Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

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?

Really?

The City Press is giving a verbatim report of the exchange.

The defendant is reported as speaking is he not?

There are 3 separate reports, none mention any one else speaking except the unnamed brother, who it appears is just confirming Aaron is who he says he is.

To suggest there is an interpreter, who is not mention by any of the 3 reports, which I accept you have not said, is unsupported speculation.

Why would you even consider that he was not speaking in English at the hearing?

Is it the casenotes from the asylum?

Let's look.

On admission to Colney Hatch it's reported

"Answers questions fairly but is inclined to be reticent and morose."

No mention of his not speaking English


"Nov 17 1892 Nov 17 1892: Quiet and well behaved. Only speaks German [?Yiddish]."

So 20 months after admission he is only speaking Germany or Yiđdish.
Such does not mean he CANNOT speak in English , only that he does not.

Sept 18 1893 "Answers questions concerning himself."

Its not clarified if he speaks in English at this point , or if an interpreter is needed. So no real help

At Leavesden, it's not recorded if he can speak or understand English , only that generally he does not communicate.

I see no reason given the City Press report of Dec 1889, to believe he could not speak English, certain in 1889 .

[Pontius2000]

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

Absolutely one of the best and most well researched JtR books ever. In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read Rob House's book has no valid opinion of Kosminski.

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.

so, I go through periods where I read and research everything I can find, then I go through extended periods when I'm away. I've read House's book obviously. But who is Malcolm that you're to and what is your name and your book? I will check them out.

[Pontius2000]

'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.

Fido is absolutely a must read on the subject of the Polish Jew suspect. and it's been years since I've read it. But the best I can remember is that there is no real proof that a Nathan Kaminsky ever even existed. It was speculated that he was "David Cohen". To me, it's just as likely that Aaron Kosminski was mistaken for "Nathan Kaminsky"

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?

Suspects were followed. That is pretty well irrefutable. It also pretty well goes without saying that one of these people was Kosminski, whether he was actually JtR notewithstanding. There is an unnamed policeman who was quoted in a newspaper article not too long after the Kelly murder who stated that they were presently following THREE people day and night. And he made clear that at least one of those people was an insane Jew.

'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?

I don't even know what you're getting at here, but you have said that Kosminski couldn't speak English and seem to suggest that he only spoke yiddish. Just FYI, but " I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell." may be bad English, but it's still English. No one ever said that English was his first language or that he spoke like a character from a Shakespeare play.

[Elamarna]

Absolutely one of the best and most well researched JtR books ever. In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read Rob House's book has no valid opinion of Kosminski.




so, I go through periods where I read and research everything I can find, then I go through extended periods when I'm away. I've read House's book obviously. But who is Malcolm that you're to and what is your name and your book? I will check them out.

John Malcolm.
Mine was just a chapter in a pen and sword book, called who was jack the ripper.
My own book is just about Bucks Row, no mention of Kosminski at all.
Its called inside Bucks Row.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.




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.




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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.




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.




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'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.





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.




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?




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.

'Dr Bond also stated that there was no evidence that she had been murdered.'

I quote from the coroner's summing-up:

Of the five doctors who saw the body, Dr. Bond was the only one who considered the case was not one of murder.

Anderson refused to try to find the murderer, deeming the murderer to be non-existent, and further investigation a waste of time and manpower.
He reminds me of the pig-headed police chiefs who refused to investigate further the murder of Evelyn Foster, who had clearly been murdered, and whose murderer was recently and belatedly unmasked.

You are saying that Kosminski's hands - if they were tied behind his back - were not tied behind his back by the police:

He [Swanson] did not say Kosminski was sent to Stepney by the police... 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

Not only is that improbable, but it is clear from the context that Swanson was claiming that his hands WERE tied by the police:

After the suspect had been identified at the seaside home [to be identified and he had been identified], on suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel, he was watched by police, City CID, by day and night.
In a very short time, the suspect, with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse, and then to Colney Hatch, and died shortly afterwards. Kosminsky was the suspect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where exactly have you seen that the seaside home identification took place 20 months later?


The identification took place between 12 and 15 July 1890

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

the identification at the Seaside Home from the Workhouse (12-15th July, 1890)

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz9.html

November 1888 to July 1890 is 20 months.


