Aaron or not

[Stewart P Evans]

Poor Bunch

Sorry CD. I simply have know idea. Perhaps the time frame? I'm not claiming Aaron is JtR. Just that he's the best suspect we have.
yours Jeff

That "he's the best suspect we have" is, surely, subjective opinion and is not the consensus of opinion. For instance Philip Sugden thinks that Chapman/Klosowski is the best of a poor bunch, whilst Martin Fido argues that Cohen is the best option. It is not a fact that Aaron Kosminski is the best suspect, it is your opinion (and Paul Begg's) you are stating here and we must assess your opinion on your knowledge of the case and the facts.

[Jeff Leahy]

I am no expert on mental illness but I would be loathe to contradict the verdict of an asylum officer who was there at the time, saw and assessed Kosminski and was cognisant of all the facts. There is simply insufficient relevant information to reach the conclusion that "His behaviour is consistant [sic] with Schitzophrenic [sic] Serial killers." In fact isn't it a little arrogant to cast doubt on Whitfield's word when so little is known? Isn't it rather odd that Aaron Kosminski was roaming free between December 1888 and February 1891 without committing another murder nor, that we know of, exhibiting any signs of being a danger to others, apart from the one comment via Jacob Cohen that 'He took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister.', which sounds very much like a one-off dispute?

Hi Stewart

i think you miss understand what I'm saying. I'm not disputing Whitfields accessment that Aaron was harmless. In fact I'm saying 'that is what would be expected.' however this does not rule out the possibility that Aaron could have committed the JtR murders.

While like you, I do not claim to be an expert on mental illness, my brother does work in social services and in particular specializes in Schitzophrenia. So naturally I have gone over these records in some detail with him. Schitzophrenia is much better understood today than it was in 1880's/ 90's. However Aaron today could have been treated with drugs etc. and drawing exact comparisons is not possible. Aaron's age and described condition is consistent with the illness.

So as I understand the situation Aaron's symptoms and behaviour are consistant with what a modern psychologist would expect, should he have been JtR. I'm not contradicting Whitfeilds accessment.

Personally I am interested in finding out more in this direction and the whole area of Modern Forensic Psychology with regard the case.

[Jeff Leahy]

That "he's the best suspect we have" is, surely, subjective opinion and is not the consensus of opinion. For instance Philip Sugden thinks that Chapman/Klosowski is the best of a poor bunch, whilst Martin Fido argues that Cohen is the best option. It is not a fact that Aaron Kosminski is the best suspect, it is your opinion (and Paul Begg's) you are stating here and we must assess your opinion on your knowledge of the case and the facts.

Of course its subjective opinion. I'm not claiming otherwise. Thats my beleif and why I have been consistantly interested in the Kosminski thread and theories.

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Misunderstand?

Hi Stewart
i think you miss understand what I'm saying. I'm not disputing Whitfields accessment that Aaron was harmless. In fact I'm saying 'that is what would be expected.' however this does not rule out the possibility that Aaron could have committed the JtR murders.

I don't think that I do misunderstand what you were saying. Here are your words (emphasis mine) - "I think we should be careful with Whitfield's assumption."

I am sure that Whitfield would be horrified to see his assessment of an asylum patient described as an 'assumption'. Especially as there are no grounds to contradict what he says other than you think that Kosminski is a good Ripper suspect.

And I do not care how much 'modern psychology' you may apply to the meagre facts that we have, it cannot substitute for the first-hand experience of someone assessing him at the time with full first-hand knowledge. It is arrogant and misleading to warn others to be 'careful' of Whitfield's diagnosis and then call it an assumption.

[Stewart P Evans]

Belief

Of course its subjective opinion. I'm not claiming otherwise. Thats my beleif and why I have been consistantly interested in the Kosminski thread and theories.
Jeff

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions and belief. But the way you have been putting them across on this thread may lead someone new to this subject astray. An open mind is essential but you seem rather too subjective to me and may thus be missing the broader picture. And you appear not to have read all the relevant material.

[Jeff Leahy]

I don't think that I do misunderstand what you were saying. Here are your words (emphasis mine) - "I think we should be careful with Whitfield's assumption."

I am sure that Whitfield would be horrified to see his assessment of an asylum patient described as an 'assumption'. Especially as there are no grounds to contradict what he says other than you think that Kosminski is a good Ripper suspect.

And I do not care how much 'modern psychology' you may apply to the meagre facts that we have, it cannot substitute for the first-hand experience of someone assessing him at the time with full first-hand knowledge. It is arrogant and misleading to warn others to be 'careful' of Whitfield's diagnosis and then call it an assumption.

Your getting bogged down with samantics again. I'm not contradicting Whitfeilds accessment that Aaron was harmless at the time he made the accessment, he was almost certainly was correct.

However to draw a conclusion from that accessment that Aaron 'WAS NOT JtR' given the advances and understanding of the illness over the last 100 years..is simply wrong..

So let me spell it out..Aaron May have appeared harmless, schitzophrenics are on the whole, harmless. However Whitfeild could not have been aware in 1891 that his harmless schitzophrenic 'COULD' have been capable of extreme acts of violence given certain conditions.

Today there is simply greater understanding of schitzophrenia than in 1891 fact.

Yours Jeff

RE: And you appear not to have read all the relevant material. How can you possibly make this ASSUMPTION..you cant possibly know what I have or have not read...and what exactly do you mean by relivant?



__________________

[Robert]

Hi Stewart

What's your position on Swanson? It seems to me that if you discount the Jewish suspect/Jewish witness ID story, then there are only three possibilities for Swanson :

1. He was misled by Anderson.
2. He knowingly supported (albeit privately in his marginalia) a revision of history on the part of Anderson.
3. Some or all of the Swanson marginalia isn't genuine.

Robert

[Roy Corduroy]

Between Rock & Hard Place

I digress.

It must also be remembered that although Schwartz was said to have witnessed a man 'pulling' and 'throwing down' a woman [identified as Stride] it was stated at the time that this was 15 minutes before the body was found and it was not clearly proved that the man Schwartz saw was the murderer.

Stewart, I believe that Schwartz saw Jack the Ripper in the first act of bold murder. On Post # 30 of Schwartz Observation thread, Jeff helped show me the way to this and I quote him in full:

"Surely the logical explination is that Schwartz timing was wrong.
This would allow for Mrs Mortimers story to be correct..
She went inside as she said.
Schwartz, witnesses Strides murder (possibly by JtR)
However, he is disturbed by Schwartz, NOT deimshutz, and abandons the body before he has time to mutilate.
Running into the yard..not out..and locking the door behind him and escaping to the rear of berner yard..heading towards Commercial street (under the guidance of 'GOD')
STIDE is simply dead when discovered by Deimshutz, it is simply to dark to tell for sure..
Thus Schwartz is Swansons..WITNESS..it just makes sense..It also makes sense why he would not give testomony against Aaron Kosminski..
Simple but controversial
Many thanks for all your posts..facsinating reading..
Jeff"

To me this makes sense. A plausible real-life situation that reconciles the timing problem. Schwartz simply came by a little later than he said, and Mrs. Mortimer went in a little earlier than she said.

As to the next part, however, of Schwartz being Swanson's witness and that leading to Kosminski, I do not particularly subscribe to the Kosminski theory, regardless of who Swanson's witness was. I lean toward your opinion, Stewart, and that of Phillip Sugden in this regard.

So, Jeff my friend, you helped me, but I cannot help you.

Roy

[Jeff Leahy]

Thats OK Roy

I'm simply on the same quest as everybody else, "who was JtR' I'm only putting my ideas forward as 'possibility', noone knows foresure...

I'm happy to discuss theories with you, stewart or anyone..

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Plain English

Your getting bogged down with samantics again. I'm not contradicting Whitfeilds accessment that Aaron was harmless at the time he made the accessment, he was almost certainly was correct.
However to draw a conclusion from that accessment that Aaron 'WAS NOT JtR' given the advances and understanding of the illness over the last 100 years..is simply wrong..
So let me spell it out..Aaron May have appeared harmless, schitzophrenics are on the whole, harmless. However Whitfeild could not have been aware in 1891 that his harmless schitzophrenic 'COULD' have been capable of extreme acts of violence given certain conditions.
Today there is simply greater understanding of schitzophrenia than in 1891 fact.
Yours Jeff

__________________

It has nothing to do with semantics but everything to do with plain English.

We do not know what aspects of the illness Whitfield was aware of, nor do we know exactly what condition Kosminski suffered from. In view of the lack of detailed information on Kosminski's actual condition and history of his illness anyone who was there at the time must surely be acknowledged to be in a better position to assess it than any modern commentator.

You seem obsessed with the idea that this is all about saying that Aaron Kosminski was not Jack the Ripper when, actually, it is all about drawing common sense conclusions from the little we do know. It is obvious that to conclude that he was Jack the Ripper is a quantum leap. There are always 'could haves' but there we are getting into the realms of speculation again.

[Jeff Leahy]

I
nor do we know exactly what condition Kosminski suffered from. In view of the lack of detailed information on Kosminski's actual condition and history of his illness anyone who was there at the time must surely be acknowledged to be in a better position to assess it than any modern commentator.

I'm sorry Stewart, I must take issue with you hear. I have run through this case in some detail with my brother. He seemed completely at easy with his diagnosis of Schitzophrenia, from the information I provided. Indeed almost everything about Aaron, his age, his symptoms his medical history, pionted to classic schitzophrenic illness.

