Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect - Rob House

[Roy Corduroy]

Martin decided to slide over from Kosminski and choose another Jewish candidate...

No, Martin found Cohen first, because he searched the records around the time of the murders. A logical place to start. Only by searching records from later did he find Kosminski. He didn't slide at all.

Rob I like your book. It is a suspect book. A good suspect book stays on track, as you did. Thank you for explaining and also including a visual chart of the family members. Who immigrated and their particulars. This cast Aaron in relief, as the others married, worked, changed their names, etc. That is much clearer to me now.

Also you raised a key point, that Aaron was at no time classified an imbecile. That Leavensden had two distinct classes of patients.

All modern JtR suspect books utilize some modern methods, such as criminal and geographic profiling, reverse diagnosis based on current knowledge, and comparison with those on the infinite list of serial killers since. And so forth. And a lot of it is a minefield because it leads to various interpetations and forks in the road.

Sometimes simpler is better. For instance, your area map, Rob, was easy to understand. It showed the murder sites, and there was Kosminki's abode, "bang in the heart of the district" to borrow a phrase. It says more than explaining geo-profiling.

A satisfied customer,

Roy

[Colin Roberts]

I mentioned the names of the two top experts in the field – Rossmo and Canter – for a reason.

Experts within the realms of their own 'creations', I suppose.

Should we describe Amy Winehouse as having been an 'expert' within the realm of her particular musical creations?

Both these men have done geographic profiles based on the Ripper murders, and both have published their findings.

Where have they been "published"?

As for Rossmo; I don't believe that a couple of sentences regarding the "peak of the profile", as stated in a television documentary, and as written in an article, amounts to the publication of his "findings".

As for Canter; ...?

Neither of these experts came to the conclusion that the Ripper lived anywhere near Greenfield or Yalford Streets.

No geographic profiler would ever come to the "conclusion" that 'Jack the Ripper' lived anywhere, in particular! Period!

Where, exactly, within the probability distributions that were generated by Rossmo's and Canter's respective profiles, do Kosminski's possible Greenfield Street and Yalford Street addresses happen to fall?

Within the ninetieth percentile? The eightieth? The seventieth? ...?

I don't know!

Neither do you!

But, in any case, Aaron Kosminski, in all likelihood, resided within the observed parameters of the 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', between 7 August and 9 November, 1888; and that is plainly and simply all that needs to said.

It's really all that Rob should have said.

I believe that Rob allowed himself to drift into depths, which precluded his being able to 'touch the bottom', so to speak.

But, you have done precisely the same thing, in your criticisms of Rob's analysis.

~~~

Some observations that I made recently, at JTR Forums.com:

... we should perceive a probability of just 22 percent that 'Jack the Ripper' resided in closer proximity to the murder-site mean-center, than did Aaron Kozminski. This, in turn, would suggest that Kozminski's most likely 1888 residence, should be perceived as having fallen within the 78th percentile of the distribution of probability, pertaining to the location of the residence (or, base of operations), of 'Jack the Ripper'.

78th percentile? Is that all?

Actually, that's pretty damn impressive!

Kozminski plainly and simply has geography 'on his side'!

"78th percentile? Is that all?"

~~~

"Kozminski plainly and simply has geography 'on his side'!"

Indeed, he does!

But, I am afraid that I must take issue with Rob's use of geographic profiling, to bolster "... the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect".

I do not believe that any form of criminal profiling, should be used to either bolster, or weaken the case, for a particular suspect.

In fact, I do not believe that a suspect's adherence (or, lack of adherence), to any sort of 'profile', should be perceived as being 'circumstantial evidence'.

Criminal profiling is intended to facilitate a prioritization of investigative focus.

In other words, it is intended to provide the investigator a 'standard', by which potential persons of interest can be categorized and/or arranged in order of ascendency.

In the absence of any tangible incriminating evidence, potential persons of interest can be brought to the attention of the investigator, by way of various leads, or through 'canvass'/'dragnet' efforts, - such as the Metropolitan Police Force house-to-house search, of October, 1888 - which should, themselves, be conducted, in accordance with the prioritizations that are facilitated, by applicable geographic and/or socio-economic profiles.