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.


I don't know how you can write that in response to my quotations from what they actually said:


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'.

Both Anderson and Swanson claimed that a Jewish witness refused to testify against the suspect and that that is why no-one was brought to justice.

I don't see how you can argue with that!


The whole thing is a load of hogwash dreamed up by Anderson and Swanson.
There may have been a 'suspect' called Kosminski, who obviously had nothing to do with the murders, but the story has obviously been embellished.
It is impossible that any witness could have identified Kosminski.

It couldn't have been Schwarz or Lawende because:

(1) Schwarz saw a man who shouted an anti-Semitic insult which Abberline believed was directed at Schwarz on account of his obviously-Jewish appearance
(2) Lawende said he would not be able to identify the man if he saw him again
(3) Lawende testified against a fellow Jew in a murder trial
(4) If any Jewish witness had been unwilling to testify against a fellow Jew, he wouldn't have come forward in the first place

The whole story is based on anti-Jewish prejudice, that Jews stick together, are as thick as thieves, and will not testify against each other.

Anderson's accusation, which was condemned by Abberline's predecessor, and also by the the City of London Police Commissioner, echoed another remark of the time, which if my memory serves me correctly was written by a journalist, that it was well-known that the Jews of the East End would not give up one of their number to 'gentile justice'.

Following the murder in Hanbury Street, a large number of young men charged down the street shouting anti-Semitic slogans. The police had to call in reinforcements.

The whole Kosminski story is hogwash, based on anti-Semitic prejudice at the time of the murders.
Anderson had previously said that the murderer had never been identified, and Abberline said likewise.
Abberline dismissed the idea that the man seen assaulting Stride was Jewish, contrary to what a civil servant called Lushington had written.
The writing in Goulston Street was written by the murderer to try to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment.
Charles Warren wanted to prevent a pogrom, but regrettably Anderson and Swanson stirred up the old prejudices.

[Pontius2000]

Of the five doctors who saw the body, Dr. Bond was the only one who considered the case was not one of murder.

Anderson refused to try to find the murderer, deeming the murderer to be non-existent, and further investigation a waste of time and manpower.
He reminds me of the pig-headed police chiefs who refused to investigate further the murder of Evelyn Foster, who had clearly been murdered, and whose murderer was recently and belatedly unmasked.

because the “evidence” that she was murdered was a supposed ligature mark that extended only one quarter of the way around her neck/throat and there were no other accompanying signs that she had been strangled.

You are saying that Kosminski's hands - if they were tied behind his back - were not tied behind his back by the police:

He [Swanson] did not say Kosminski was sent to Stepney by the police... 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

Not only is that improbable, but it is clear from the context that Swanson was claiming that his hands WERE tied by the police:

After the suspect had been identified at the seaside home [to be identified and he had been identified], on suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel, he was watched by police, City CID, by day and night.
In a very short time, the suspect, with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse, and then to Colney Hatch, and died shortly afterwards. Kosminsky was the suspect.

He never said or implied in any way the police tied his hands behind his back and took him to the work house. Was it even common practice for the police to tie peoples’ hands behind their backs in the late 19th century. My understanding is that handcuffs, shackles, etc had been invented many years before. So why would they be tying someone’s hands behind their back and taking them to a poor house? Was he charged with anything? The implication, if there is an implication, is that he was under constant police observation and became so incorrigible from it that his family or friends had to restrain him and take him to the poor house.

The identification took place between 12 and 15 July 1890

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

the identification at the Seaside Home from the Workhouse (12-15th July, 1890)

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz9.html

November 1888 to July 1890 is 20 months.

I’ve read those before, and I’ll look at them again. But I believe you’re confusing writers’ theories of when the seaside home identification MAY have taken place vs when it for FACT took place. I don’t remember ever reading anything for fact regarding a date. No one even knows what/where the “seaside home” even was, so they can’t very well know exactly when the identification took place.

I don't know how you can write that in response to my quotations from what they actually said:


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'.

Both Anderson and Swanson claimed that a Jewish witness refused to testify against the suspect and that that is why no-one was brought to justice.

I don't see how you can argue with that!

many police officials including Anderson stated quite clearly that an insane person could not be convicted or hanged. And they also seemed to clearly recognize that the person who killed Mary Kelly was insane as Anderson called him a sexual maniac. So why you think they were attempting to identify the killer well after the Kelly murder for anything other than theirs and the public’s peace of mind is beyond me. They knew that if Kosminski were JtR, he would not be convicted. Convincing a witness who was convinced the killer would be hanged based on his evidence and not wanting to have that on his conscience was a totally different matter.

The whole thing is a load of hogwash dreamed up by Anderson and Swanson.
There may have been a 'suspect' called Kosminski, who obviously had nothing to do with the murders, but the story has obviously been embellished.
It is impossible that any witness could have identified Kosminski.

no offense, but that’s coming from someone who up until about 5 posts ago had never heard of Rob House. Do you frequently go around making definitive statements on subjects without even being aware of the leading expert on the subject you’re making definitive statements about?

The whole story is based on anti-Jewish prejudice, that Jews stick together, are as thick as thieves, and will not testify against each other.

ah, so the whole theory of a Jewish killer is based only on anti-Jewish prejudice, yet you yourself stated it was obvious the killer was experienced in cutting up animals. So who do you think were the majority of people who worked in Butchers Row, gentiles? Or you’re suggesting the experienced butcher came from somewhere else?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

because the “evidence” that she was murdered was a supposed ligature mark that extended only one quarter of the way around her neck/throat and there were no other accompanying signs that she had been strangled.



He never said or implied in any way the police tied his hands behind his back and took him to the work house. Was it even common practice for the police to tie peoples’ hands behind their backs in the late 19th century. My understanding is that handcuffs, shackles, etc had been invented many years before. So why would they be tying someone’s hands behind their back and taking them to a poor house? Was he charged with anything? The implication, if there is an implication, is that he was under constant police observation and became so incorrigible from it that his family or friends had to restrain him and take him to the poor house.





I’ve read those before, and I’ll look at them again. But I believe you’re confusing writers’ theories of when the seaside home identification MAY have taken place vs when it for FACT took place. I don’t remember ever reading anything for fact regarding a date. No one even knows what/where the “seaside home” even was, so they can’t very well know exactly when the identification took place.





many police officials including Anderson stated quite clearly that an insane person could not be convicted or hanged. And they also seemed to clearly recognize that the person who killed Mary Kelly was insane as Anderson called him a sexual maniac. So why you think they were attempting to identify the killer well after the Kelly murder for anything other than theirs and the public’s peace of mind is beyond me. They knew that if Kosminski were JtR, he would not be convicted. Convincing a witness who was convinced the killer would be hanged based on his evidence and not wanting to have that on his conscience was a totally different matter.



no offense, but that’s coming from someone who up until about 5 posts ago had never heard of Rob House. Do you frequently go around making statements as fact on subjects without even being aware of the leading expert on said subject?



ah, so the whole theory of a Jewish killer is based only on anti-Jewish prejudice, yet you yourself stated it was obvious the killer was experienced in cutting up animals. So who do you think were the majority of people who worked in Butchers Row, gentiles? Or you’re suggesting the experienced butcher came from somewhere else?

I don't think your responses make sense.

You're saying that four of the five doctors who examined Mylett couldn't tell the difference between a woman who had been strangled and a woman who had died from natural causes, but that a doctor who examined her long afterwards was right.

You say the police didn't tie his hands or send him to the workhouse.

Swanson wrote:

he was watched by police, City CID, by day and night.
In a very short time, the suspect, with his hands tied behind his back ...

Are you saying that, coincidentally, Kosminski's relatives tied his hands behind his back and took him away - just after he'd been watched by CID ?
Why would his relatives choose to tie his hands behind his back when it's a well-known police practice?

Your contention that the police were merely trying to identify the suspect as the murderer, and not intending to bring about his conviction is contradicted by what Anderson and Swanson wrote:

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'.

It's quite obvious that they were claiming that they were trying to secure a conviction!


You write:

no offense, but that’s coming from someone who up until about 5 posts ago had never heard of Rob House. Do you frequently go around making statements as fact on subjects without even being aware of the leading expert on said subject?

