Aaron or not

[Stewart P Evans]

Know Your Subject

I just dont beleive that Cohens story alone is enough to make the police beleive he was Jack the Ripper...as Stewart pionts out they were on heightened awareness, they must have heard accussations of this kind at every turn of every day....
Besides we know that the City Police were watching, in a Jewish area, long before the coles murder..who were they watching and why?

You really don't know your subject do you 'Pirate Jack'? And I see that you are still taking advice...

Of course Cohen's suspicions are enough to set the police thinking. They acted over a whole lot less with other suspects brought to their attention. And here they had a Polish Jew living in Whitechapel who had threatened a woman with a knife. Not only that he had just been declared insane. The word 'patsy' immediately springs to mind!

As regards the City suspect, if you took the trouble to read the lengthy Inspector Harry Cox (of the City Police) piece on the Jewish suspect they were watching you will see that it doesn't fit the description of Kosminski and could well be a different person.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sadler was not Jewish .

Yes corrtect... Sadler was NOT Jewish...

Are you really asking us to suspend beleif that Anderson could have made such a monumental error? There is simply no historical evidence for this...Anderson said what he said, he didnt say 'A gentile suspect was NOT identified'...now thats a FACT.

Sadler was NOT jewish, was NOT identifeid...In fact he was almost certainly fitted up for Coles murder...(according to news paper reports)

I have no particular love of Anderson given his position on Parnell..But even my nan would have given Anderson more credit than that

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
A little confused here Jeff, are you saying that Swanson made more than one set of notes regarding Kosminski's identification at the seaside home? That is another set other than the one's he wrote in the margin of Andersons book. As you've probably noted I'm no expert in this field, consequently I was under the impression that the Swanson marginalia was a one off.

Hi Observer, Sorry If I was not clear...The piont I was trying to make is an important one because it might appear odd that Swanson enicial's his marginalia DSS. However if there are other examples of Swanson 'making and encialling marginalia in his libruary then perhaps it is not odd but what one would expect?

Swanson was a Policeman. Perhaps making enicials was common practice?

The main point here is that as far as I know the marginalia has an impeckable 'PROVENANCE' and is considered the genuine article.

Noone has come forward claiming other wise to my knowledge.

It's your right to disagree with me my friend, I'm just sorry I can't offer an alternative as to how Kosminski came to the police's attention other than your suggestion that his family shopped him

I just dont beleive that Cohens story alone is enough to make the police beleive he was Jack the Ripper...as Stewart pionts out they were on heightened awareness, they must have heard accussations of this kind at every turn of every day....

Besides we know that the City Police were watching, in a Jewish area, long before the coles murder..who were they watching and why?

[Observer]

Hi Stewart

No, Swanson did not make more than one set of notes regarding Kosminski's alleged identification at the Seaside Home. The few other marginal notes he made were about other matters in the book.

I thought this was the case, I must of misinterpreted what Jeff was implying regarding the Swanson marginalia.

As I keep saying, when we don't know the answers we are left with speculation and we simply do not know how and when the name Kosminski first came to the attention of the police. The medical certificate made out by Dr. Houchin on 6 February 1891, on Aaron Kosminski being detained as insane, gives the information that Jacob Cohen of 51 Carter Lane, St. Paul's had informed Houchin of Kosminski's activities, including the fact that 'he took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister.'

So it may not be too much a stretch of the imagination to think that it might have been Cohen who brought Kosminski to the attention of the police making the suggestion that, as he had taken up a knife, maybe he was responsible for even more... During the time of the panic the mere suggestion or sight of a knife was enough to bring on shouts of "Jack the Rippper!"

The Coles murder, just a week later, and the initial Ripper fears, may well have been enough to make Cohen think of Kosminski being the Ripper resulting in him communicating his thoughts to the police. It would neatly and plausibly explain a lot.

Reading what you post regarding Cohen, you're right in assuming that
he could be the man who informed the police regarding Kosminski's behaviour.


all the best

Observer

[Stewart P Evans]

Coincidence

As I have pointed out the coincidence of the detention of Aaron Kosminski and the Coles murder is a likely explanation for the genesis of the identification story.

4 February 1891 - Aaron Kosminski admitted to the Mile End Old Town Worhouse.

6 February 1891 - Kosminski examined by Dr. Houchin and declared to be insane.

7 February 1891 - Kosminski discharged from the workhouse to Colney Hatch Asylum.

13 February 1891 - Murder of Francis Coles with initial fears of renewed Ripper attacks.

14 February 1891 - Sadler arrested on suspicion of Coles murder and investigated as to the possibility of him being Jack the Ripper.