I have argued repeatedly that the case for Montague Druitt should not be called into question, on the basis of geography; even in light of the fact that my Geographic Profile Model would suggest a perceptual probability of more than 99 percent that the 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper' was in closer proximity to the murder-site mean-center, than was Druitt's home, in Blackheath.

All forms of criminal profiling notwithstanding, there is a case to be made for Montague Druitt having been 'Jack the Ripper'. Period!

Questioning this case, on the basis of geography, would be tantamount to questioning the qualifications of a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), on the basis that he managed to bypass high school, and go straight to Oxford.

Similarly, ...

All forms of criminal profiling notwithstanding, there is a case to be made for Aaron Kozminski having been 'Jack the Ripper'. Period!

Attempting to bolster this case, on the basis of geography, would be tantamount to attempting to bolster the qualifications of a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), on the basis of his high school transcripts.

All that Rob needed to say, was that Aaron Kozminski, in all likelihood, lived within the 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', during the latter months of 1888. That's it!

And my own comment on those complex computer programs you refer to is this. They rely on essentially heuristic mathematical models constructed by analysing the behaviour of modern serial killers, very few of whom (if any) operated on foot over distances of only hundreds of yards. So because the models are fundamentally nonlinear, they are completely inapplicable to the Whitechapel murders. A simple method like Canter's may give some kind of rough indication, but these complex models - applied way outside their range of validity - really can't tell us anything useful at all.

Canter's so-called 'Circle Hypothesis' / 'Circle Theory' is plainly and simply too fundamental; whereas complex models of geographic-profile analysis, such as Canter's proprietary Dragnet and Rossmo's proprietary Criminal Geographic Target, in my opinion, involve excessive manifestations of TMI (i.e. too much information) that tend to 'milk' the spatial relationships that exist within a set of murder-sites, for infinitely more than they are worth.

But, wouldn't you agree, Chris, ...

"very few of whom (if any) operated on foot over distances of only hundreds of yards"

... that dispersion is relative; whether measured in yards, ... or in miles?

I spoke with D. Kim Rossmo on the phone and he basically agreed that Kozminski fit the geographic profile.

As it plainly and simply goes without saying that he would!

This is not an exact science obviously. But I don't think any geographic profiler would tell you that the Ripper lived exactly on the corner of Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street. The profile generates a heat map (http://www.wesleyenglish.com/wp-cont...the-Ripper.png) which shows areas in which the killer might have lived, statistically speaking. I mean, how much accuracy are you expecting? 50 feet? 100 feet? It is not that precise.

Yes, this is another relevant point, which I should also have mentioned above. People often look at these coloured spatial probability distributions and assume that the model is predicting that the killer lived at the point where they can see a red "hot spot."

But all a hot spot means - in the model's own terms - is that the probability density is higher than elsewhere. For example, it might mean that the probability that the murderer lived in a particular street is 6%, where it would be only 3% if the probability density were more evenly distributed.

Because the area where Aaron Kozminski's family lived is central to the murders, it really will be the case that any of these models will predict a reasonably high probability density in that area (even if there isn't a "hot spot" nearby). In that sense, the models will all be consistent with the killer having lived in, say, Yalford Street.

The problem is that they'll also be consistent with many other possibilities. But that's "the nature of the beast."

If only there were a way of getting the field of 'Ripperology' to understand the most fundamental principles of a probability distribution.




Hypothetical Probability Distribution (Elliptical) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

Let's pretend that the above imagery is a Doppler Radar depiction of the most concentrated portion of a cloud of precipitation that happens to be hovering over London's inner 'East End'.

Let's also pretend that each of the color-shaded isopleths represents exactly ten percent of the rainfall that is occurring, and that the density of each set of ten percentage points is greatest at the inner elliptical contour of each of the respective isopleths, and least at the outer elliptical contour of the same.