I've been told on other forums that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that Edward Stow and Christer Holmgren are the experts on Lechmere.
That doesn't alter the fact that their whole case against Lechmere depends on a misreading of the evidence given at an inquest.
They have accepted a timing given by one witness, even though it is contradicted by the testimony of three policemen.
Now, I'm not comparing Rob House with them, but simply telling me that someone is an expert doesn't really impress me for the reason just given.
Experts can be wrong.


ah, so the whole theory of a Jewish killer is based only on anti-Jewish prejudice, yet you yourself stated it was obvious the killer was experienced in cutting up animals. So who do you think were the majority of people who worked in Butchers Row, gentiles? Or you’re suggesting the experienced butcher came from somewhere else?

Yes, that's right.

The whole theory of a Jewish killer is based only on anti-Jewish prejudice.
Robin Odell wrote a book in which he claimed that the murderer was a Jewish slaughter man.
He was convinced that the injuries caused must have been caused by the knife used by such a slaughter man.
When, in the end, he was shown such a knife and it was proven to him that it could not have caused the injuries, he admitted that this was so, and then responded: 'but I still think the murderer was a Jewish slaughter man'.

Which just goes to show how deep these prejudices go.

[Pontius2000]

I don't think your responses make sense.

You're saying that four of the five doctors who examined Mylett couldn't tell the difference between a woman who had been strangled and a woman who had died from natural causes, but that a doctor who examined her long afterwards was right.

I’m not saying the 4 doctors could or couldn’t tell if someone had been strangled or even if she had or had not been murdered. What you said is that Anderson was too pig-headed to listen to facts when it’s a fact that the doctor he apparently trusted the most, Bond, said there was no evidence of murder. It was also not only Anderson, but the overwhelming opinion is f the police at the time, that she had not been murdered.

You say the police didn't tie his hands or send him to the workhouse.

Swanson wrote:

he was watched by police, City CID, by day and night.
In a very short time, the suspect, with his hands tied behind his back ...

Are you saying that, coincidentally, Kosminski's relatives tied his hands behind his back and took him away - just after he'd been watched by CID ?
Why would his relatives choose to tie his hands behind his back when it's a well-known police practice?

you may want to go back and read post 12. You said yourself that police didn’t send him to the workhouse, now you’ve got them kidnapping him without charges, tying his hands behind his back, and taking him to the workhouse. Which is it? If it was so legally feasible to just grab someone up and incarcerate them, why do you think they ever wasted their time following him? It’s pretty obvious that he was being followed, he was acting suspiciously, his family thought it was apparent that before long he was going to snap and do something that would remove all doubt about his guilt, and probably lose his life over it. So they felt it best that they should have him incarcerated. He obviously didn’t want to go, so they took him by force, “with hands tied behind his back”. Not sure what doesn’t make sense to you.

Your contention that the police were merely trying to identify the suspect as the murderer, and not intending to bring about his conviction is contradicted by what Anderson and Swanson wrote:

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'.

It's quite obvious that they were claiming that they were trying to secure a conviction!

the witness “refused to give evidence because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect.” That quote doesn’t indicate in any way that Anderson an Swanson felt the identification would lead to the suspect’s conviction, they knew quite well that an insane suspect would not be convicted. On top of that, the identification itself would not have been enough to secure a conviction even if he were sane. The witness was the one who was convinced that his identification would lead to a conviction.

no offense, but that’s coming from someone who up until about 5 posts ago had never heard of Rob House. Do you frequently go around making statements as fact on subjects without even being aware of the leading expert on said subject?

I've been told on other forums that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that Edward Stow and Christer Holmgren are the experts on Lechmere.
That doesn't alter the fact that their whole case against Lechmere depends on a misreading of the evidence given at an inquest.
They have accepted a timing given by one witness, even though it is contradicted by the testimony of three policemen.
Now, I'm not comparing Rob House with them, but simply telling me that someone is an expert doesn't really impress me for the reason just given.
Experts can be wrong.

I have no idea who those authors are. But Lechmere is a ridiculous “suspect”, so there is no comparison to this topic, which is about the prime contemporary suspect and still the most likely of the known suspects.

if you’re not impressed by someone telling you that Rob House is the house (no pun intended) expert on Kosminski, then imagine how unimpressed I am that you’re continuing to comment on this thread when up to a few hours ago you’d never even heard of Rob House. Probably the best idea would be for you to get and read the book before making further definitive comments on the subject.

The whole theory of a Jewish killer is based only on anti-Jewish prejudice.
Robin Odell wrote a book in which he claimed that the murderer was a Jewish slaughter man.
He was convinced that the injuries caused must have been caused by the knife used by such a slaughter man.
When, in the end, he was shown such a knife and it was proven to him that it could not have caused the injuries, he admitted that this was so, and then responded: 'but I still think the murderer was a Jewish slaughter man'.

Which just goes to show how deep these prejudices go.

So you believe the killer was a butcher or someone like a butcher. The butchers in the immediate area of the murders were largely Jews. But you maintain the only reason they suspected a Jewish killer was because of anti-semitism. I don’t think I need to respond any further to that complete lack of logic.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to Pontius2000:



'It was also not only Anderson, but the overwhelming opinion is f the police at the time, that she had not been murdered.'

That doesn't excuse Anderson's poor judgment.


'You said yourself that police didn’t send him to the workhouse, now you’ve got them kidnapping him without charges, tying his hands behind his back, and taking him to the workhouse. Which is it?'


You're claiming that I've contradicted myself when I've done nothing of the kind.

What I said was that in reality, he wasn't taken by the police to the workhouse, and that he didn't have his hands tied behind his back.

I said that ACCORDING TO SWANSON, he was taken by the police with his hands tied behind his back, and that it was not true.




'the witness “refused to give evidence because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect.” That quote doesn’t indicate in any way that Anderson an Swanson felt the identification would lead to the suspect’s conviction, they knew quite well that an insane suspect would not be convicted.'

That's obviously wrong.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it was only the belief or fear of the witness that if he identified the suspect, he would be convicted.
Neither Anderson nor Swanson wrote that nor indicated that.

'because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect'
means that Swanson was clear that the purpose of the identification was that the suspect stand trial, the witness testify against him, and the suspect be convicted.



'imagine how unimpressed I am that you’re continuing to comment on this thread when up to a few hours ago you’d never even heard of Rob House'


No one needs to have heard of Rob House, let alone read his book, to be able to comment on the case against Kosminski.
I've heard just as ludicrous allegations made against Kosminski as the ones I've heard made against Lechmere.
It is perfectly possible for someone acquainted with the case to make cogent comments on it without having read a book by anyone in particular.



So you believe the killer was a butcher or someone like a butcher. The butchers in the immediate area of the murders were largely Jews. But you maintain the only reason they suspected a Jewish killer was because of anti-semitism. I don’t think I need to respond any further to that complete lack of logic.


I've never paid much attention to the question of whether he was a butcher or slaughter man, but recently I came to the conclusion he had some such experience.

The murderer had the appearance of a sailor, not of a kosher butcher.
He left an anti-Jewish message on a wall.

Since Swanson, and apparently Anderson too, suspected Kosminski of being the murderer, and since Kosminski was not a butcher, it is difficult to see what the connexion is between the murderer being a Jew and the murderer being a butcher.

Lushington - and since you're talking about people not being logical, he's a very good example - thought that the suspect seen by Schwartz was Jewish, even though he had shouted an anti-Semitic slur.

From the beginning, the whole idea of the murderer being Jewish was based on anti-Jewish prejudice, and the allegation that he was a kosher butcher was just a convenient way to express that prejudice.

If you can find any evidence that Inspector Reid or Abberline were looking for a kosher butcher, please do let me know.

[Pontius2000]

From the beginning, the whole idea of the murderer being Jewish was based on anti-Jewish prejudice, and the allegation that he was a kosher butcher was just a convenient way to express that prejudice.

If you can find any evidence that Inspector Reid or Abberline were looking for a kosher butcher, please do let me know.

Anti-Jewish prejudice. Lmao. Since you’ve pretty well stated that you refuse to read the authority on Kosminski, then maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.

That’s rich…Anderson’s opinion that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser was based on anti-semitism. So we should get back with you when Anderson’s opinion gels with Abberline’s opinion….that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser.

[Elamarna]

Anti-Jewish prejudice. Lmao. Since you’ve pretty well stated that you refuse to read the authority on Kosminski, then maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.

That’s rich…Anderson’s opinion that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser was based on anti-semitism. So we should get back with you when Anderson’s opinion gels with Abberline’s opinion….that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser.