14 - 18 February 1891 - Sadler submitted to an attempted identification (a Seamens' Home involved in this) by a Jewish witness as the Ripper (identification fails).

The possibility here is that on the publicity over the Coles murder and new Ripper scare Cohen communicated his fears about Kosminski possibly being the Ripper to the police.

Given the above timeline it is very easy to see how these details could all be combined and transmuted into the Anderson story of a failed identification of Kosminski as the Ripper by a Jewish witness just after his incarceration. Sadler was not Jewish but, of course, the witness and Kosminski were, and the identification scenario is complete. No need to puzzle over a 'Seaside Home' identification (and non-existent second witness), with all its complications, that simply did not happen.

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculation

A little confused here Jeff, are you saying that Swanson made more than one set of notes regarding Kosminski's identification at the seaside home? That is another set other than the one's he wrote in the margin of Andersons book. As you've probably noted I'm no expert in this field, consequently I was under the impression that the Swanson marginalia was a one off.
It's your right to disagree with me my friend, I'm just sorry I can't offer an alternative as to how Kosminski came to the police's attention other than your suggestion that his family shopped him
Observer

No, Swanson did not make more than one set of notes regarding Kosminski's alleged identification at the Seaside Home. The few other marginal notes he made were about other matters in the book.

As I keep saying, when we don't know the answers we are left with speculation and we simply do not know how and when the name Kosminski first came to the attention of the police. The medical certificate made out by Dr. Houchin on 6 February 1891, on Aaron Kosminski being detained as insane, gives the information that Jacob Cohen of 51 Carter Lane, St. Paul's had informed Houchin of Kosminski's activities, including the fact that 'he took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister.'

So it may not be too much a stretch of the imagination to think that it might have been Cohen who brought Kosminski to the attention of the police making the suggestion that, as he had taken up a knife, maybe he was responsible for even more... During the time of the panic the mere suggestion or sight of a knife was enough to bring on shouts of "Jack the Rippper!"

The Coles murder, just a week later, and the initial Ripper fears, may well have been enough to make Cohen think of Kosminski being the Ripper resulting in him communicating his thoughts to the police. It would neatly and plausibly explain a lot.

[Observer]

This is a quote from the man himself Anderson

"I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."

Now I know that it is sometimes difficult to interpret the written word but what is Anderson saying here?

It seems as if The witness did not initially recognise the suspect as being a Jew, neither when he first saw him on the night of the murrder, nor when he identified him when the suspect was under police gaurd.

This imply's that the suspect did not show any of the traits, or features familiar with the Jewish race. It's all the more confusing when Anderson states that the witness was a Jew himself, surely a Jew would recognise a Jew?

In short, Andersons statement, namely


"but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."

seems to imply that the witness had to be told that the suspecy was a Jew

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Jeff

I dont beleive that there is any justification for this comment. As far as I have been made aware Swanson made marginalia and this marginalia is not the sole example?

A little confused here Jeff, are you saying that Swanson made more than one set of notes regarding Kosminski's identification at the seaside home? That is another set other than the one's he wrote in the margin of Andersons book. As you've probably noted I'm no expert in this field, consequently I was under the impression that the Swanson marginalia was a one off.

Well I disagree on this. However its not my place to discuss this theory on a public message board any longer..especially as I have Dan Norders 'silly' and 'childish' comments to deal with...

You will just have to wait for 'the men with 'FEW' peers' like everybody else..

Good Night Observer, sweet dreams

It's your right to disagree with me my friend, I'm just sorry I can't offer an alternative as to how Kosminski came to the police's attention other than your suggestion that his family shopped him

all the best

Observer

[Chris]

Lofters memory of the contents differs from that of the extended versions.

'a polish jew named leather apron.'

Loftus therefore saw a version differant to the Abberconway version.

Or else his memory was at fault.

[jason_c]

Well Andy has dug up information that suggests Farquharson"s "surgeons son" to be the "origins" of suspicion falling on Druitt, but it was Macnaghten in 1894 who put Druitt as the the FIRST of four men who could have been the Ripper-viz
1]Druitt
2]Kosminski
3]Ostrog
4] Cutbush
He suggested that the first three were "more likely" to have been The Ripper than Thomas Cutbush.

