Aaron or not

[rjpalmer]

Norder, no matter how hard I try, I can't help you. You're stuck in the shallow end of the pool, but until you grow above the 4' 2" piece of tape on the wall, the lifeguard aint going let you into the deep water. Sorry, mate; but in the meantime have fun with those water wings.

[robhouse]

Carrotty Nell,

Here is my current thinking on this. IF Aaron comes to the attention of the police after the bloody laundry incident, the police would have questioned him, questioned his relatives. This would have been in the beginning of october, say around October 7. Statements printed in newspaper reports say that "The very place where he lodges is asserted to be within official cognizance." and "The accused is himself aware, it is believed, of the suspicions entertained against him. " Also it is possible that a woman, possibly a relative like his sister, or a sister in law, informed the police about him:

"If the man be the real culprit, he lived some time ago with a woman, by whom he has been accused. Her statements are, it is stated, now being inquired into. In the meantime the suspected assassin is "shadowed."

To me this brings the Earl of Crawford letter into the discussion, as I mentioned.

Then, we have this from the Echo October 20:

"The police complain that their work is increased, and morbid excitement created, by the statements made as to alleged arrests and an important character. "

"There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is, indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of doors. "

The first statement seems to be saying that the police are complaining that the newspaper reports (such as those I cited) are making it difficult for them to carry out their investigations. In other words, the police would rather the public (and the suspect himself?) were not aware of their observations, and that they were allowed to carry on in secret, as detectives like to do.

Nine days later, we have this interesting article in the Echo, October 29:

"The man who was recently suspected - a resident of Batty-street, near where Lipski lived - has been exonerated. Though certain suspicious circumstances needed explanation, his innocence has been established.

"The theory that the murderer of these unfortunate women is a lunatic is now dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients. Had the criminal been deranged, it is thought as almost certain that fresh crimes would have been perpetuated by him. "If he's insane," observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not."

This is quite interesting. First it says that the man who was recently suspected has been exonerated, and it also says he lived in Batty street. Then it goes on to dispell the theory that the murderer is a lunatic (which presumably Aaron was at this time.)

Now to my mind, if the police is watching a suspect, and an important suspect, then the Echo and other papers get wind of this and start snooping around and printing articles about it... the police are not going to be to happy about this situation as it makes their investigation much more difficult. At this point the Police may have made a statement to the press that the suspect is exonerted... just to get the newspapers off the scent. And would they say, "Oh yes, the suspect lived in Greenfield St"? No they would not. BECAUSE, a) this would alert the suspect himself that "I knew they were watching me", and also b) the police would not want the press and the public to know they were watching a house in Greenfield St. So they say oh yeah, he lived in Batty St. This is also possibly the reason they make the statement about the murderer not being "a lunatic" and that "If he's insane, he's a good deal sharper than those who are not." Police have done similar types of things in other serial killer cases.

Ex- City detective Harry Cox wrote in 1906, "We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated".

My interpretation is as follows:

Aaron comes to the attention of the police in early October, and he is considered a serious suspect. But the police probably were looking at many suspects at this time, and so Kozminski was only one of many "possibles".

He is looked into, watched, etc, but the police have nothing to go on, no real evidence, the suspect rarely goes out of the house etc. The surveillance on him peters out. But Aaron is still a suspect.

I do not think this is the surveillance that Swanson refers to, nor do I think the identification took place at this time.

The same basic logic goes for the woman who informed or "accused" him. This would have been one of many such incidents. As the Echo reports on Oct 10:

VOLUNTEERED INFORMATION
The authorities are greatly harassed by the multitudinous letters pointing to "clues" in this or that locality. Sometimes seventy or eighty written communications and telegrams from all parts of the country arrive at the East-end District Police Office in one day. Certain of the writers have boldly incriminated individuals, and have offered to give full information, with the addendum that they hope to share in the reward

So my basic theory is that the police became aware of Aaron at this time, watched him for a while, but he was only one of many suspects, and that Swanson's identification and the following surveillance DID NOT happen at this time, but happened much later.

Rob H

[c.d.]

I have to plead ignorance here. What was the bloody laundry incident?

c.d.

[robhouse]

Varqm,

Yes, I am beginning to think that the surveillance was known only to a select few higher up police officials and members of the Home Office. Anderson and Swanson would have known, also Macnaghten and Matthews. Other lower offials would have been aware of Kozminski as a suspect, such as Abberline for example.

Note that Swanson, Matthews and Monro never made any public statements about this, or contradicting Anderson. And if the Met really believed they knew the identity of the Ripper, it may have been considered a state secret... both because they could not convict in the absence of legal proof, and also because revelation of the killer's identity would have sparked more anti-semitism.

This is perhaps why Swanson underlined Anderson's sentence "it would ill-become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service"... because Swanson saw the irony in Anderson's stament here... because Swanson was well aware that (as John Malcolm says) "the "traditions of my old department" did in fact suffer because Sir Robert spited his fellow policemen by letting the cat half out of the bag..."

Swanson also noted in the marginalia (as is rarely if ever pointed out) that the author of the Dear Boss letter was "known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID” underlining the word “head” twice." Although this is not at all about Kozminski, it does indicate that certain facts were known to "head officers" only. Again, perhaps another implicit reference to Anderson's letting info out of the bag, when he should not have done so.

Rob H

[robhouse]

"I have to plead ignorance here. What was the bloody laundry incident?"