Sadly it's clear our friend is not interested in the research of any who do not agree with his views.
The statement that you don't need to know about Rob House or his book, clears shows our friend is not prepared to look at serious up to date research.

I spend so much time on various forums having to point out how reserch as moved on since Fido wrote is work in 1987, to the extent he discarded the kaminsky idea, yet its posted every week somewhere.

Or we have people who take Sugden as being gospel. Great book that it is , on suspects it's seriously dated.

The same goes for Lechmere, people dismissing him out of hand are to me wrong.
Now I clearly believe he's not a great suspect. But he is a viable one.

Sadly some people have set ideas, but there are some books one must read if you are going to discuss a suspect.

On Kosminski, I say that's House, Malcolm and Wood for up to date research( Adam by the way is not pro Aaron KOSMINSKI )
One should also read Fido, but remember it's dated.

On Lechmere, one can watch documentaries, but one should really read Holmgren's Cutting Point and my own Inside Bucks Row.

One should read Jacob the Ripper if one is looking at Levy.

If one is looking at say Hutchinson, one really needs to read Hinton.

Relying on Desertations and articles on this and other sites is problematic, in that different articles give different views. And the Desertations here on casebook are on the whole not recent, reserch moves on.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Originally posted by Pontius2000 View Post
Anti-Jewish prejudice. Lmao. Since you’ve pretty well stated that you refuse to read the authority on Kosminski, then maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.

That’s rich…Anderson’s opinion that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser was based on anti-semitism. So we should get back with you when Anderson’s opinion gels with Abberline’s opinion….that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser.

Sadly it's clear our friend is not interested in the research of any who do not agree with his views.
The statement that you don't need to know about Rob House or his book, clears shows our friend is not prepared to look at serious up to date research.

I spend so much time on various forums having to point out how reserch as moved on since Fido wrote is work in 1987, to the extent he discarded the kaminsky idea, yet its posted every week somewhere.

Or we have people who take Sugden as being gospel. Great book that it is , on suspects it's seriously dated.

The same goes for Lechmere, people dismissing him out of hand are to me wrong.
Now I clearly believe he's not a great suspect. But he is a viable one.

Sadly some people have set ideas, but there are some books one must read if you are going to discuss a suspect.

On Kosminski, I say that's House, Malcolm and Wood for up to date research( Adam by the way is not pro Aaron KOSMINSKI )
One should also read Fido, but remember it's dated.

On Lechmere, one can watch documentaries, but one should really read Holmgren's Cutting Point and my own Inside Bucks Row.

One should read Jacob the Ripper if one is looking at Levy.

If one is looking at say Hutchinson, one really needs to read Hinton.

Relying on Desertations and articles on this and other sites is problematic, in that different articles give different views. And the Desertations here on casebook are on the whole not recent, reserch moves on.

Steve

I didn't get a notification of Pontius2000's reply, which you quote, so I suppose I'll answer both of you at the same time.




I'll deal with just two points, if I may, one made by each of you.


First:

'maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.'

(PONTIUS2000)


It is perhaps significant that your howler is printed in capitals.

Apart from the fact that Abberline appears to have been joking when he made his remark about Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, having committed the Whitechapel Murders, there is the unfortunate fact - and I know that you people don't like that word (at least when I use it) - that Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, WAS NOT JEWISH (my capitals this time).

So, unfortunately (for you), what I wrote in my previous post - the one to which you reply - is correct: INSPECTORS REID AND ABBERLINE WERE NOT LOOKING FOR A JEWISH BUTCHER (or barber).



'Sadly some people (MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT I GET THE FEELING THAT BY 'SOME PEOPLE', YOU MEAN ME) have set ideas, but there are some books one must read if you are going to discuss a suspect.


On Lechmere, one can watch documentaries, but one should really read Holmgren's Cutting Point and my own Inside Bucks Row.'

(Elamarna)


I don't need to read Holmgren's books.

I've seen his presentations online and I've had long correspondence with him, and I've sent him two long posts here, which he hasn't answered, and he is plainly wrong about Lechmere.

Both he and Stow, another expert, have misread the testimony given at Nichols' inquest, accepting a timing given by a witness even though his testimony was contradicted by three policemen, and their case rests on that mistaken timing.

