Packer and Schwartz

[Jeff Leahy]

One of my former partners suffered from schizophrenia. She was a beautiful woman (everybody loved her in the first instance), and in every minute she tried to hide her disease, the disease and all her retarded emotional development. Also without any episode it was hard to live with her.
Karsten.

Hey far worse. My ex was a sociopath

Not that they understand the concept of being an ex

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Hello Kartsen.

"In 1888 Aaron Kozminski picking up bread from the ground and eating it, possibly muttering to himself? In 1891 he did it, maybe end of 1890 but 1888?

No one really knows..."

Hence my question about his being the local nutter.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

In the cases of "Kosminski" and "Aaron Kozminski" we can expect that these men had mental problems for years. They wanted to hide their problems and feelings. Apart from that they had their "special characteristics". Things are existing side by side.

On JTRForums I wrote:

"Psychopathy and schizophrenia can coexist, comorbidity, two personality disorders. Parts of the violence in persons with schizophrenia result from psychopathy. Clearly, Jack the Ripper was a psychopath... and a person with schizophrenia..."

An example for "before and after and during episodes":

"In conversation sufferers have described developing sexual attractions towards other family members, family pets and even inanimate objects such as household appliances! In this way, this aspect of schizophrenia illustrates superbly well the often extremely bizarre nature of psychotic thinking."

"Remember also that schizophrenia is principally a condition of young people (three quarters of all diagnoses being made between ages 16 to 25), the time of life when the libido is at its peak and when both men and women are usually very sexually active. It is not therefore surprising for them to be troubled by bizarre sexual thoughts during psychotic episodes."

I know some people who suffer from schizophrenia. During an episode you can see the whole thing called schizophrenia. Some of them are known to be "crazy" before and after an episode. "Crazy" in terms of their illness but it does not imply that they are "normal" between their episodes. Every case is different and depends on personality structure of people with schizophrenia. Every schizophrenic person has his own personality structure and it makes him unique.

One of my former partners suffered from schizophrenia. She was a beautiful woman (everybody loved her in the first instance), and in every minute she tried to hide her disease, the disease and all her retarded emotional development. Also without any episode it was hard to live with her.

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

Important? I think so.

But how many were so watched? Why must ANY of them be Kosminski?

Cheers.
LC

Of course, Lynn, we cannot say the man of Cox and Sagar is Kosminski but, in my view, we should not exclude this possibility that the prime suspect of Cox and/or Sagar is Kosminski; the same prime suspect of Anderson and Swanson + Macnaghten´s "strong suspect".

Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Lynn further to my previous post:

In august 1889 anderson remarked to an american journalist:

'After a stranger has gone over whitechapel he takes a much more lenient view of our failure to find jack the ripper, as they called him, than they did before'

So in August 1889 the failed to find him.... Is this a reference to Kozminsi unto March 1889?

In 1892 he says in Cassels journal in response to a question about jtr:

'There, there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. it is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a maniac revelling in blood'

Is he poking fun at MacNAughten here 'fads and theories'?

What we know from these two interviews, is that Anderson failed to catch his man in August 1889... but had caught and solved the mystery by 1892

So something happened between these dates to change his mind, and bang slap in the middle Kozminski enters the asylum for a second time in Feb 1891

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again)

"Aaron Kozminski is the only person who could have been that suspect."

No, but do proceed.

I'm aware that some respected ripperologists have searched. The archives have been trawled. But none to my knowledge has ever put forward a credible contender...thats because they don't exist..

All anyone need do is look at the problem from the correct perspective...That Aaron Kozminski went into the asylum Twice. A private asylum in march 1889 and a public asylum in 1891

Once you have that piece of information in place all the disagreements and country statements slot together neatly

"But why do many of the comments about the various Policeman in charge seem to disagree?"

Quite. And why does Mac dismiss him?

