Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Monty]

Thanks for the heads-up! I just pre-ordered it. Now, to decide which of Paul's books to get (I've already ordered Tom's books since this thread started!)

Thank you

Monty

[Monty]

As Adam said, the publisher used Four Colman Getty to handle press requests for review copies, rights requests and to schedule interview and so on. It is a very common practise.

For a Molecular Biologist?

Wow, Tom's Gynecologist must be jealous.

Monty

[PaulB]

For a Molecular Biologist?

Wow, Tom's Gynecologist must be jealous.

Monty

No. For a publisher.

[Jonathan H]

Fido is wrong--right?

To Jeff

I stand by what I wrote.

Martin Fido's argument for Sir Robert's reliablity based on his voluminous sectarian writings is a very weak argument, to put it mildly

Whereas I think his argument for David Cohen being the real Polish suspect is quite strong, and Scott Nelson's recent research has added tensile strength to it.

Ironically it is Fido who found Aaron Kosminski in the asylum records, though he was not looking for Anderson's suspect as a man who was incarcerated in early 1891!

Since Fido rejected Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's suspect, partly because the latter was sectioned way too late to fit into the man described in Anderson's memoirs and Swanson's annotations of said memoir, you must think this, the Cohen solution, rather than Kosminski, a very weak argument by Fido--is that right?

[Fisherman]

I disagree. For the few victims that were killed by the same hand (if one believes such a thing), even the nuttiest of people could have had enough of a simple plan to do the intitial portion of the crime. Then, what comes next would be done in a less frenetic state, even if psychotic or psychopath or whatever. What we don't have is a shape-shifting were-creature that must kill and butcher when the sun sets. We have someone, probably a psychopath, who has enough control usually to keep his murders to a minimum and to probably have a job at times and to make family and friends (if friends) know he's nuts, but not know HOW nuts he is. This is my take, and I really don't want to continue this dicussion.


Mike

Well, you don´t have to, Mike. And it´s fine if you disagree - that´s what people have done on the Ripper for 126 years.

I do not agree that any nutter could have had enough of a simple plan to do the initial part of the crimes. I do, however, think that it must not necessarily have taken very much planning. That does not exclude the possibility that there WAS planning, though.

But what came next, you think we can ascribe to a psychotic or a schizophrenic or whatever, since it would have been done in a less frenetic state. But it is sane (well...) people who benefit from having taken part of the killing and being able to move on to the eviscerations, whereas there can be no knowing about psychotics - they may well feel that the eviscerations have some sort of significance that tilts matters in a totally unpredictable manner.

You write "What we don't have is a shape-shifting were-creature that must kill and butcher when the sun sets", and I agree. But let´s not forget that such a thing is what a psychotic is sometimes about!

Then you add: "We have someone, probably a psychopath, who has enough control usually to keep his murders to a minimum and to probably have a job at times and to make family and friends (if friends) know he's nuts, but not know HOW nuts he is."

... and to me, this does not describe a psychotic person either, since the ones close to such a person will know that he´s VERY nuts. It does however describe what a psychopath killer is often about - somebody who is nuts but able to conceal it, and who will act in the way he himself chooses.

Of all the posts out here, I think Erratas post 3665 is absolutely essential. It clinches why we should not look for a psychotic killer when searching for the Ripper. He may have been borderline, he may have been a psychopath, he may have been a narcissist and perhaps a lot of other things too - but he was not a psychotic.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Natasha]

as was said to me earlier in this thread! prove it! LOL

Let me find my magnifying glass and my Sherlock Holmes hat, then I'll investigate after a puff on my pipe

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe Begg said anyone is welcome to challenge Martin Fido. however they need to do so on the same academic critia as Martin Orginally did so..

And as Begg himself said he was unable to do that and he quoted Martin, I really don't know how an average 'Joe' like ourselves are gonna achieve that..

Hopefully we have hope to aspire

Yours Jeff

I think we apply common sense and asks ourselves, can we believe that because a person goes to church every Sunday they never tell a lie in their life. Or that catholic priests could never become paedophiles.

[PaulB]

I think we apply common sense and asks ourselves, can we believe that because a person goes to church every Sunday they never tell a lie in their life. Or that catholic priests could never become paedophiles.

Before applying your refreshingly original brand of common sense, it would help if you understood what Fido actually said, which obviousl was not that a good Christian would never lie.

[GUT]

For a Molecular Biologist?

Wow, Tom's Gynecologist must be jealous.

Monty

Tom needs a Gynecologist

[Jonathan H]

On the other hand, I do not think that Anderson ever consciously told an untruth about the Ripper case to the public.

