Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Jeff Leahy]

The problem is, Kosminski was not in the early stages. He had been sick since 1885 at least. And while they may know him as the night watchman, the would also have seen him around when he was not okay. They would have known that he was occasionally mad. Which does not make it likely they went anywhere with him, even when he was sane. Being barking mad at time usually ruins your reputation.

The Annie Millwood attack is spot on for a psychotic attacker. Tabram's murder has more method than madness, and if pushed I would say it was driven by intense emotion more than psychosis. It's a fine line, but I think the killer was just on the sane side.

We don't know he was sick from 1885. To some extent that would make onset far to early…he'd be Catatonic age group.

On-set early twenties (Fairly common) would mean early 1888, which also ties with the Annie Millwood random attack…

Its the clasp knife that connects her with the attack on Tabram.

Just as an aside has anyone ever come across a group called:

The Board of Jewish Guardians?

Yours Jeff

[Errata]

We don't know that. Swanson doesn't give a date.



The reason Cox gives is this:

"He was never arrested, for the reason that not the slightest scrap of evidence could be found to connect him with the crimes."

It would be a mistake to think that Cox was putting forward his own candidate as Jack the Ripper, in the same way as others did. His article concludes:

"Long after the public had ceased to talk about the murders we continued to investigate them.

We had no clues to go upon, but every point suggested by the imagination was seized upon and worked bare. There was not a criminal in London capable of committing the crimes but was looked up and shadowed.

The mystery is as much a mystery as it was fifteen years ago. It is all very well for amateur detectives to fix the crime upon this or that suspect, and advance theories in the public press to prove his guilt. They are working upon surmise, nothing more.

The mystery can never be cleared up until someone comes forward and himself proves conclusively that he was the bloodthirsty demon who terrorised the country, or unless he returns to his crimes and is caught red-handed. He is still alive then? you ask. I do not know. For all I know he may be dead. I have personally no evidence either way."

The dates I have been reading say July 15 1889, but I admit those are probably guesses based on other things.

As for Cox, I think we need to come down on one side or the other. If Cox is following Kosminski, there was absolutely no evidence found to implicate him in any way, ergo Cox has cleared Kosminski as a suspect. If it is not Kosminski he is following, then we need to toss Cox out of the Kosminski debate, because clearly he has no place here. Cox doesn't know who the Ripper was. I believe him.

But I will say that if the investigation he refers to was called off because no evidence was found, then that suspect was cleared. If they thought this was their guy despite a lack of evidence, they would have left a couple guys on him. They didn't. So at least the higher ups cleared whoever Cox was following. And if that's Kosminski, then Kosminski was cleared, and the Seaside Home ID could not have been Kosminski, or never happened.

[Errata]

Well clearly the man would need to be compose mentus enough to say "will you" But if he were known to the woman as a local 'Night Watchman' seen around talking to people. I think he could be plausible enough in those early stages of his illness to get what he wanted with someone somewhat heavy with drink.

But what you said got me thinking about some of the earlier suggested attacks Annie Millwood and Martha Tabram.

Surely these attacks sound much more like the sort of 'Psychotic' irrational attack you describe:

"It appears the deceased was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary suffering from numerous stabs in the legs and lower part of the body. She stated that she had been attacked by a man who she did not know, and who stabbed her with a clasp knife which he took from his pocket. No one appears to have seen the attack, and as far as at present ascertained there is only the woman's statement to bear out the allegations of an attack, though that she had been stabbed cannot be denied."

Although rarely mentioned in connection with the Ripper murders, it may be interesting to note that there are many similarities between this murder and that of Martha Tabram:
Age (38) — Martha Tabram was 39. Location (White's Row) — only minutes away from George Yard, site of Tabram's murder. Injuries (Repeated Stab Wounds in Lower Torso) — similar to 39 stabbings of Tabram. It is quite possible that the same man who attacked Martha Tabram attacked Annie Millwood, and in light of recent proposals that Tabram be included as the 'sixth' canonical Ripper victim, there are bound to be more studies into the attack of this previous victim

Yours Jeff

The problem is, Kosminski was not in the early stages. He had been sick since 1885 at least. And while they may know him as the night watchman, the would also have seen him around when he was not okay. They would have known that he was occasionally mad. Which does not make it likely they went anywhere with him, even when he was sane. Being barking mad at time usually ruins your reputation.

