When did Aaron Koz come to Police attention?

[Jeff Leahy]

If the ID happened between those dates, why was the operation reduced in early 1890?

(Not sure where I read that but have done recently)

Hi Cenci

I don't know how much of my new theory you have taken on board, but at its most simple it suggests Two completely unrelated events (Apart from the Suspect) taking place to explain the various differences in police accounts.

This means that Aaron came to Police attention far earlier than previously assumed. October 24th 1888 (Batty Street blood staines). And Aaron being hidden by wider family and relatives in a private asylum possibly as early as December 1888. In January Febuary and MArch he is back on the street and followed by Cox (Berner Street) and Sagar (Butchers Row).

MacNaughten says He is placed in an Asylum in March 1889. A Private asylum in Surrey.

As the patient was placed there by his family not the police, they could have him come and go. But at this time with the 'Suspect' caged in an asylum the police survey lance is dropped, no proof can be found, and Kozminski becomes an almost ran suspect, as described by MacNaughten , Ried, Abberline etc.

Two years later we have a separate event, a nearly related member of Kozminski's family have a private meeting with Anderson via the Earl of Crawford.

Anderson ask Swanson is there a suspect called Koz, he says that there is a suspect and is asked to investigate the Berner street murder as thats where the Supects family Lived/Live.

Only Anderson, Swanson and Monroe no about this ID, which goes wrong, so suspect placed in Colney Hatch not Broadmoore.

The reason its done in secret is to stop riots in the Eastend, as Monro says 'Hot Potatoe'

Brushed under the carpet. But Anderson is cross about criticism of police failure and the following years starts to hint that the Indentity of JtR is known to police..

When MacNaughhten write his memo in 1894 he only knows what happened up to MArch 1889 and thus has NO idea what happened to the suspect they watched

Simple but solves all the various problems

Yours Jeff

[The Cenci]

If the ID happened between those dates, why was the operation reduced in early 1890?

(Not sure where I read that but have done recently)

[Jeff Leahy]

I find it interesting that Abberline dismissed him and, presumably, he'd met him.

The answer to that is we don't know?

What we do know is that MacNaughten says Kozminski was placed in an asylum in March 1889 and that Abberline was transferred shortly afterwards.

And that no proof had been connected to Kozminski at this time , so presumably the suggested ID happened at a later time.

As late as November 1889 Anderson was still saying they didn't know who Jack the Ripper was, so I think it can be safely reasoned that the Kozminski ID had not happened by then..

At some point in 1890 there was some sort of disagreement between Anderson and Monroe (Monroe resigned over pensions) and it might be that the ID happened around this time?

Kozminski was placed at the work house July 1890. But was released after four days possibly because they did NOT think him insane after observation.

What we know is he enter Colney Hatch on the 4th Feb 1891

So the ID happened between Nov 1889 and Jan 1891

Abberline would not have been involved in this ID so only would have known about Kozminski up to MArch 1889, hence why he later pumps for Chapman.

Yours jeff

[The Cenci]

I find it interesting that Abberline dismissed him and, presumably, he'd met him.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

If JtR was a lust killer would you consider both Tabram and Smith as possible early victims? Of course, Smith claims to have been attacked by a gang but Westcott (2013) has questioned this and even Begg (2004) said he wouldn't rule her out completely. Dew was also of the opinion that she was a JtR victim. Interestingly Smith and Tabram were attacked within 100 yards of each other and both on Bank Holidays.

Do we know where Kosminski may have been residing at the time of these earlier attacks?

Hi John, we are drifting off the central thrust here, and largely just coming down to my personal opinion.

But yes I think the attacks start very early, and very different to the later completed signature… Certainly Annie Millwood fits an early experiment. Emma Smith in the heart of the kill zone.

There are also two lesser known 'failed' attacks that might be connected

I note that Anderson doesn't include McKenzie… and thats a problem for me… I think she was but It means that Aaron was back out only months after March 1889 as this attack was in July..

As late as November Anderson was still claiming the police didn't know who it was, so no ID at this point.

Yours Jeff

[John G]

I've given this a lot of thought. Clearly there are a number of well respected ripperologists who have argued it wasn't Aaron. This would still fit with Anderson telling the truth as Fido reasons. It has to be considered and I would taken onboard any new contenders.

I believe my new 'double event' theory however deals with the various problems.

My conclusion is that it is at least possible that Aaron Kozminski could fit the profile of a lust serial killer, have been functional in 1888 and deteriorated to the extent of appearing relatively harmless in 1891 (Although I think we should be cautious of saying how harmless given his early admission notes)

Do I think it possible that Anderson and Monroe kept the ID quiet?

Yes, if the story had of come out at the time I am of little doubt that there would have been repercussions against the family and community Aaron was in…and that a political decision was taken by Monroe and Anderson to keep it quiet..

As Anderson said, No benefit could have come by revealing the name.

MacNaughten was never informed of the ID, and thus made his comments based on the file dated up to March 1889. Which is why he favours Druitt

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

If JtR was a lust killer would you consider both Tabram and Smith as possible early victims? Of course, Smith claims to have been attacked by a gang but Westcott (2013) has questioned this and even Begg (2004) said he wouldn't rule her out completely. Dew was also of the opinion that she was a JtR victim. Interestingly Smith and Tabram were attacked within 100 yards of each other and both on Bank Holidays.

Do we know where Kosminski may have been residing at the time of these earlier attacks?

[Chris]

Anderson says he was away when the House to House turn up 'blood stains'

Anderson doesn't say the house-to-house search turned up blood stains.

He just says they investigated every man who was in a position to get rid of blood stains in secret.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, are you sure you've got the right Kosminski?