In other words, let's also pretend that the density of the depicted rainfall is greatest at the center of the overall elliptical distribution (i.e. the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields), and least at its periphery.

Now, let's pretend that somewhere within this distribution of raindrops, there is a single Golden Raindrop that is proving to be quite elusive.

I would contend that its single most probable location is the center of the overall elliptical distribution of rainfall (again, the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields).

But, does that imply that its probable location is the center of the overall elliptical distribution of rainfall?

In other words, does that imply that its location is 'probably' the aforementioned intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street?

Absolutely, positively not!

Under no circumstances, whatsoever, does that imply anything of the sort!

In fact, the probability that the elusive Golden Raindrop is to be found, specifically, at that intersection, is so low that it is effectively zero percent.

So, what then, must I say, in order to define the area, in which the elusive Golden Raindrop is probably to be found?

Any takers (other than Chris Phillips)?

As my writing prowess has been acknowledged I am now contemplating a new book titled "A Pin stickers guide to the world of criminal profilers"

Do tell:

Just what sort of police department would actually condescend to having a moron, such as yourself, on its payroll?

[jason_c]

Just what sort of police department would actually condescend to having a moron, such as yourself, on its payroll?

This seriously made me laugh.


Im thinking Keystone Cops, C.I.D.

[mariab]

French profiling of Ripper-like killers

I apologize most profoundly for highjacking this thread and I have no idea if anyone's interested in this at all, but I'm presently going through the Alexandre Lacassagne collection in Lyon, which is abundant, as Lacassagne was extremely prolific.
Pertaining to early 20th century profiling of serial killers, Lacassagne has kept super abundant notes about both Vacher and Henri Vidal. (The latter is another serial killer/murder of prostitutes, caught in 1902.) There is enough material here in Lyon for someone (fluent in French) to write a very interesting book on early profiling of serial killers, and in my opinion I'd even dare go as far as to say that anyone wishing to write a “suspect book“ on the Ripper, especially one using “profiling“, perhaps ought to consult these French materials; since both Vacher and Vidal committed similar crimes as the Ripper and were caught and studied in great detail, both psychologically and medicinally, and both alive and postmortem. What's interesting is that Vacher featured a psychological profile quite a bit different than Vidal.
I thought that this might perhaps interest Mr. House or anyone involved with early profiling?
By the by, Vacher's brain (examined by Italian luminary Lombroso and by other doctors) contained some “white particles“ (not lesions) typical for mentally retarded people, even if his brain was unusually developed (developed meant as in active), plus he was hormonically defficient (as in not able to have kids), and Vidal was impotent.
Pertaining to Vacher there are 3 references by Lacassagne to JTR, one of them discussing Neill Cream as a suspect. Plus I've got a picture of the knife Vidal used, and it's not big at all. If anyone's interested, I can post these.
With many apologies for highjacking the thread with this.

[fido]

My thanks to Wolf Vanderlin. I will append an account of my work showing how it was certainly not a matter of looking for Kosminski, finding him, and deciding I needed an alternative.

Without prejudice to Rob's book or thinking (which I haven't read) may I say that John Douglas formed his conclusions about David Cohen from my writing and before he or Mark Olshaker had met or communicated with me. When Mark came to London on other business and traced me, he asked me to read their ms, and I made a few corrections - mainly in the direction of disclaiming good discoveries or arguments I hadn't actually made.

And of course Rob is entirely right to say Kosminski wasn't an imbecile. I don't know why in 1890 Leavesden was described as the Asylum for Imbeciles.

Now to my work in 1986-7.
I did not find Kosminski, see that he didn't work, and put together a theory based on other names I had found or went looking for.

I found Kaminsky in Black lion yard - one of the variants of the name given by Farson, who by that time could no longer remember why he was uncertain whether the handwriting said Kosminski, Komansky or Kaminsky. (Today we know it's because Lady Aberconway's page is damaged at that point).