The Annie Millwood attack is spot on for a psychotic attacker. Tabram's murder has more method than madness, and if pushed I would say it was driven by intense emotion more than psychosis. It's a fine line, but I think the killer was just on the sane side.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well, no one just stands there and dies without a struggle or a peep if there is the slightest chance they can get away. So we know that these women, whatever their physical condition, had to trust their killer enough to go off alone with them. And yes, a tangential association would help that out. But we get back to psychotic people not being able to play poker. They cannot disguise their emotions and intent. It's in fact why people find them scary, even if they aren't at all violent. We are very uncomfortable around people with no filter. We don't understand it.

Psychotic people cannot hold back their feelings in order to entrap someone. Which just about every serial killer has to be able to do. So what we are looking at with a psychotic killer (whether they be schizophrenic, manic, brain injured, whatever) is a man who sees a woman he wants to kill, and her charges her like a bull. Or if he isn't sure about killing her but definitely has a problem with her, he'll start screaming at her. So in order for Jack to be psychotic, he had to walk up to Chapman, start yelling crazy things at her, threatening her, at which point she would have to make the decision to take him somewhere private where he ends up killing her. Even if Jack was not sane, his victims were. Some guy accosts you in the middle of the night yelling at you and threatening you, do you take him somewhere where the two of you can be alone? And if he starts dragging you off, do you meekly go to whatever this madman has in store for you?

Well clearly the man would need to be compose mentus enough to say "will you" But if he were known to the woman as a local 'Night Watchman' seen around talking to people. I think he could be plausible enough in those early stages of his illness to get what he wanted with someone somewhat heavy with drink.

But what you said got me thinking about some of the earlier suggested attacks Annie Millwood and Martha Tabram.

Surely these attacks sound much more like the sort of 'Psychotic' irrational attack you describe:

"It appears the deceased was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary suffering from numerous stabs in the legs and lower part of the body. She stated that she had been attacked by a man who she did not know, and who stabbed her with a clasp knife which he took from his pocket. No one appears to have seen the attack, and as far as at present ascertained there is only the woman's statement to bear out the allegations of an attack, though that she had been stabbed cannot be denied."

Although rarely mentioned in connection with the Ripper murders, it may be interesting to note that there are many similarities between this murder and that of Martha Tabram:
Age (38) — Martha Tabram was 39. Location (White's Row) — only minutes away from George Yard, site of Tabram's murder. Injuries (Repeated Stab Wounds in Lower Torso) — similar to 39 stabbings of Tabram. It is quite possible that the same man who attacked Martha Tabram attacked Annie Millwood, and in light of recent proposals that Tabram be included as the 'sixth' canonical Ripper victim, there are bound to be more studies into the attack of this previous victim

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

We don't know that. Swanson doesn't give a date.

Although its true Swanson doesn't give a date, he describes a set of events that would seem to follow shortly before Kosminski goes into the Asylum. And if he's talking about Aaron Kosminski, which seems probable, then sometime between July 1890 and February 1891, simply seems the most probable conclusion.

The reason Cox gives is this:

"He was never arrested, for the reason that not the slightest scrap of evidence could be found to connect him with the crimes."

It would be a mistake to think that Cox was putting forward his own candidate as Jack the Ripper, in the same way as others did. His article concludes:

"Long after the public had ceased to talk about the murders we continued to investigate them.

We had no clues to go upon, but every point suggested by the imagination was seized upon and worked bare. There was not a criminal in London capable of committing the crimes but was looked up and shadowed.

The mystery is as much a mystery as it was fifteen years ago. It is all very well for amateur detectives to fix the crime upon this or that suspect, and advance theories in the public press to prove his guilt. They are working upon surmise, nothing more.

The mystery can never be cleared up until someone comes forward and himself proves conclusively that he was the bloodthirsty demon who terrorised the country, or unless he returns to his crimes and is caught red-handed. He is still alive then? you ask. I do not know. For all I know he may be dead. I have personally no evidence either way."

If Cox is describing events following the Kelly Murder then surely its reasonable to suggest that what he says here supports what MacNaughten says. No proof is ever given to the man they follow (He's not caught red handed) and they stop following him.