I've given this a lot of thought. Clearly there are a number of well respected ripperologists who have argued it wasn't Aaron. This would still fit with Anderson telling the truth as Fido reasons. It has to be considered and I would taken onboard any new contenders.

I believe my new 'double event' theory however deals with the various problems.

My conclusion is that it is at least possible that Aaron Kozminski could fit the profile of a lust serial killer, have been functional in 1888 and deteriorated to the extent of appearing relatively harmless in 1891 (Although I think we should be cautious of saying how harmless given his early admission notes)

Do I think it possible that Anderson and Monroe kept the ID quiet?

Yes, if the story had of come out at the time I am of little doubt that there would have been repercussions against the family and community Aaron was in…and that a political decision was taken by Monroe and Anderson to keep it quiet..

As Anderson said, No benefit could have come by revealing the name.

MacNaughten was never informed of the ID, and thus made his comments based on the file dated up to March 1889. Which is why he favours Druitt

Yours Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

Jeff, are you sure you've got the right Kosminski?

[pinkmoon]

There is a chance that Kosminski was our killer there is also a chance that a lot of other weird characters who frequented the east end might have been our killer I think we can all agree on that.Now I know there are some ex police officers on here so I think they will agree with what im saying IF KOSMINSKI WAS IDENTIFIED BY SOMEONE AS OUR KILLER IT WOULD BE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE IF SOMEOE REFUSED TO IDENTIFY HIM IN CASE HE WAS HUNG THEN WE WOULD ALSO KNOW.Attempts were made to identify Thomas Sadler as our killer so this fact alone tells us that there was no real suspect for these murders I think with Kosminski as with all of the so called suspects it was a case of when you have no suspect anything must look good to ask us to believe that Kosminski was jtr and was forgotten about and left alone in an asylum for years it's just too far fetched.I'm not sticking the boot in on anyone on this thread and I will be the first to conceded that my favourite suspect Druitt was in all probability not jtr but he is my choice out of a bad bunch who has as much chance as Kosminski of been jtr.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi jeff
Forgive me I'm a novice. Who is the earl of Crawford? He is kosminskis brother?

The Earl of Crawford, Lord Lindsey wrote a letter of introduction to Anderson from an unknown woman who was 'Nearly' related to a man whom she believed was the Whitechappel Murder.

The letter is undated. It is the only surviving letter about the JtR murders in a large amount of Anderson correspondence.

I believe it was written around June 1890

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

Do you believe in fairy tales ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your fairy Tale quote relates to Monroe and Monroe appears to have known of Andersons intentions in private.. Its as daft as Winston Churchhills 'boastful' comments…

As an ancestor of Charles Stewart Parnell I can assure you Anderson was correct, he was framed by the then British government and thats what these quotes refer too..

Anderson would 'not have lied for person Kudos' as Begg claims you can challenge that statement, but you need to do so by the same critia from which it was reasoned.

And some how I imagine pigs will fly before you do

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

`Because the case went cold in March 1889…end of survey lance, suspect placed in an asylum out of harms way…

It was the family who had the problem when they couldn't keep him in any longer…

So one day Anderson gets a knock on his door, and a letter of introduction from the Earl of Crawford…

Please Sir, I think my brother might be the whitechapel Murderer and we are in fear of our lives should he kill again"

Anderson talks to Swanson 'You know anything about a Kozminski?' Swanson says 'well actually sir we did have a suspect by that name'

Anderson makes a deal with the family but the ID goes wrong and the compromise is Colney Hatch.

I'm saying we are looking at two completely separate events…Martin Fido was right all along..March 1889.

Yours Jeff

Hi jeff
Forgive me I'm a novice. Who is the earl of Crawford? He is kosminskis brother?

[Trevor Marriott]

`Because the case went cold in March 1889…end of survey lance, suspect placed in an asylum out of harms way…

It was the family who had the problem when they couldn't keep him in any longer…

So one day Anderson gets a knock on his door, and a letter of introduction from the Earl of Crawford…

Please Sir, I think my brother might be the whitechapel Murderer and we are in fear of our lives should he kill again"

Anderson talks to Swanson 'You know anything about a Kozminski?' Swanson says 'well actually sir we did have a suspect by that name'

Anderson makes a deal with the family but the ID goes wrong and the compromise is Colney Hatch.

I'm saying we are looking at two completely separate events…Martin Fido was right all along..March 1889.

Yours Jeff

Jeff

Do you believe in fairy tales ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't consider any witness testimony to be particularly reliable. Take Lawende, for example. Here's a witness who was apparently paying so little attention that he was widely reported as saying that he wouldn't recognize the suspect again. Strange then that, despite the appalling lighting conditions and his apparent lack of interest, he was able to estimate both his height and age. Additionally, he recalled further details about his complexion and moustache. He was also able to describe his clothing, the colour of his cap and the fact that he had a handkerchief, even noticing that it was red in colour and knotted! I mean, for a casual observer who wasn't paying too much attention he seemed to remember an awful lot- one might say almost as much as George Hutchinson, who at least claimed to have the assistance of a lamp.

And then we have Harry Harris' statement, quoted in the Evening News, that he only saw the back of the man and that Levy and Lawende saw no more than he did. Interestingly Levy, who attended the same interview, is reported as remaining silent, refusing to disclose anything.

Now I find Harris' statement extraordinary, considering that it is surely inconceivable that the three friends hadn't discussed matters between them prior to this time. And might Levy's silence indicate that perhaps the whole story may have been a fabrication, or at least exaggerated, and he was having regrets, fearful of getting caught out, whilst Harris was attempting to dig them out of a very big hole?

In major cases witnesses at times tend to be too helpful !! they get their 15 minutes of glory with the press

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk