Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Batman]

Anderson Defintively ascertained Fact in my opinion was formed at a later time when a member of Kosminski's own family approached him and asked for help protecting the family from reprisals..

This, I believe, Anderson did in secret with Swanson and formed his opinion about the suspect being protected by his family.

Knowone but Swanson and Anderson and perhaps some other officers sworn to secrecy knew. I don't believe Abberline knew, hence his preference for Chapman which would seem reasonable with that senario

Yours Jeff

I thought about this for awhile and I believe this actually falls under the category of Conspiracy Theory.

While there are conspiracy theories of a much higher complexity (Stephen Knight's Final Solution) this is one of the lower complexity ones but I think there can be no mistake that we have two of the Whitechapel murder investigators colluding to withhold the identity of JtR from Abberline. Why? Why would they keep this from him?

Also this assumes Abberline didn't know about Kozminski or Swanson's interest in IDing him through the witness. Yet if Abberline is left in the dark why is it that Abberline referred to stories about the Ripper being locked up or having committed suicide as doubful? Is he not talking about Druitt, Kozminski and Ostrog here?

[Chris]

Yeah thats essentially it at present. (There is a little more which I'm happy to discuss in Private) But we're currently looking at the Kalish community in general and various business operated in the area, particularly potential connections to Black Lion Yard.

Sorry, but I think you'd do better just to jettison the Kozminski/Kaminsky/Cohen confusion stuff.

[Jeff Leahy]

Essentially, they were two mentally ill Jews of about the same age who were both patients at Colney Hatch - and thus were treated by the same doctor - and they may or may not have had the same given name. Cohen was described as a tailor, not a hairdresser, wasn't he?

But there's nothing to suggest the police or anyone else confused the two of them.

Yeah thats essentially it at present. (There is a little more which I'm happy to discuss in Private) But we're currently looking at the Kalish community in general and various business operated in the area, particularly potential connections to Black Lion Yard.

I also noted with amusement that my partner (who knows nothing about ripperology and has been researching Holloway) keeps quoting you. So it must be something you have also researched in the past. Apparently she knows the asylum in West Malling, its sort of where we live. And the person she's researching is a Jacob Rees-Philips (pure coincidence but fun)

But yes the relationship between Cohen and Kosminski seems more coincidental at present. If only we knew where David Cohen came from?

Many thanks

yours Jeff

[Chris]

The trouble is, Swanson capitalises the seaside home. This wasn't just any old seaside home, this was the Seaside Home, i.e. the Hove establishment.

That doesn't necessarily follow, though. Here's an example of another institution founded in 1895 being referred to as the Seaside Home (capitalised in contemporary documents), and for good measure there's also a reference to a Seaside House founded in 1885 (capitalised at least by modern authors):

http://www.radcliffehealth.com/sites/radcliffehealth.com/files/books/samplechapter/0827/01-08-737b0c80rdz.pdf

[Chris]

Well we don't know much about David Cohen. But what we do know, suggests some remarkable similarities between both Cohen and Kosminski. Age, religion, names, professions, and mental illness. They both also seem to have had the same Dr Seward at Colney Hatch, a coincidence may be, but surely worth further consideration?

Essentially, they were two mentally ill Jews of about the same age who were both patients at Colney Hatch - and thus were treated by the same doctor - and they may or may not have had the same given name. Cohen was described as a tailor, not a hairdresser, wasn't he?

But there's nothing to suggest the police or anyone else confused the two of them.

[Robert]

The trouble is, Swanson capitalises the seaside home. This wasn't just any old seaside home, this was the Seaside Home, i.e. the Hove establishment.

[Jeff Leahy]

For what it's worth, I've thought for some time that the likeliest explanation of the various claims is that Aaron Kozminski was sent to a seaside convalescent home, as a patient, to facilitate the identification attempt. If that happened in March 1889 it would explain Macnaghten's reference to that date. And Macnaghten and Anderson could have confused the trip to the seaside home with the later committal to Colney Hatch (hence Anderson's idea that the identification took place when the suspect was "caged in an asylum").

Strangley in a recent communication with Martin Fido he expressed the same thing, stating that a 'Convalescent' Home had always been his preferred speculation. And its interesting to Note that the Holloway Asylum had 'Convelescent Homes in Poole and Brighton.

It's only speculation, but it seems the most parsimonious explanation. What I don't understand is why people keep trying to drag Cohen into the discussion. There's really nothing whatsoever to suggest that Cohen was confused with Kozminski.

Well we don't know much about David Cohen. But what we do know, suggests some remarkable similarities between both Cohen and Kosminski. Age, religion, names, professions, and mental illness. They both also seem to have had the same Dr Seward at Colney Hatch, a coincidence may be, but surely worth further consideration?