MacNaughten says he's placed in an asylum in March 1889. Which would explain why the man is no longer followed. Cox says nothing is ever discovered and MacNaughten says the same and plums for Druit.

So my suggestion is that MacNaughten's memoranda is based on information supplied by a police surveillance of a suspect that no proof could be found against. It contains none of the info suggested by Swanson in the Margiinalia, which relates to a completely separate event some two years later.

Kosminski was that suspect.

Many thanks
Yours Jeff

[Chris]

We know that the Seaside Home identification was in 1890.

We don't know that. Swanson doesn't give a date.

They guy Cox followed was not arrested. He didn't die. He wasn't put in a line up. He was not charged. But Cox though him a likely suspect. So why doesn't a likely suspect make it to identification or arrest? The investigation lasted more than a month, so it had promise. But it didn't last more than six months, not did it result in an arrest or something. Checking into an asylum on a long term basis stops an investigation. But it also means the suspect can remain a good suspect 20 years later. Usually an investigation stops when the cops become reasonably convinced the guy didn't do it. That didn't happen here. Not a lot of things stop an investigation without proving a suspect unsustainable.

The reason Cox gives is this:

"He was never arrested, for the reason that not the slightest scrap of evidence could be found to connect him with the crimes."

It would be a mistake to think that Cox was putting forward his own candidate as Jack the Ripper, in the same way as others did. His article concludes:

"Long after the public had ceased to talk about the murders we continued to investigate them.

We had no clues to go upon, but every point suggested by the imagination was seized upon and worked bare. There was not a criminal in London capable of committing the crimes but was looked up and shadowed.

The mystery is as much a mystery as it was fifteen years ago. It is all very well for amateur detectives to fix the crime upon this or that suspect, and advance theories in the public press to prove his guilt. They are working upon surmise, nothing more.

The mystery can never be cleared up until someone comes forward and himself proves conclusively that he was the bloodthirsty demon who terrorised the country, or unless he returns to his crimes and is caught red-handed. He is still alive then? you ask. I do not know. For all I know he may be dead. I have personally no evidence either way."

[Errata]

I wonder if the phrase "an intense hatred of women" is a code for the suspect was homosexual? Not politically correct today, of course, but the Victorian police might well not have cared about such things.

I've wondered that too. But I've read a lot of Victorian literature, and I've never heard that euphemism before. I feel like if it doesn't show up in Punch then it likely isn't accepted slang.

What I think it means is that a bunch of guys were told they had to go out and find a suspect who hated women, and left them to figure out what that meant and how to prove that.

For all we know a man not opening a door for a woman demonstrates "an intense hatred of women". It would rather depend on the fussiness of the observer. The idea is used with several different suspects, and it doesn't mean the same thing for all of them. You don't even have to hate women to serially kill them, so it's sort of a false premise either way.

For the most part euphemisms are polite. Nobody goes through the trouble of saying a bunch of extra words to offer a less pleasant alternative. Nobody insists on being called "vertically challenged" if they liked being called short. So even if the idea is off color now, it wouldn't have been then. If it's a code, it's for something no one is willing to talk about. Now there were plenty of epithets for homosexuality that could even be used by schoolteachers back then. So it's not that.

I wonder if they were trying to refer to sexual sadism and bondage. The consensual kind. S&M was a thing then, had been for a few hundred years. There were underground clubs, but the members tended to be very wealthy so I'm not sure they ever became common knowledge at the time. But I can see how cops might think that a guy who gets off spanking or whipping his sex partners could be a serial killer. I mean, they're dead wrong, but they didn't know that. Hell some people still believe it. Beyond the playgrounds of the rich and kinky, there would have been no central place for them to gather.

On the other hand, I don't know how a cop finds a guy is into whips and chains by sitting across the street from his store all day, so the interpretation is still going to have to be pretty creative. Maybe they could find the prostitutes who specialized in that and ask, but I don't see a woman giving up her sole source of income to a cop. One sadistic client would have earned her all the money she needed to live comfortably.

[Pcdunn]

The suspect did nothing that might point to him being the Ripper, though apparently he was bloodthirsty and hated women. And if you think about it, do you have any idea how bad someone's behavior has to be in order for total strangers to be able to pick up on a violent misogynist without a conversation about it?.