And there is simply no way that that Whitfeild could have been more aware of the schitzophrenic behaviour paterns in 1891 than a modern trained psych
ietrists, anymore than he could have understood the importance of DNA.

I have not come across any expert on the subject willing to claim Aaron Kosminski was not a schitzophrenic, based on what we know from his records..obviously if you have someone wiling to claim this I would be more than interested in interveiwing them..

Yours Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Swanson

Hi Stewart
What's your position on Swanson? It seems to me that if you discount the Jewish suspect/Jewish witness ID story, then there are only three possibilities for Swanson :
1. He was misled by Anderson.
2. He knowingly supported (albeit privately in his marginalia) a revision of history on the part of Anderson.
3. Some or all of the Swanson marginalia isn't genuine.
Robert

My position on Swanson is well known and detailed in my assessment in Scotland Yard Investigates. With no positive data to prove any of the above it leaves us with personal interpretation and speculation.

Another point that has always missed mention in the past is the fact that Anderson was not an investigating police officer, he was a high ranking Scotland Yard official and was to all intents and purposes 'desk bound.' As we know, all the operational information was fed along the upwards chain via Swanson, therefore in a practical sense Anderson would have had no physical involvement in any identification process but would have relied upon Swanson for his information. That being the case it is possible that the whole Polish Jew/identification story came from Swanson in the first place and that Anderson, in his book, was relating information that had originated from Swanson. On reading the book Swanson could have (there's the obligatory 'could have') added to and corrected what Anderson had written in the book from his own personal knowledge.

As to whether any part of the marginalia/endpaper annotations is not genuine we will probably never know. It has never been properly assessed but had been accepted without question since 'Ripperologists' examined it at the time of the centenary. Thus I was very surprised that when I examined it personally at Jim Swanson's home some 12 years later I was immediately struck with the fact that the writing on the rear free endpaper commencing "continuing from page 138..." was in a different pencil and in slightly variant handwriting. This, of course, may be entirely innocent as it is possible Swanson may have used two pencils and had more room to write on the endpaper. It would be unfair to claim that it was 'wrong' as this cannot be proven.

When the book was handed over to New Scotland Yard recently my deductions were proved correct when their document examiner agreed with my conclusions and even stated, as I recall, that the latter annotations were written at a later time when the writer was older. So nothing conclusive and it would be wrong to state that anything is proven. But it does leave a certain 'unease' and I have never been happy with the convenient 'Kosminski was the suspect' at the end of the notes and the fact that the apparent errors are in this part also. It also seems a bit odd that anyone making notes in his own book should sign those notes with his initials, i.e. 'DSS'.

[Jeff Leahy]

Can I quickly say that I agree with Stewart that Aaron Kosminski being Swanson's suspect makes far more sense, a position I totally agree with..

However Anderson would have been aware of all the theories..and clearly went with Swanson..

Also, as I understand, and from memory, there are other examples of Swanson marginalia, other than this poticular one, which gives some creadance to this marginalia as genuine..

I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong but this is how I understand the situation, am I correct?

Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

And there is simply no way that that Whitfeild could have been more aware of the schitzophrenic behaviour paterns in 1891 than a modern trained psychietrists

In the sense that schizophrenia wouldn't be named, or even classified as such, until long after 1891, that's perfectly true. However, to diminish Whitfield's opinion on this basis would be as invalid as it would be unfair - the term just didn't exist in his vocabulary.

Now, that's not to say Whitfield couldn't have looked at a case and ruled it out as (e.g.) "Manchurian Moon-madness", based on his previous experience and the terminology available to him at the time.

[Natalie Severn]

In the sense that schizophrenia wouldn't be named, or even classified as such, until long after 1891, that's perfectly true. However, to diminish Whitfield's opinion on this basis would be as invalid as it would be unfair - the term just didn't exist in his vocabulary.

Now, that's not to say Whitfield couldn't have looked at a case and ruled it out as (e.g.) "Manchurian Moon-madness", based on his previous experience and the terminology available to him at the time.

I happen to know something about the history of Colney Hatch and its co- asylum St Bernards.Both were far in front as regards the treatment of mental illness from the 1850"s.Mostly this was due to the pioneering work of Joseph Connolly.In point of fact knowledge of what schizophrenia is has NOT progressed all that much.There is still debate as to how much is due to nature and how much to nurture and it is still a puzzling illness.However the chemical changes that happen in the brain during psychosis can now be treated with reasonable success,whereas in 1888 straight jackets and padded cells were the norm.Strangely we hear nothing of restraint mentioned with regards to Kosminski and as Stewart points out he was considered "harmless" upon admission----hardly an adjective most sane people would
expect to be applied to Jack the Ripper.....and dont forget in 1888 there were no drugs we know of to arrest the illness at any stage,only restraint ,and occupational therapy----both methods still in use today, but now alongside chemical therapy as well.