough to kill and mutilate beyond recognition" is not exclusive from knowing the difference between right and wrong or knowing not to commit murders in front of the people who are looking for you. You seem to be suggesting that because he knew the area and knew not to kill in front of cops, that indicates a level of "planning". it doesn't. The killer certainly had an illness that had allowed his understanding of sex to become twisted and formed sick fantasies, but there is no indication that these murders were anymore "planned" than Richard Chase's murders were planned.

He obviously had experience of cutting up animals and was able to work incredibly quickly.

There's nothing that would make that speculation obvious at all. What evidence do you have of this? Do you think every killer who ever mutilated someone had experience in cutting up dead animals? If someone had the sick fantasy to do these things and the stomach to be able to handle it, there would be no experience needed. If you could stomach it and actually WANTED to do it, how much effort do you actually think it takes to open up an abdomen, reach both hands in and yank out the intestines in one go, and then use the knife to rip out the first internal organs that they happen to hit on? that takes no experience at all, it just takes a strong stomach and a desire to do it.

Like some other psychopaths, he obviously had social skills and knew how to persuade a prostitute to go with him.

Kosminski was an imbecilic schizophrenic who was obviously completely unworldly and slow-witted, is not actually known ever to have associated with prostitutes, had never been a butcher or slaughterer, and couldn't speak English.

Do you think he could have chatted up Catherine Eddowes in English, persuaded her to go with him - a man who used to eat from the gutter - into a dark area of a square, murdered and mutilated her, cut off her apron and evaded capture by the police, all in the space of about 10 minutes?

I also agree that the killer had some level of social skills to be able to get the victims to trust him. I have also stated that I believe that alcohol was a precipitating factor leading up to each of the crimes, a "personality changer" that lowered his inhibitions in communicating with the victims and triggering the desire to follow through with the sexual fantasies that his mental illness had formed. There's a good amount of circumstantial evidence that would point to JtR being a drinker.

I believe that Kosminski did have some sort of speech or communication issue. Where many first think of a stutter when they think of a speech or communication problem, my belief is this issue was probably some form of mutism, which was alieved to some extent by alcohol. 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.

As far as what Kosminski was or how he behaved in a controlled institution years later, it would have no bearing at all on what he was or how he behaved free on the street in 1888.

Do I think that Catherine Eddowes -who was likely still buzzed or even half drunk, who was incredibly desperate for money or drink and had likely been conditioned by news reports or street rumor to be wary of either (1) a middle-aged man, (2) probably carrying a shiny black medical bag, (3) possibly being a burly man wearing a leather apron, or (4) a mouth foaming lunatic- could easily be persuaded to go off with a seemingly shy, unassuming, non-threatening, young man? yes, I sure do think that. These weren't discerning women even by today's standards of street hookers, these were absolutely desperate bottom rung women.