Richard Whittington-Egan was very enthusiastically encouraging because

(a) he had always thought Andeson's suggestion could have merit, only it
seemed absolutely impossible to put any flesh on it, and

(b) being of the generation which remembered Darky the Coon and Barnet Whatsisname and the other Jewish gangsters of that time, he was not impressed by the idea of a universally law-abiding ethnic group in Whitechapel.

More important still, he saw the beauty of Black Lion Yard as an address - (much more truly central to the murder sites than Plummers Row or Sion Square, though those addresses were unknown at the time). So I started by trying to find out more about Kaminsky with Kosminskys, Komanskys and similar names as possible alternatives. (In scanning my old notes for How the other day I noticed, what I'd forgotten, that I was very attentive to Golinskys at that time).

Bear in mind that I started my work with three "clues" (over and above my perception of the identity of Macnaghten's Kosminsky with Anderson's Polish Jew, and the surprising discovery that Anderson was not the empty liar previous writers had represented him as being). Based on existing Ripper writing, these were:

1. There had to be a reason why the murders stopped when they did

2. The murderer left Mitre Square in the direction indicated by the Goulston Street apron

3. There was something fishy about the complete dropping of all Leather Apron based enquiries after the clearance of Pizer, who had been falsely identified by Violenia, and of whom one writer said the accusing streetwalkers refused to make any identification. All this looked so peculiar that you may remember Don, at that time, proposed Pizer as Anderson's suspect and Violenia as his witness.

Point 3 explained itself in my research, which indicated that the only person known to have said he knew Pizer as Leather Apron was Thick, and before the inquest he did not declare this as certain knowledge. I'm so bucked by Rob McLaughlin's work because he has established what I had always suggested, that in some respects the overall dodgy Dorsenne was offering genuine inside information, and this was in the area where he ascribes the Leather Apron identification to Thick.

Point 1 is explained by the incarceration of Cohen, and no other Jewish asylum inmate. Even with today's knowledge that serial killers will stop if they know they'll really be caught if they continue, Kosminsky was clearly too far detached from reality to have made such a rational choice.

Point 2 strongly supports Kaminsky in Black Lion Yard. And so, draft one, in the press in my original ms, said Kaminsky was David Cohen, though I was making fairly desperate guesses as to how the name came out that way .

Before this reaches print, I've found Kosminsky. It's obvious to me he wasn't the Ripper and there's absolutely nothing about him to shake my prior conviction (or antecedents, as Macnaghten would say).

You see the very important difference between finding Kosminsky, saying "Tcha!" and looking for an alternative?

After I've published, the supportive evidence comes in. Cohens from America and Italy contact me to say their family name was bestowed by Gentile immigration officers who couldn't cope with names like Keithowi or Martinowi.

And then the Swanson marginalia appeared. Now we have a police document saying that Kosminsky lived at his brother's house in Whitechapel (true) but was under restraint when taken to the infirmary (not true of Kosminsky, but true of Cohen's transfer to Colney Hatch). It also says he dies soon after going to Colney Hatch (amazingly untrue of Kosminsky: uniquely true of Cohen among young or relatively young Jewish patients). There is clear support for my argument that the two men, so similar in simple paper descriptions, had been confused.

Of course I can't prove that I only saw the probability that the two forces followed the two different Whitechapel Jews as I was trying to puzzle out why on earth the marginalia contained false information, and not out of any attempt to use them to prove my own previous thinking. But I hope my willingness to acknowledge mistakes when I've made them will make you trust me. American police officers (like John Douglas) who are very familiar with overlapping jurisdictions, find it very convincing.

I would only add that neither I nor anyone else, as far as I know, regards Anderson as an impeccable witness. I said of him from the outset he "may have been wrong. He was always opinionated." But he is the best historical witness because unlike almost all others who identified suspects, we cannot find factual error in his statements. (This is also true of Littlechild, but we have no idea why he thought Tumblety a good suspect. Whereas in Anderson's case, as Philip Sugden pointed out, we have the unique suspect with a piece of definite - if puzzling - evidence given to establish the reason for suspicion: the mysterious identification at the Seaside Home.

Martin F

[The Good Michael]

That was a fascinating read, I must say. Thank you for taking us through some of the process.

Mike

[Scott Nelson]

It is said that David Cohen had no next of kin. What is this assertion based on? Who was the "N. Cohen" who failed to appear before the Thames Magistrates Court to file assault charges against Ellen Hickey on 7 December, 1888? Could N. Cohen have been a brother to David Cohen, who apparently was present at the court hearing?

It is stated that Cohen had been residing in London for about a year when he was picked up by police. Again, what could this assertion be based on, other than a workhouse entry? Who was the informant? The A-Z says that “the name of a lunatic at large suffering from mania with no known relatives was unlikely to have been accurately established...” Did his family disown him? Was he in fact staying at the Protestant Boy’s home on 86 Leman Street, being otherwise homeless -or having left a relative's house? What if it was established that his non-anglicised name was “Kosminski”? How would researchers feel then?

More research is definately needed on "Cohen."

[Scott Nelson]

Then there's this from back awhile (apologies for diverting the thread's subject matter a bit.)

Howard Brown has posted an interesting article on the forums site, entitled "The London Police by James Monro in the North American Review, November 1890, v 151, no. 408, pp. 615-629.

Howard highlighted a significant part of the piece - important for time it was written and because of Monro's position at the time of the writing - Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police.

Monro wrote: "Excluding the unique series of outrages in Whitechapel, - at the non-discovery of the perpetrators of which none grieved more than the Metropolitan Police, - I cannot call to mind half a dozen really serious cases of murder which, within the last five or six years, have remained undetected; and the number of such offences committed is really small."

If David Cohen was Anderson's Polish Jew suspect, surely Monro would have know about it and in this quote he clearly does not. Cohen had been dead for over a year at the time of Monro's writing. Monro's view also tallies with another piece in the Cassells Magazine of the same year, where he told the interviewer that the police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.

[Colin Roberts]

If only there were a way of getting the field of 'Ripperology' to understand the most fundamental principles of a probability distribution.




Hypothetical Probability Distribution (Elliptical) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

Let's pretend that the above imagery is a Doppler Radar depiction of the most concentrated portion of a cloud of precipitation that happens to be hovering over London's inner 'East End'.

Let's also pretend that each of the color-shaded isopleths represents exactly ten percent of the rainfall that is occurring, and that the density of each set of ten percentage points is greatest at the inner elliptical contour of each of the respective isopleths, and least at the outer elliptical contour of the same.

In other words, let's also pretend that the density of the depicted rainfall is greatest at the center of the overall elliptical distribution (i.e. the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields), and least at its periphery.

Now, let's pretend that somewhere within this distribution of raindrops, there is a single Golden Raindrop that is proving to be quite elusive.

I would contend that its single most probable location is the center of the overall elliptical distribution of rainfall (again, the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields).

But, does that imply that its probable location is the center of the overall elliptical distribution of rainfall?

In other words, does that imply that its location is 'probably' the aforementioned intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street?

Absolutely, positively not!

Under no circumstances, whatsoever, does that imply anything of the sort!

In fact, the probability that the elusive Golden Raindrop is to be found, specifically, at that intersection, is so low that it is effectively zero percent.

So, what then, must I say, in order to define the area, in which the elusive Golden Raindrop is probably to be found?

Any takers (other than Chris Phillips)?

Any takers?

No?

I shall refer anyone that is interested, to the following post, within a thread that is, perhaps, better suited to this particular issue:

... the big red splodge is the epicentre and Jack is most likely to have lived in that red area, then the yellow and green bands represent the next most likely, and so on?

More-or-Less!

In the hypothetical Golden Raindrop scenario that I described, - in the post, which I was quoting - each color-shaded isopleth depicts ten percentage points of the overall distribution of rainfall:

Red: 10.00%
Orange: 10.00%
Yellow: 10.00%
Green: 10.00%
Aqua: 10.00%
Blue: 10.00%
Purple: 10.00%

In this instance, the red color-shaded isopleth covers the smallest area - anywhere - that contains ten percentage points of the overall distribution.