Mac dismisses Kozminski based on the information infont of him. 'Many circumstances'... this file only goes as far as March 1889. On that basis MacAnughten was correct as they never caught him red handed, didn't have an ID.... That happened later and in secret (Hot Potatoe) following the Crawford letter

"Personally I'm convinced Aaron Kozminski was the man followed by Cox, a file referenced by MacNaughten and later Sims and Griffiths."

OK, personally, I am convinced otherwise. I think both Sir Bob and Swanson got their story from Mac who, in turn, got it from the HO or FO.

Cheers.
LC

Ah the Jonathan Hainworth solution...

The problem is that MacNAughten didn't even join the force until well after Kozminski was placed in an Asylum (March 1889)

MacNAughten wasn't particularly liked by Anderson and my guess is kept in the cold about the ripper case, which interested MacNaughten. So imagine his delight when he was asked to write a report in 1894, to discover the information on Kozminski was far from damning..

Just a City PC who thought he resembled a man he had seen..

And you seem to be forgetting that Swanson was the man in over all responsibility for the investigation... and probably the best and most reliable copper on the force.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

"If Aaron had lived in this community since a child he would have been known, at least by sight."

Perhaps so. But how would one know he were schizophrenic unless he had had an episode?Cheers.LC

Good Morning Lynn

You can't know someone has schizophrenia by looking at them.

However they can exhibit strange behaviour. They might appear drunk. Speech patterns can be effected. They can talk to themselves. As teenagers they can be reclusive, anti social and loaners.

So when I used the term 'local nutter' I was being a little tongue in cheek.. But I do think these communities would be aware of people amongst them who seemed a little 'odd'. And gossip and chat at the local shop would have been very different in a world without Internet, TV or radio. The murder of Stride must have been gossiped about for years... Philip Hutchinsons photograph demonstrates that

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

local nutter

Hello Kartsen.

"In 1888 Aaron Kozminski picking up bread from the ground and eating it, possibly muttering to himself? In 1891 he did it, maybe end of 1890 but 1888?

No one really knows..."

Hence my question about his being the local nutter.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

source

Hello (again) Jeff. thanks.

(Almost missed this one.)

"I think it can now be reasoned that MacNaughten is talking about the same Kozminski as Swanson and that Anderson is talking about the same suspect."

Very possible.

"Aaron Kozminski is the only person who could have been that suspect."

No, but do proceed.

"But why do many of the comments about the various Policeman in charge seem to disagree?"

Quite. And why does Mac dismiss him?

"This is the problem we seek to solve not whether Kozminski was Jack the Ripper or not. (This may surprise you but what is being argue here still leaves in doubt that Aaron was the ripper...it would all hinge on an as yet unknown witness.)

No surprise. In fact, I agree.

"Personally I'm convinced Aaron Kozminski was the man followed by Cox, a file referenced by MacNaughten and later Sims and Griffiths."

OK, personally, I am convinced otherwise. I think both Sir Bob and Swanson got their story from Mac who, in turn, got it from the HO or FO.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Por que?

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

Important? I think so.

But how many were so watched? Why must ANY of them be Kosminski?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

episode

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"If Aaron had lived in this community since a child he would have been known, at least by sight."

Perhaps so. But how would one know he were schizophrenic unless he had had an episode?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

All this discussion seems to me to indicate that some people have moved on to profiling a killer despite the fact that the five murders within the Canonical Group have not been linked by killer, or MO, or Victimology.

Hi Michael.
There are sufficient commonalities between the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly to indicate the same hand being at work. However, it is true to say that not everyone agrees.
The fact there is disagreement does not mean the commonalities do not exist.

The Ripper legend is just a lot of hype, lots of speculation, and comes from a distinct lack of strictly independent review of each particular crime for its components and its attributes.

Well, apart from the fact that no-one truly believes the killer actually named himself, then yes, "Jack the Ripper" as a nom de plume is part of the hype surrounding these murders.
To take this argument a step further and suggest that there was no common hand at work is becoming a little tiresome, there is really nothing to be gained by pursuing that line of argument.

Liz Stride is a perfect example of that argument. There is absolutely no reason based on the evidence specific to the murder itself to surmise that Liz Stride was killed by a serial mutilator.