Holmgren has presented Lechmere as the man who killed prostitutes while on his way to work, but when faced with the overwhelming evidence that Lechmere could not have been the murderer of Mary Kelly on his way to work, and couldn't have taken her heart to work or home to his wife and nine children, he first suggested that Lechmere might have had a day off (strange, isn't it, for someone who kills women on his way to work?) and then he ACTUALLY DENIED THAT THE MURDERER TOOK ANY OF THE VICTIMS' ORGANS AWAY FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.

I have copies of my correspondence with him, so yes, it is a fact that he wrote that.

It has always been accepted by the coroners, the police, and researchers that the murderer took the organs away from the scenes of his crimes.

There have been many cases of serial killers taking trophies away with them.

I'm sorry that you think I need to read a book by someone who makes basic mistakes about the Whitechapel Murders case.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anti-Jewish prejudice. Lmao. Since you’ve pretty well stated that you refuse to read the authority on Kosminski, then maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.

That’s rich…Anderson’s opinion that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser was based on anti-semitism. So we should get back with you when Anderson’s opinion gels with Abberline’s opinion….that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser.

As I pointed out in another post, Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, was not Jewish.

It is perhaps significant that when someone here talks down to me, it turns out that he is the one who can't get his facts right.

[Elamarna]

Originally posted by Pontius2000 View Post
Anti-Jewish prejudice. Lmao. Since you’ve pretty well stated that you refuse to read the authority on Kosminski, then maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.

That’s rich…Anderson’s opinion that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser was based on anti-semitism. So we should get back with you when Anderson’s opinion gels with Abberline’s opinion….that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser.






I didn't get a notification of Pontius2000's reply, which you quote, so I suppose I'll answer both of you at the same time.




I'll deal with just two points, if I may, one made by each of you.


First:

'maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.'

(PONTIUS2000)


It is perhaps significant that your howler is printed in capitals.

Apart from the fact that Abberline appears to have been joking when he made his remark about Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, having committed the Whitechapel Murders, there is the unfortunate fact - and I know that you people don't like that word (at least when I use it) - that Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, WAS NOT JEWISH (my capitals this time).

So, unfortunately (for you), what I wrote in my previous post - the one to which you reply - is correct: INSPECTORS REID AND ABBERLINE WERE NOT LOOKING FOR A JEWISH BUTCHER (or barber).



'Sadly some people (MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT I GET THE FEREING THAT BY 'SOME PEOPLE', YOU MEAN ME) have set ideas, but there are some books one must read if you are going to discuss a suspect.


On Lechmere, one can watch documentaries, but one should really read Holmgren's Cutting Point and my own Inside Bucks Row.'

(Elamarna)


I don't need to read Holmgren's books.

I've seen his presentations online and I've had long correspondence with him, and I've sent him two long posts here, which he hasn't answered, and he is plainly wrong about Lechmere.

Both he and Stow, another expert, have misread the testimony given at Nichols' inquest, accepting a timing given by a witness even though his testimony was contradicted by three policemen, and their case rests on that mistaken testimony.

Holmgren has presented Lechmere as the man who killed prostitutes while on his way to work, but when faced with the overwhelming evidence that Lechmere could not have been the murderer of Mary Kelly on his way to work, and couldn't have taken her heart to work or home to his wife and nine children, he first suggested that Lechmere might have had a day off (strange, isn't it, for someone who kills women on his way to work?) and then he ACTUALLY DENIED THAT THE MURDERER TOOK ANY OF THE VICTIMS' ORGANS AWAY FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.

I have copies of my correspondence with him, so yes, it is a fact that he wrote that.

It has always been accepted by the coroners, the police, and researchers that the murderer took the organs away from the scenes of his crimes.

There have been many cases of serial killers taking trophies away with them.

I'm sorry that you think I need to read a book by someone who makes basic mistakes about the Whitechapel Murders case.

That you think you don't need to read up to date research and theories says so much.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That you think you don't need to read up to date research and theories says so much.

But you didn't say you think Holmgren is right about the trophies.

And that's not the only thing he got wrong.

And we're not talking about opinions.

He is actually denying the physical evidence!

And you didn't say you think he and Stow are right to ignore the testimony of three witnesses.

Did you?

So why do you think I need to read their books?