Hence, it is of greatest interest!

Likewise, the purple color-shaded isopleth covers the largest area - depicted - that contains ten percentage points of the overall distribution.

Hence, it is of least interest!

If we consider these portions of the overall distribution, on a cumulative basis, we have:

Red: 10.00% - This is the smallest area, anywhere, that contains ten percent of the overall distribution of rainfall.
Red, Orange: 20.00% - This is the smallest area, anywhere, that contains twenty percent of the overall distribution of rainfall.
Red, Orange, Yellow: 30.00% - This is the smallest area, anywhere, that contains thirty percent of the overall distribution of rainfall.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green: 40.00% - This is the smallest area, anywhere, that contains forty percent of the overall distribution of rainfall.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Aqua: 50.00% - This is the smallest area, anywhere, that contains fifty percent of the overall distribution of rainfall.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Aqua, Blue: 60.00% - This is the smallest area, anywhere, that contains sixty percent of the overall distribution of rainfall.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Aqua, Blue, Purple: 70.00% - This is the smallest area, anywhere, that contains seventy percent of the overall distribution of rainfall.
---
Not Depicted: 70.01% - 100.00%

..., let's pretend that somewhere within this distribution of raindrops, there is a single Golden Raindrop that is proving to be quite elusive.

I would contend that its single most probable location is the center of the overall elliptical distribution of rainfall (again, the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields).

But, does that imply that its probable location is the center of the overall elliptical distribution of rainfall?

In other words, does that imply that its location is 'probably' the aforementioned intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street?

Absolutely, positively not!

Under no circumstances, whatsoever, does that imply anything of the sort!

In fact, the probability that the elusive Golden Raindrop is to be found, specifically, at that intersection, is so low that it is effectively zero percent.

So, what then, must I say, in order to define the area, in which the elusive Golden Raindrop is probably to be found?

So, Helena, ... can you define (i.e. describe) a region, in which this Golden Raindrop is 'probably' located?

If you correlate this concept with that of a probability distribution, pertaining to the elusive residence of 'Jack the Ripper', can you then define (i.e. describe) a region, in which this residence was 'probably' located?

*** Please, remember that the elliptical probability distribution that I have depicted, is purely hypothetical.

[fido]

All the information on Cohen comes from the Workhouse Infirmary and Colney Hatch records.
On looking at the A-Z I see to my horror that the two have been printed together as one, separated by a turn of the page and with the latter untitled. Still, the information is there. I see, too, it is missing the data from another book which recoirds his being transferred temporarily to another building because of his propensity to attack other patients.
I must offer apologies for this type of error, often to be found in the new A-Z, and acknowledge that it is largely my fault. I normally make a very careful proof-reading of the copy from the printers, and had given one to a print-out of the ms in its original form as submitted to the original publisher who went bankrupt and left us with a further two years accumulating new material. For various ressons I had devoted an inordinate amount of time to the composition of that version, and Paul and Keith kindly agreed that I should not be pressed to do more than the minimum for the finally corrected version, which came up for proofing during my teaching term. (This, too, had become suddenly more demanding as an eager-beaver new head of department has slapped in new and taxing mandatory requirements). So I simply didn't proof the version you have, and lacking the expected advantage of three pairs of eyes, mistakes crept in. Normally Paul and Keith - more up-to-date with Ripperology and more interested in its outer edges than I - would make the best checks of the factual data, and I, an old pedant with a degree in English language and literature, now teaching writing, would check for language, fluency, and evident misprints or dropped passages. It simply didn't get that attention from me, and I apologize to all, noting that Paul and Keith should be exonerated from blame. It's a real shame that this volume, with the brilliant inclusion of pictures in proper situ, thanks to the very hard work of Paul, Keith and Stewart, is marred by a lot of little slips.
And I may add that the apology comes this late because busy-ness with teaching has kept me from looking at the Ripper forums at all for the past few years, and I only started doing so now in preparation for the Drexel University conference.
It has always been a matter of regret to me that Keith and Stewart did not include any of the Cohen material in the Sourcebook: regardless of their distaste for the Cohen theory, it robs others of the opportunity to make a decision for themselves based on the full data.
We don't know who N. Cohen was - we wish we did!
And I don't know whether anybody has ever pointed out that the 1891 census shows a Henry Cohen living as a servant at 86 Leman Street, the Protestant industrial school given as Cohen's address in the records.
If all this material is difficult to find, I should at some point put it on the forums. This summer I'm not teaching summer session for once, and have more time to myself than usual. Naturally things like a demand for updating my last Dickesn book for a centenary reissue next year, and press releases to write for my choral society - not to mention all the things to do around the house and garden that my wife would rather see done than any other form of work - come crowding in.
All the best,
Martin F