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

For what it's worth, I've thought for some time that the likeliest explanation of the various claims is that Aaron Kozminski was sent to a seaside convalescent home, as a patient, to facilitate the identification attempt. If that happened in March 1889 it would explain Macnaghten's reference to that date. And Macnaghten and Anderson could have confused the trip to the seaside home with the later committal to Colney Hatch (hence Anderson's idea that the identification took place when the suspect was "caged in an asylum").

It's only speculation, but it seems the most parsimonious explanation. What I don't understand is why people keep trying to drag Cohen into the discussion. There's really nothing whatsoever to suggest that Cohen was confused with Kozminski.

[Jeff Leahy]

Here is something I never understood.

Swanson has a witness who can identify JtR.

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 ....

So we have the date for being around January 1891 as that's a short time before Kozminski entered Colney Hatch.

Yet Swanson must have had this witness since the latter part of 1888. The murders stopped after MJK.

Yet for the best part of 2 years Swanson never once brought his witness out to catch a look at this suspect?

How can that be possible?

Hi Batman…Yes precisely you hit the nail on the head. Its the exact same problem that many have been scratching there heads over for years…the answer to which suddenly hit me two days after Christmas.

There are TWO completely separate events. One described by Cox and Sagar up to March 1889. The other by Swanson Dec-Feb1891.

Where Cohen had entered a public Asylum and Kosminski a Private Asylum in Surrey 1889. The Asylum in Surrey was run according to Alienist principles…Thus Kosminski's family were free to have him come and go…Jewish holidays included…

However this type of asylum was only ever meant for short stay patients who they believed they could cure. It soon became obvious Kosminski was getting worse on his release. Eating from gutters refusing food…an the family were scared…

So they turn to the local Rabi (Charitiable money had been available from there MP Montagu) There was a Political 'Hot Potatoe' what if there were riots in the East End? Montagu had offered a reward for the capture of JtR.

A second event then happened in secret. With the family claiming Kosminski was dangerous the file was dragged out of mouth balls and attempt was made to get a positive ID, which failed.

The discussion was to place the suspect out of harms way and hush the whole event up. Shortly afterwards with his hands tied behind his back… etc

By this time we have a very ill Kosminski entering colney hatch. He's no longer dangerous, which fits what we now know about schizophrenia.

This new theory (And I hope to expand on this further with a brilliant young German researcher who has gone back to the beginning) pretty much explains Andersons Definitely ascertained Fact. Buy also joins together research and theories previously argued by Fido and Begg.

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Here is something I never understood.

Swanson has a witness who can identify JtR.

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 ....

So we have the date for being around January 1891 as that's a short time before Kozminski entered Colney Hatch.

Yet Swanson must have had this witness since the latter part of 1888. The murders stopped after MJK.

Yet for the best part of 2 years Swanson never once brought his witness out to catch a look at this suspect?

How can that be possible?

In today's world of criminal investigations there are three categories

1. A person of interest
2. A Likely suspect
3. A Prime suspect

In 1888 it seems they only had one which was the term "suspect" so we have know way of knowing which category their term of suspect falls into.

This is where I believe the Victorian term of suspect has misled researchers and why we now have such a long list of "suspects"

If there had have been any hard evidence to support the status of any of the suspects I think it would have been officially recorded and would know about it today.

I know the old chestnut will be thrown up that we don't know what the police knew or what was in the missing files etc etc. But the reality is that had there been any hard evidence to support these "suspects" it would have been well documented not only in police files but other official police correspondence in the form of letters and memos going back and forth between many of the police officials they would not all have got lost or destroyed, because we do see evidence of correspondence between those persons about the murders.

I am for a moment going to play devils advocate on the subject of the old chestnut I mentioned above, even if there were police files and correspondence on the case relative to suspects, and if they had been destroyed or lost. There is another way or perhaps proving if the police did in fact have any prime suspects in 1888 and that is via another independent source.

That source is Lord Salisbury who was prime minister at the time. All of his letters and papers and correspondences are archived at Hatfield House the home of the Salisbury family and the current Lord Salisbury. I have in the past been in close contact with the chief archivist who has searched the records for the time period and can find virtually nothing on the Ripper murders other than what I have already documented previously. Now no one can argue that Lord Salisbury`s letters and correspondence got lost or destroyed, or can they ?

So draw you own conclusions as to whether there ever was a prime suspect or not, and the likes of Kosminski and Druitt, and Tumblety were, and still are simply nothing more the perhaps persons of interest by reasons of "opinions" given by ageing police officers many years after the murders ceased.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Here is something I never understood.