This memorandum also demonstrates very clearly and unambiguously that it was certainly NOT a "definitely ascertained FACT " -as per Anderson"s statement in his Autobiography of 1910,-that Kosminski was the Ripper.An "illegal" and extraordinary "identification" had therefore NOT taken place in a seaside home or anywhere else which "PROVED" that Kosminski was identified as The Ripper or provided the "definitely ascertained fact"-as per the Anderson/Swanson suggestions,not at anyrate around 1890/91 or PRIOR to the Macnaghten 1894 memorandum.It stands to reason that there was no way such knowledge could have been available to Anderson BEFORE 1894 or MACNAGHTEN, as Assistant Chief Constable, would NOT have put Druitt before Kosminski in his1894 memorandum .

Are you stating that no identification took place, or that an identification took place but proved nothing?

I think it was Sims that said the Polish Jew suspect was similar in height and build to the Ripper. It suggests the witness could not ID Kosminski beyoned reasonable doubt. Squaring this with Anderson's claim that the witness would not testify against a fellow Jew opens up a whole new can of worms.

[Jeff Leahy]

In fact, in the Aberconway draft he goes so far as to say he is inclined to exonerate Kozminski and Ostrog, though in the official version he expresses no preference between the three.

Lofters memory of the contents differs from that of the extended versions.

'a polish jew named leather apron.'

Loftus therefore saw a version differant to the Abberconway version.

P 320 Facts: Analysis of the two sets of papers make it abundently clear that Macnaughten was working from memory and not working from written sources such as police reports. On page five of the Abberconway Papers he states that Elizebeth Strides murderer had been disturbed when three jews drove up to an Anarchists club in berners street.

[Chris]

It stands to reason that there was no way such knowledge could have been available to Anderson BEFORE 1894 or MACNAGHTEN, as Assistant Chief Constable, would NOT have put Druitt before Kosminski in his1894 memorandum .

In fact, in the Aberconway draft he goes so far as to say he is inclined to exonerate Kozminski and Ostrog, though in the official version he expresses no preference between the three.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes you have it...think about it?...We now know that farquar (sorry about my spelling) was the source for the Druitt story

Well Andy has dug up information that suggests Farquharson"s "surgeons son" to be the "origins" of suspicion falling on Druitt, but it was Macnaghten in 1894 who put Druitt as the the FIRST of four men who could have been the Ripper-viz
1]Druitt
2]Kosminski
3]Ostrog
4] Cutbush
He suggested that the first three were "more likely" to have been The Ripper than Thomas Cutbush.

This memorandum also demonstrates very clearly and unambiguously that it was certainly NOT a "definitely ascertained FACT " -as per Anderson"s statement in his Autobiography of 1910,-that Kosminski was the Ripper.An "illegal" and extraordinary "identification" had therefore NOT taken place in a seaside home or anywhere else which "PROVED" that Kosminski was identified as The Ripper or provided the "definitely ascertained fact"-as per the Anderson/Swanson suggestions,not at anyrate around 1890/91 or PRIOR to the Macnaghten 1894 memorandum.It stands to reason that there was no way such knowledge could have been available to Anderson BEFORE 1894 or MACNAGHTEN, as Assistant Chief Constable, would NOT have put Druitt before Kosminski in his1894 memorandum .

[Jeff Leahy]

Thinking about it if BOTH the DRUITT and the KOSMINSKI families arrived at Scotland Yard to denounce Monty and Aaron respectively as Jack the Ripper,
then its quite possible that this was when the difficulties arose for Anderson , Macnaghten and Swanson......especially if there were other families queuing up and jostling for space in Scotland Yard to denounce their family members .This may well have been the time when Anderson with his "all Jews look the same" notions began to develop his Polish Jew mix up-----I never thought of that one before........

Yes you have it...think about it?...We now know that farquar (sorry about my spelling) was the source for the Druitt story

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
One piece of information Swanson did not reveal Jeff was how Kosminski became a suspect, a pity this, but to be fair his marginalia in Andersons book was for his eyes only, although I'd guess that if truth be known he knew full well that one day the marginalia would become comon knowledge.

I dont beleive that there is any justification for this comment. As far as I have been made aware Swanson made marginalia and this marginalia is not the sole example?

Personnaly I doubt whether Aarons family would have informed on him, as Anderson pointed out the Jews were a close knit community, adverse to turning over any of their number to British justice, although I know someone is going to provide an instance where Jew shops Jew, mebbe not on second thoughts.

Well I disagree on this. However its not my place to discuss this theory on a public message board any longer..especially as I have Dan Norders 'silly' and 'childish' comments to deal with...

You will just have to wait for 'the men with 'FEW' peers' like everybody else..

Good Night Observer, sweet dreams