Personally, I don't disagree with that.
The murder of Stride finds its parallel in the later murders of Coles & McKenzie, and we have no firm indication from any of those murders that they were all killed by the same person, even less that they were killed by the same hand that struck down Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly.

[c.d.]

"The only reasons for surmising Liz was killed by the same man are based on geographical and calendar considerations, as well as an unsophisticated approach to evidence interpretation."

Well I'll be damned. Apparently a good number of us have been using an unsophisticated approach. No wonder we are not getting anywhere. Now where can we find someone who uses a sophisticated approach? I think I can guess.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

All this discussion seems to me to indicate that some people have moved on to profiling a killer despite the fact that the five murders within the Canonical Group have not been linked by killer, or MO, or Victimology. Not all 5 women were killed in the same fashion, obviously. And knives are hardly a watermark for any particular signature or methodology, they were simply the cheapest and most available weapon of the period. If you study violent crimes of the era you will find that knives were involved in a high percentage of them, but clearly, they are not all not attributed to a single killer.

The Ripper legend is just a lot of hype, lots of speculation, and comes from a distinct lack of strictly independent review of each particular crime for its components and its attributes

Cheers

Well absolutely not!

What you say is none sensical

Everything we know, logically, pionts to a singular serial killer based in the area, this has been concluded by most of the great ripperologist from Begg & fido to Evans & Rumkblow...

The killer simply lived in and around the community...other theories are at least, well hogwsh

What you are choosing to ignore is the men on he ground..those who actuaully investigated the story...had several theories that solved the crime

They knew what happened!

But they appear to have come to different conclusions?

What is being purposed here is an answer why the various police officers believed what they did....

Thats not to say Kozminski was the ripper, simply that there is only one suspect based on the known evidence

'Kozminski was the suspect'

Think about it?

Yours Jeff

PS yes we've moved on because we've been studying this a lot longer than you and there is only one possibility

[S.Brett]

Yes I agree

it would be wrong to assume that because he suffered schizophrenia he was stupid or dumb, schizophrenics can be highly intelligent and above average intelligence...

But a troubled childhood would explain much

Yours Jeff

Correct!

Here an example of a man suffering from schizophrenia:

http://www.vice.com/read/this-is-what-developing-acute-schizophrenia-is-like-009

But a schizophrenic with homicidal tendencies and mutilation fantasies leaves such crime scenes as in the case of Jack the Ripper.

Thomas Müller:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/mutilation-fantasy/

[Michael W Richards]

All this discussion seems to me to indicate that some people have moved on to profiling a killer despite the fact that the five murders within the Canonical Group have not been linked by killer, or MO, or Victimology. Not all 5 women were killed in the same fashion, obviously. And knives are hardly a watermark for any particular signature or methodology, they were simply the cheapest and most available weapon of the period. If you study violent crimes of the era you will find that knives were involved in a high percentage of them, but clearly, they are not all not attributed to a single killer.

The Ripper legend is just a lot of hype, lots of speculation, and comes from a distinct lack of strictly independent review of each particular crime for its components and its attributes.

Liz Stride is a perfect example of that argument. There is absolutely no reason based on the evidence specific to the murder itself to surmise that Liz Stride was killed by a serial mutilator. Which by appearances is a legitimate profile for the person who killed Polly and Annie. The only reasons for surmising Liz was killed by the same man are based on geographical and calendar considerations, as well as an unsophisticated approach to evidence interpretation.

To concoct a serial killer profile using victims that fairly clearly do not fit into the legitimate established killer profile created by previous kills is much like building a house on sand. Eventually the flawed substructure will reveal itself under stress.

Cheers

[Jeff Leahy]

He might have known that he is shadowed or he knew he was identified by a witness, a witness not known to the police before the second half of 1890.

Karsten.

Yes I agree

it would be wrong to assume that because he suffered schizophrenia he was stupid or dumb, schizophrenics can be highly intelligent and above average intelligence...

But a troubled childhood would explain much

Yours Jeff