Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Chris]

... but to take things a step further, I have always had trouble thinking that a man who stealthily killed a number of women in 1888, carving them up in the most horrendeous manner, would be meekly walking people´s dogs for them the year after ...

I suspect you may just have initiated a criminological literature search for serial killers known to have walked dogs ...

[Trevor Marriott]

I know that his arrest would be recorded, in the arrest book, my question is where would that arrest book be? The fact that no arrest note can be seen in the WM file could be down to the fact he was not arrest for any of the murders in that file.

The insanity issue depends on the exact nature of the insanity.

No doubt the police would have been disappointed. However, that's not to say it wasn't unexpected.

Monty

Well if he was arrested then if the evidence was there then he would be charged and taken to court as per the due process, then there would have been a record of conviction.After all his dog conviction is recorded.

[Monty]

Well if he was arrested then if the evidence was there then he would be charged and taken to court as per the due process, then there would have been a record of conviction.After all his dog conviction is recorded.

Where is his dog conviction recorded?

I'm fully aware of the procedure, I'm asking where would we find these arrest and charge books? Where do they sit now?

However, if Anderson and Swanson are to be believed, it did not get to the charging stage. Something which the police may have been aware of anyway.

Monty

[Fisherman]

I suspect you may just have initiated a criminological literature search for serial killers known to have walked dogs ...

Apart from that, what do you think about Cohens assertion that Kosminski had not attempted any work for years? Does that not implicate that he had mental issues long before the incarceration we are looking at?

As for the dog matter, it is a small thing. But small things are what we have. As for serialists, I have no problem seeing that they (with an exception for David Berkowitz) could have walked dogs.
But the general picture painted by the articles about the December 1889 incident involves a bit more. Kosminski was laughed at, when saying that he used the name Abrahams because it was easier to spell than Kosmunski (sic). He had to have his brother step in and speak for him. He would not pay his fine on a Sunday, so he was given until Monday to do so. And the dog was not his own, so either he had asked the owner if he could walk his dog for him (the way children ask people with dogs if they can walk them), or he was asked by the owner of the dog to walk it for him.

The whole set-up is one that lends itself very nicely to identifying a meek, weak and unsettled person, while it will not dovetail with the picture of a fierce serialist.

Of course, a man like Joachim Kroll is somebody who I could perhaps see walking people´s dogs for them. But I wouldn´t want to ask Carl Panzram to do it.

Anyways, what about Cohen´s assertion about no working attempts made for years?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Apart from that, what do you think about Cohens assertion that Kosminski had not attempted any work for years? Does that not implicate that he had mental issues long before the incarceration we are looking at?

Possibly. But if so, there's no reason to think that his condition resembled what was recorded in 1891.

As for the dog matter, it is a small thing. But small things are what we have. As for serialists, I have no problem seeing that they (with an exception for David Berkowitz) could have walked dogs.
But the general picture painted by the articles about the December 1889 incident involves a bit more. Kosminski was laughed at, when saying that he used the name Abrahams because it was easier to spell than Kosmunski (sic). He had to have his brother step in and speak for him. He would not pay his fine on a Sunday, so he was given until Monday to do so. And the dog was not his own, so either he had asked the owner if he could walk his dog for him (the way children ask people with dogs if they can walk them), or he was asked by the owner of the dog to walk it for him.

I think there's a limit to how much we can extrapolate from this incident. In a sense what it really does is illustrate how pitifully little we know about Aaron Kozminski before 1890.

And even the dog incident was a year after the murders.

[Chris]

Where is his dog conviction recorded?

Nowhere except in the newspapers, as far as I know.

I wasn't able to find any record of it among those at the LMA. Of course, someone with Mr Marriott's expertise might be able to do better.

[Rosella]

I agree that Kosminski sounds like a rather meek and mild individual. Could his difficulty in court, in getting his brother to speak for him, have something to do with language difficulties perhaps? Some people can pick up languages easier than others and Kosminski might not have had the opportunity to mix with a lot of Anglo speakers, especially if he wasn't working.

[Trevor Marriott]

Where is his dog conviction recorded?

I'm fully aware of the procedure, I'm asking where would we find these arrest and charge books? Where do they sit now?

However, if Anderson and Swanson are to be believed, it did not get to the charging stage. Something which the police may have been aware of anyway.

Monty

The waters surrounding my original points and comments have somewhat been muddied

So we still have not established how Aaron Kosminski (if it was him) arrived at the seaside home for the purpose of taking part in this ID parade and there lies the rub of the green.

The only two officers who talk of this ID are Anderson and Swanson. Considering such an important case and what would turn out to be such an important outcome, these are the only two who ever talk of it. Did they keep this positive Id to themselves, seems to be the case as no other officers senior or otherwise knew of it. Is that believable, the answer is no.