I think the either/or argument about this source is a 'straw man'.

The middle way is that he was sincere but mistaken.

As he was in the 1908 interview. Sudgen is scathing on this, and I agree.

Whereas Macnaghten was deliberately deceitful.

I think that Mac knew that Anderson was a truth-teller and indiscreet and always had to be the smartest person in the room. Hence telling him misleading information about 'Kosminski' in 1895.

In his 1910 memoir, Anderson damns the un-named Macnagten as having nerves of jelly.

In reply, Macnaghten airbrushed Anderson out of existence entirely and rejected the idea that the Ripper was identified in 1888 (or 1889), was Jewish or that there was a slam dunk witness-and drops any mention of the Polish suspect altogether.

[lynn cates]

erroneous claims

Hello Tom.

"It's also absolutely necessary when in every interview so far the good doctor has pointed out that Edwards (and the publisher) have exaggerated the claims that science has proved the Ripper's identity 100%."

Quite. Yet, how many--in the days and months ahead--will be suckered by these erroneous claims?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no

Hello Mick.

"The important thing is whether the DNA demonstrates what it is claimed that it does."

So far, not.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Kate

Hello Christer. The evidence is that Kate's killer most DEFINITELY knew what he was about--even if his cuts were poorly made.

So certainly not a psychotic in my opinion.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Mac

Hello Jonathan. Yes, sincerely mistaken.

"In reply, Macnaghten airbrushed Anderson out of existence entirely and rejected the idea that the Ripper was identified in 1888 (or 1889), was Jewish or that there was a slam dunk witness-and drops any mention of the Polish suspect altogether."

A bit ironic, since one can make a good case for Mac being Kosminski's discoverer.

Back to the thread topic.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

If you apply these behaviors to the Ripper, you get an interesting result. The Ripper was not a spree killer. Not even a multiple spree killer. Kosminski had all the time in the world. And was psychotic. If Kosminski were the Ripper, why wouldn't he kill many women in a short period of time? Why not two or three a night? Why not one every night for a week? That's what psychotic killers do. The Ripper may have needed something from his victims, but his pacing was not defined by that need. If he needed a uterus, how long could that last? And since he clearly had no need for the majority of the corpse, why not kill more women, get more uteri? If he was eating the whole body, yeah that takes time. But a uterus? That's a single meal. Kosminski thinks he's dying and his odd dietary habits are whats going to save him. Do you think a "dying" man is going to linger over a single kill? And the Ripper had a type. It had to be women. It had to be unfortunates. It had to be women who at least might be tempted into prostitution. They were a certain age, they had a certain amount of wear on them. They were obviously very poor. The Ripper never killed a man. He never killed a child or a teenager. He never killed a maid or a waitress. Psychotics don't have specific types. As a psychotic, if Kosminski was the Ripper, it would look like someone snapped. Lashing out every where. Like Chase. Like Mullin.

And lastly, psychotics don't take care to not get caught. Some certainly achieved it by isolation or remoteness. Nobody schlepped to the Gein house. He wasn't trying to hide anything, but no one was going to see it. Dzhumagaliev started dismembering some guy he killed at his own party. The Ripper was not isolated. There was a very real risk for being seen. But he took steps so that he would not get caught. He didn't walk up to them and start slashing away. He took some basic precautions. Psychotics don't do that. Kosminski talked to god. If god is giving instructions, why would he worry about getting caught? Why take the time to stay out of sight? Remember delusions are sincere beliefs. They cannot be argued with. So with someone like Kosminski, who has scrupulosity, you have to ask what would his god tell him to do, and "worry about the cops" is probably not on that list.

The Ripper does not act like a psychotic. So why are we looking at a psychotic suspect?

First of all were not looking at Aaron Kosminski because we believe him to be psychotic. Were looking at him because he's currently the only Kosminski in the asylum records who match the suspect put forward by the two men who new the most about the Jack the Ripper murders

But I think your observation about the JtR murders being more akin to modern SPREE killings most interesting. A point I've put forward on a number of occasions.

What is interesting about this, even though I disagree with your conclusions. Is that it does sort of explain why we don't have a modern equivalent.

Frankly whether we list psychopaths or Schizophrenics with high levels of sociopathic behaviour we just don't have another example of five woman killed over roughly 12 weeks (Depending if you include Tabram)

So yeah a 'spree' killer with a 'hatred for women' makes some sense to me. It might be argued that the woman he killed were done so simply because they were on the street and venerable.

Yours Jeff