Hello CD,

Please see my post #233 at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=810&page=24

Rob H

[robhouse]

Carrotty Nell,

Yes, I cannot offer up any explanation for why Aaron committed no other murders after Kelly (unless of course McKenzie).

Some possible explanations are that he was aware the police were onto him, so he stopped. Also, the police may have been conducting surveillance on him, perhaps on more than one occasion.

Also, there is the possibility that he was in an asylum, such as a private asylum, and that the record of this has yet to be found.

I really don't know.

Rob H

[robhouse]

Hello RJ Palmer,

You mention that Monro "piped in" about Anderson's theory:

"Monro and Swanson (the latter two in private)"

What is the source for Monro's statement. Can you post the quote? Thanks.

Rob H

[c.d.]

Thank you, Rob.

As far as surveillance of Kosminski goes, I guess the question is when did it take place? If it took place during the period of time when the murders took place, it must have been pretty piss poor surveillance.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Don't misunderstand--I don't know everything, and I doubt I even know everything there is to know about Kosminski. However, I'm unwilling to conclude he was schizophrenic based on the evidence.

Thats odd Christine, because my brother who is in charge of mental health in South East Essex, and who sections people on a daily basis and is an expert in the area, had know problem reaching the conclusion having been given Aaron's Asylum records.

[Dan Norder]

Norder, no matter how hard I try, I can't help you.

The problem is that there are very few people in this field who have such a low level of understanding of the case, or the world in general for that matter, where your idea of help would actually be an improvement.

[Jeff Leahy]

I have a lot of respect for Rob's stance on AK. I would like to ask Rob though to offer an explanation for why Kosminski stopped after Kelly when he was at liberty for another 2 years. And if the explanation is that he was under strict surveillance from October 88 to February 91, does it not strike you as odd that no news reporter so much as got a whiff of it during all that time?

Can I just add the possibility given to me...

Schizophrenics illness go through waves over periods of time...called Psychotic Episodes.

These episodes last typically 12 to 16 weeks. Almost the exact period of time known as the Autumn of terror...ie Martha Tabram to MJK.

The suffer may have made a period of recovery after this..

The next psychotic episode may have made it impossible for the sufferer to function...ie when the madia resumed he was unable to function as Jack The Ripper...

Jack The Ripper only existed...in a very real sense, for a very short period of time...his first 'Psychotic Episode'

Yours Jeff

[Christine]

Thats odd Christine, because my brother who is in charge of mental health in South East Essex, and who sections people on a daily basis and is an expert in the area, had know problem reaching the conclusion having been given Aaron's Asylum records.

I'm sorry, but even a brilliant person like your brother is unable to make that conclusion based on a few notes, in outdated terminology, about someone he hasn't met. I assume that what your brother means is that schizophrenia is the most likely diagnosis based on the very limited information he has. I suggest you ask your brother for clarification, because if he's as competent as you say he is, he would NEVER make a diagnosis based on the information at hand.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm sorry, but even a brilliant person like your brother is unable to make that conclusion based on a few notes, in outdated terminology, about someone he hasn't met. I assume that what your brother means is that schizophrenia is the most likely diagnosis based on the very limited information he has. I suggest you ask your brother for clarification, because if he's as competent as you say he is, he would NEVER make a diagnosis based on the information at hand.

As you may have noted Christine, I have consistantly posted that even today the illness of Schizophrenia is note fully understood.

So if we are heading into samantic's then PROBABLY suffering schizophrenia given the known FACTS, would PROBABLY be more accurate.

Most of the information I was given was based on his day to day dealing with schizophrenia. My brother of course 'Caviat'ed' his comments with regard to use of modern drugs and historical terminology.

And of course he NEVER got around to a personal examination of the patient.

Yours Jeff

PS. I did make a post earlier in this thread regarding Martin Fido's position on Anderson, Martin is a historian and expert...given the important nature of the claims and information being given by Rob House at present...could the Anderson discussion stay on the Anderson Thread, unless directly relivant to 'Aaron or Not' discussion, many thanks.

[Observer]

Hi c.d.

Thank you, Rob.

As far as surveillance of Kosminski goes, I guess the question is when did it take place? If it took place during the period of time when the murders took place, it must have been pretty piss poor surveillance.

c.d.

Here's some of the sensationalism that I seen to excell at, and which has in all probability earned me a "not to be taken seriously" tag here in this forum.

How about if Mr Wideawake as observed by Sarah Lewis was one of London's finest, and had been tracking Kosminski prior to Kelly's murder.

To be taken with a large pinch of salt obviously

all the best

Observer

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Rob,
I am interested in your friends theory about schizoaffective disorder.I know Mum was very interested in the views of RD Laing,who took LSD in order to experience the schizophrenic "experience" which it is very similar to,apparently.
Mum was a great admirer of RD Laing .He came to the conclusion that there was only one "mental illness" -mental illness!
However it seems to me there are the development of anti psychotic drugs to control much of the worst of the mania, there are now very specific drugs for Schizophrenia----and the ones for manic depressive psychosis [bipolar disorder]are equally precisely targeted and specific,eg phenothiazine drug for mania and anti depressant for depression---or electroconvulsive therapy in some cases.Lithium can now prevent the severity of attacks.
So Rob,can you ask your friend what chemical therapy would be given to control a person"s symptoms if they were exhibiting both types of illness?
Cheers
Norma