I wonder if the phrase "an intense hatred of women" is a code for the suspect was homosexual? Not politically correct today, of course, but the Victorian police might well not have cared about such things.

[Errata]

Actually, Cox doesn't say his suspect was put in an asylum after the murders, only that "from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey."

What happened after the murders was this:
"It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation the mysterious crimes ceased, and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls."

For good measure. early in the article Cox dismisses some other theories:
"There are those who claim that the perpetrator was well known to the police; that at the present moment he is incarcerated in one of His Majesty’s penal settlements. Others hold that he was known to have jumped over London Bridge or Blackfriars Bridge; while a third party claims that he is the inmate of a private lunatic asylum. These theories I have no hesitation in dispelling at once."

It's not clear who the "third party" was, but it's interesting to note that Cox's article appeared the year after Robert Sagar told the press about his suspect, who had been "removed to a private asylum".

I assumed that the asylum bit came up because the investigation of this suspect stopped. He followed someone until May of 1889. From right after the murder of Kelly for six months. And the person under surveillance was remarkably well behaved during that whole time. And that he had a shop (which I don't recall being true of Kosminski, but an entirely different point), and was reasonably successful. The suspect did nothing that might point to him being the Ripper, though apparently he was bloodthirsty and hated women. And if you think about it, do you have any idea how bad someone's behavior has to be in order for total strangers to be able to pick up on a violent misogynist without a conversation about it?

We know that the Seaside Home identification was in 1890. So following this guy for six months doesn't get anyone to this event.

They guy Cox followed was not arrested. He didn't die. He wasn't put in a line up. He was not charged. But Cox though him a likely suspect. So why doesn't a likely suspect make it to identification or arrest? The investigation lasted more than a month, so it had promise. But it didn't last more than six months, not did it result in an arrest or something. Checking into an asylum on a long term basis stops an investigation. But it also means the suspect can remain a good suspect 20 years later. Usually an investigation stops when the cops become reasonably convinced the guy didn't do it. That didn't happen here. Not a lot of things stop an investigation without proving a suspect unsustainable.

[Chris]

Cox says that after the murder of Kelly, they followed him around for a few months until he was put in an asylum in Surrey.

Actually, Cox doesn't say his suspect was put in an asylum after the murders, only that "from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey."

What happened after the murders was this:
"It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation the mysterious crimes ceased, and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls."

For good measure. early in the article Cox dismisses some other theories:
"There are those who claim that the perpetrator was well known to the police; that at the present moment he is incarcerated in one of His Majesty’s penal settlements. Others hold that he was known to have jumped over London Bridge or Blackfriars Bridge; while a third party claims that he is the inmate of a private lunatic asylum. These theories I have no hesitation in dispelling at once."

It's not clear who the "third party" was, but it's interesting to note that Cox's article appeared the year after Robert Sagar told the press about his suspect, who had been "removed to a private asylum".

[Jeff Leahy]

City Detective Henry Cox said the man he watched had been in a private asylum in Surrey from time to time.

That man probably paid his own way to private asylum from his profits, the result of his work. After all, he had his shop, where he was seen busy as usual, seeing customers.

Roy

Its certain one interpretation.

However if he was such a stead fast shop keeper earning such a steady living….

Why did he occupy several shops? I mean was he Terry Leahy

Yours Jeff

[Errata]

Well I'm not convinced that these women would have put up much of a fight they were venerable (Sorry Robert this is an auto spell check i mean von er able)

Stride and Eddows possibly had more fight in them. But the attacks would have been sudden and with much power.

Well, no one just stands there and dies without a struggle or a peep if there is the slightest chance they can get away. So we know that these women, whatever their physical condition, had to trust their killer enough to go off alone with them. And yes, a tangential association would help that out. But we get back to psychotic people not being able to play poker. They cannot disguise their emotions and intent. It's in fact why people find them scary, even if they aren't at all violent. We are very uncomfortable around people with no filter. We don't understand it.

Psychotic people cannot hold back their feelings in order to entrap someone. Which just about every serial killer has to be able to do. So what we are looking at with a psychotic killer (whether they be schizophrenic, manic, brain injured, whatever) is a man who sees a woman he wants to kill, and her charges her like a bull. Or if he isn't sure about killing her but definitely has a problem with her, he'll start screaming at her. So in order for Jack to be psychotic, he had to walk up to Chapman, start yelling crazy things at her, threatening her, at which point she would have to make the decision to take him somewhere private where he ends up killing her. Even if Jack was not sane, his victims were. Some guy accosts you in the middle of the night yelling at you and threatening you, do you take him somewhere where the two of you can be alone? And if he starts dragging you off, do you meekly go to whatever this madman has in store for you?

If you think about the Stride attack, the one witnessed by schwartz, then this is a man walking up to someone arguing and attacking. It doesn't involve much sophistication.

I think the difference between what happened to Stride and what a psychotic person might do is that while Stride certainly seemed offended, Schwartz did not describe her as frightened. Outraged, but not scared. A psychotic person starts yelling at you and assaulting you, that is terrifying. That there were people around would have certainly given her the courage to get away, get someone to call the cops, scream bloody murder... but while she was clearly assaulted, I think she knew those guys. I think she knew they were going to give her a hard time, but they weren't going to really hurt her. Neighborhood bullies, not a crazy man on a mission.

On November 16, 1957, Plainfield hardware store owner Bernice Worden disappeared, and police had reason to suspect Gein. Worden's son told investigators that Gein had been in the store the evening before the disappearance, saying he would return the next morning for a gallon of anti-freeze. A sales slip for a gallon of anti-freeze was the last receipt written by Worden on the morning she disappeared.[16] Upon searching Gein's property, investigators discovered Worden's decapitated body in a shed, hung upside down by ropes at her wrists, with a crossbar at her ankles. The torso was "dressed out like a deer".[17] She had been shot with a .22-caliber rifle, and the mutilations were made after her death.

Exactly. Gein didn't plan this, he made no attempt to cover his tracks. No one knows what was wrong with Gein, other than his mother apparently had a pamphlet telling her exactly how to raise a serial killer. Poor guy never had a chance. He says he'll back for antifreeze, he comes back for antifreeze. He buys it, grabs her, and loads her up to take back to the farm. He doesn't break in and kill her, something that anyone might do. He doesn't take receipt book. He did not hide the fact that he planned on coming back. He thought it, he did it. I mean it took the cops less than 24 hours to figure out it was him get a warrant, execute it and arrest him. This was clearly not planned. That's why I say this is what a psychotic crime looks like. It's about a lack of planning and subterfuge, not sophistication.

Well these are the questions we need to get answered. There must be a connection somewhere. But I don't think they did stop paying. Even when Aaron entered Colney Hatch there is some evidence they continued to contribute. The Family erected an elaborate grave stone with the name Kosminski. They clearly cared.

But if I recall correctly he's not in the same graveyard as everyone else. Which when living within a few hours of each other is a big deal. Jews don't put up gravestones until a year after death. I think Kosminski's dates farther out than that. I can't swear to it, but I would bet that a great nephew or something put up that stone. Not a family member he was close to.

You asked what Reason they might have used to have him committed. I'm simply pointing out there are many. Almost anything. But Masturbation would have been an easy one.

Well hell, private asylums took inconvenient wives if the husband had enough money, so it really could be anything. He could have just embarassed them b living on the street when it comes down to it. But given that he was known to symptomatic in 1885, I would think the reason would be a legitimate one. But a glorified spa would be the wrong fit. Which I imagine if his family did try one, they found out rather quickly. But if it was a sort of sanitarium, and they took him while in full delusion, I would bet there would be police reports from when he wandered off the property.

Well MacNaughten only knew about what was said up to MArch 1889. Trust me, it makes sense..

They do indeed miss remember details. What they don't do is forget the broad 'thrust' of what happened. And Anderson would not lie for personal kudos.

I don't think anyone is lying. I think it's possible that some of these authors in their haste to get their book out did not look up key facts in their notes. I mean, the information was there to be had, so if they didn't have it right it's because they didn't check.

But there were a ton of names being tossed around, and it's not out of the question that these guys mixed up details of different people. I mean, mostly we are talking about memories from 20 years after the fact.