Lets look again at the ID we know there were no witnesses who ever saw the murderer commit the crimes. So as has been said who could the witness have been?

As the Met were instigating this we can assume that perhaps the witness was Schwartz. Now working on that basis and knowing that the City also had a witness why didn't the Met involve the city and take along Lawende?

Note there is nothing in any City records or in later years from any senior city officer to support this, or to support the subsequent observations which were supposedly carried out.

All of this hangs on the last sentence in the Marginalia "Kosminski was the suspect" and if Swanson did not write that last sentence then Kosminski goes out the window because MM had eliminated him by the time the marginalia was supposed to have been written

And MM was Swansons superior officer !

On a final note it has been suggested that perhaps Kosminski was already in an asylum. Well if that be the case why not do the ID there. Why go to all the trouble of conveying him down to the seaside. It would be easier to convey the witness from the seaside home to London.

As I have said before if he were not in an asylum why not carry out the ID at a local police station?

My conclusions are that it did not take as has been described and it was mixed up with Sadler where seaside and seamens home have been mixed up

[Fisherman]

Chris:

Possibly. But if so, there's no reason to think that his condition resembled what was recorded in 1891.

I think it goes beyond possibly, I think we´ve got a very probably on our hands. And I also think that Cohen remarked on this since it was something that was normally not tolerated in the kind of community they lived in. Keep in mind how Kosminski would not pay his fines on a Sunday; we are dealing with a strongly religious contingent of people, where each and everybody would have been expected to contribute his own fair share. A man that would not do any work was a man that deviated totally from the norm. And a man that took this course and was allowed to do so by his kin, was a man that had issues.

Then again, I concur that Kosminskis condition would have been deteriorating over time. From his asylum records. it seems there was such an ongoing deterioration. So we cannot conclude that 1888 and 1891 would have seen the same Kosminski.
But there is every reason to believe that he was a man that deviated very much from the norm in 1888 too, given that he managed to stay away from the work that would have been strictly mandatory otherwise!

I think there's a limit to how much we can extrapolate from this incident. In a sense what it really does is illustrate how pitifully little we know about Aaron Kozminski before 1890.

It does, I agree. But the incident nevertheless has me thinking along these lines. Remember that the man who stood accused of having walked an unmuzzled dog, who had his brother step in and answer for him, and who was laughed at, was a very violent man, a homicidal maniac with an extrme htred for women, especially prostitutes.
Or so we are told.

And even the dog incident was a year after the murders.

Actually, I would find it easier to buy if it had been the year before. Accepting that somebody evolves into a violent, homicidal killer after having been pushed around and asked to walk peoples dogs for them is easier to me than it is to accept that Jack the Ripper would have become a meek dog-walker in a year.

But as you say, we must extrapolate here, and we are on thin ice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Nowhere except in the newspapers, as far as I know.

I wasn't able to find any record of it among those at the LMA. Of course, someone with Mr Marriott's expertise might be able to do better.

No I assumed it had been gathered from a court conviction sheet

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

I note that you say

Keep in mind how Kosminski would not pay his fines on a Sunday

I have honestly never heard this before, and as it is claimed that he was a Jew I am, to say the least, somewhat puzzled by it. Those of the Jewish faith pay no heed to Sunday.

Can you, or anyone else, explain?

[Chris]

afer having been pushed around and asked to walk peoples dogs for them

I just think this kind of speculation is pointless, because there's nothing in the reports to suggest that he had been pushed around or even that he was walking somebody's dog for him.

But to each his own.

[Chris]

I have honestly never heard this before, and as it is claimed that he was a Jew I am, to say the least, somewhat puzzled by it. Those of the Jewish faith pay no heed to Sunday.

It was Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

I note that you say



I have honestly never heard this before, and as it is claimed that he was a Jew I am, to say the least, somewhat puzzled by it. Those of the Jewish faith pay no heed to Sunday.

Can you, or anyone else, explain?

Here it is, from the Times:

“Aaron Kosminki 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 of 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 not right to pay money on Sunday. He was given till Monday to pay.”

It clearly states that it "was not right" to pay on a Sunday, and I can only reason that it would have been related to religious issues. Maybe others out here can elaborate on it. At any rate, the court apparently readily accepted it.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

'Angin's too good for 'im.

Hello Neil.

"And are you expecting a charge of murder, bearing in mind Kosminski's alleged mental state at the time?

It is pretty clear that Kosminski was going to be incarcerated (if he was Aaron), and indeed he was. You assume they were looking for prosecution which, under law, would not have occurred because, as a former detective, you would surely be aware that the insane cannot stand trial."

Absolutely. But I wonder whether this would not take the wind from the sails of the "he did not testify as it would have hanged him" argument?

Cheers.
LC