Swanson has a witness who can identify JtR.

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 ....

So we have the date for being around January 1891 as that's a short time before Kozminski entered Colney Hatch.

Yet Swanson must have had this witness since the latter part of 1888. The murders stopped after MJK.

Yet for the best part of 2 years Swanson never once brought his witness out to catch a look at this suspect?

How can that be possible?

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

Yes, exactly.

To Scott Nelson

Possibly but he keeps saying "fifteen years ago", which backdates the events to 1891. I think that like a lot of people (e.g. Anderson and Swanson) Cox was conflating Kelly and Coles, e.g. the 'final' murder. In the 1891 piece that names Farquharson the unidentified detective talks about a day-and-night operation to watch a suspect. and it post-dates Coles.

You might be right, you usually are, but it is not cut-and-dried to me.

To Rob House

I thought you might not be able to resist.

But you have it backwards.

It is you who constantly writes that Anderson (and Swanson) is not narrowly referring or alluding to the 'autumn of terror' and that does not make it true.

It is why earlier writers were looking for the Polish suspect in the years 1888 and 1889, because it is what Macnaghten had written, and what Anderson had too (or said to other people). It is why Fido did not look into 1891 except by accident. It is one of the reasons Fido rejected Aaron Kosminski--it's too late. It has to be a Polish madman sectioned earlier. This simple fact is now being suppressed, being made to disappear from the historical memory.

In the wake of the debunking of Kosminski by the Edwards over-reach--hey, were you tempted by the Siren song of a DNA solution?--now there is another effort, after all these decades, to go back to square one and look for Aaron Kosminski in early 1889.

Good luck with that.

What is unjust is that 'Kosminski' is a legit police suspect and the Cohen theory is also valid; as an attempt to rescue Anderson from his own egocentric confusions.

To Jeff

South Africa? Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about, being so ignorant as I am.

I am referring to this from the 'Gloucester Citizen' Jan 9th, 1905:

‘Inspector Robert Sagar, who is just retiring from the City Police, is entirely at variance with Mr. George R. Sims as to the identity of “Jack the Ripper”. I see he has just stated, in an interview, that the City Police fully believed this man to be a butcher who worked in Aldgate, and was partly insane. It is believed that he made his way to Australia and there died.’

To anybody

What is missed, I think, is that this talk of Macnaghten not having knowledge of an identification is very unlikely. He was Assistant Commissioner from 19013 to 1913 and had access to everything. In fact, he denounces such a notion, both himself and via a proxy. Other police who would know also do not.

The Evans-Rumbelow 'Sailor's Home' theory is much more convincing, partly because it relies on what we can see in front of us, not what we cannot.

The other aspect, unappreciated, is that Anderson and Macnaghten loathed each other. That cuts several different ways, including [potentially] for 'Kosminski' as the best suspect.

Finally, consider that Macnaghten backdated an event, Kosminski's incarceration, that had happened whilst he was on the Force (if it was the second time he would have said so).

Why did he do this?

The other last thing I would write is why is it so necessary for some people to deny that other equally valid interpretations are possible? We see this with Tumblety too, who, absurdly, is not even permitted to be a police suspect at all. It comes across as humorless and defensive; that to even dare to dissent is to be beyond the pale. Why? Because the opinion is so brittle--and easily broken?

[Roy Corduroy]

Cox didn't say sweating. He said posing as factory inspectors was their cover in the neighborhood. He didn't say the man they watched had a factory of any type, much less a sweating establishment. And there were all sorts of factories in the East End then.

I tend to agree with the opinion expressed by Evans & Rumbelow in Scotland Yard Investigates that Aarron Kosminski was not the man being watched by City detective Harry Cox, for the simple reason that Jacob Cohen said that Aaron had not attempted any work in years.

Cox's Mr X has his shop, where he saw customers, and was observed busy as usual. Busy. As usual. That's not Aaron. Not a mere two years before Mr. Cohen said that.

But good luck to you and to those helping you Jeff in your new research angle of the private asylums. Who knows what you might find.

Roy

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to add to that…that I recently gave this some re-thought..

If Cox was indeed using the Sweating Inspector investigation as a cover, then it rather points to an earlier date.

The Sweating committee made its final report in April 1889 and published in August 1889

So I personally now believe Cox and Sagar are describing events after the Kelly murder until March 1889.

Yours Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

Cox's suspect

He is writing about events in 1891, not 1889, and he also asserts that there was no proof against this man, there was nothing police could actually do--not even arrest him.

Actually Jonathan, we can fairly accurately date Cox's story from his description of starting watch on his man about a month after the last murder (Kelly), then for about three months -- to roughly February, or perhaps March 1889.