McNaughton is a little different. He is writing in 1894. Five years after joining the investigation. And some things line up. He says that Kosminski went into an asylum in march of 1889. Cox says that after the murder of Kelly, they followed him around for a few months until he was put in an asylum in Surrey. Which would make March of 1889 make sense. On that basis, it would make sense to look for him in an asylum in Surrey. You may even find him. The problem is combining this with the rest. We know that Kosminski entered an asylum in 1891. The whole Seaside Home thing comes into play here. According to that, Kosminski is brought from the workhouse to Seaside Home where he is identified in mid July of 1890. (identified as what, I don't know). He is then followed for six months until he checks himself in to Colney Hatch in February of 1891. Same story, different dates. Now if McNaughton's dates were true, why did it take so long between finding a suspect and getting him in a line up? Why didn't the identification happen in early 1889? Add to that, we know that Kosminski went into Colney Hatch in Feb. 1891. Swanson's story matches what we know to be true. McNaughton's story requires that not only must Kosminski be admitted to a private asylum perhaps more than once, it also requires us to believe that they couldn't put an ID together for two years, and that Kosminski was watched under the same circumstances to the same conclusion two separate times.

I presume you want MacNaugten here, and I don't think Begg would agree he''s a third hand source. I've always considered MacNaughten very important. A primary source, in that he had the info in front of him and wrote /prepared a report. But he wasn't on the ground, neither was Anderson, but they are Primary.

In this case, the primary source is the suspect, Kosminski. The second hand source is the person who interviews him or follows him. McNaughton is thrid hand. Kosminski tells Dave the coffee guy, Dave tells McNaughton. 1, 2, 3.

ITs going to be like looking for a needle in a Hay stack but I have some help, and lets see why happens. MAny thanks for the support

Yours Jeff

Good luck on it.

[Roy Corduroy]

City Detective Henry Cox said the man he watched had been in a private asylum in Surrey from time to time.

That man probably paid his own way to private asylum from his profits, the result of his work. After all, he had his shop, where he was seen busy as usual, seeing customers.

Roy

[Chris]

Based on Scott Nelson's account of this Abrahams family, there's a more direct link with Butchers' Row, albeit a few years after the murders, because Henry's and Isaac's nephew, Samuel Gluckstein Abrahams (d. 1896), was a carcase butcher at number 58 from 1892.

But why do you think Isaac Abrahams was "Part of the Kalish community"?

I should say that someone else posted a different account of the family on jtrforums, according to which Samuel Gluckstein Abrahams would have been a great nephew of Henry Gluckstein, and perhaps also of Isaac Abrahams (though the chronology looks difficult to me, so Isaac may not have been closely related to the Abraham Abrahams who married Julia Gluckstein).

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=34769&postcount=27

According to that account, Isaac's parents married in 1831 [at the Great Synagogue in London].

[Chris]

Amoungst those local business men from 'Butchers Row' was 'I' Abrahams. Part of the Kalish community.

"so tradesmen in attendance included several individuals who worked in the immediate vicinity of the Three Nuns Hotel.6 Isaac Davis presided over the ceremony. His brother-in-law was Henry Nathan, a butcher who had a shop at no. 46 Aldgate-High Street, across the street in Butchers’ Row. Two other butchers were in attendance that night, J(James) Hawkins and F(Frederick) Louisson, both of whom also had shops in Butchers’ Row, at nos. 55 and 57, respectively. Also present were: J(Joseph) Levy, a tailor who ran a shop at no. 79 Aldgate-High Street, down the street at the corner of the Minories; Levy’s father-in-law, H(Henry) Gluckstein, who had a tobacco shop at no. 13 in the hotel with a man named Salmon; I(Isaac) Abrahams, Henry’s brother-in-law, a cigar maker residing at 212 Whitechapel Road; and Frederick W. Ayers, the landlord of the hotel."

IS this the missing link between Kosminski and the man watched by Cox and Sagar?

Based on Scott Nelson's account of this Abrahams family, there's a more direct link with Butchers' Row, albeit a few years after the murders, because Henry's and Isaac's nephew, Samuel Gluckstein Abrahams (d. 1896), was a carcase butcher at number 58 from 1892.

But why do you think Isaac Abrahams was "Part of the Kalish community"?