[TomTomKent]

Ok, on a serious note: As jarring as the percieved flaws in the AtoZ were at first, I think that a missing caption hardly scuppers the entire book. It is a brief oversight, and one that is easily missed by experienced editors.

On a selfish note: A decent book on Dickens is something to get excited about. I have been trying to convince apprentices that Rye Church and Bleak House are indeed the same ones they were forced to read about in school because of Dickens and am always happy to have further ammunition...

[Stewart P Evans]

Indeed

No, Martin found Cohen first, because he searched the records around the time of the murders. A logical place to start. Only by searching records from later did he find Kosminski. He didn't slide at all.
...
Roy

Indeed Roy, I can confirm this. Paul Gainey and I got this point wrong in our book The Lodger, back in 1995. It was a mistake that was being disseminated at the time and we really should have double checked. Original 1987 correspondence now in my possession confirms Martin's account and clearly shows that Cohen was found first.

[ChrisGeorge]

Martin decided to slide over from Kosminski and choose another Jewish candidate much like the FBI profilers said that the killer could be Kosminski or someone very like him, which rather indicates that Kosminski (no first name) is a straw man rather than an actual living person who might have committed the murders. In other words, Anderson was pointing to a possible candidate who could have done the murders rather than relying on any solid evidence that Kosminski was the Whitechapel murderer.

Best regards

Chris George

No, Martin found Cohen first, because he searched the records around the time of the murders. A logical place to start. Only by searching records from later did he find Kosminski. He didn't slide at all.

Hello Roy

I appreciate what you are saying, but might I point out that before anyone looked into asylum records, the name Kosminski as a suspect was out there, known from 1959 onwards from the Macnaghten memorandum, the only Jewish suspect named in that document? And with due respect to Martin, the search of asylum records was to find a poor lunatic Jew who might correspond to the police suspect theories as promulgated by the likes of Anderson and Macnaghten, wasn't it?

Best regards

Chris

[Colin Roberts]

More important still, he saw the beauty of Black Lion Yard as an address - (much more truly central to the murder sites than Plummers Row or Sion Square, though those addresses were unknown at the time).

Slightly more "truly central"!

Slightly!

[PaulB]

Hello Roy

I appreciate what you are saying, but might I point out that before anyone looked into asylum records, the name Kosminski as a suspect was out there, known from 1959 onwards from the Macnaghten memorandum, the only Jewish suspect named in that document? And with due respect to Martin, the search of asylum records was to find a poor lunatic Jew who might correspond to the police suspect theories as promulgated by the likes of Anderson and Macnaghten, wasn't it?

Best regards

Chris

I think you'll find that (1) the name "Kosminski" wasn't out there in 1959, (2)for a very long time the most authoritative book about the crimes was Don Rumbelow's, and he made a very good case for Pizer being Anderson's suspect, and (3) Martin Fido was the first person to connect Anderson's unnamed Polish Jew with the Polish Jew suspect named "Kosminski" by Macnaghted. And (4) the search of the asylum records was to find "Kosminski", not just to find a poor lunatic Jew who fitted police theories.

It was because Macnaghten said that "Kosminski" had been committed in or around 1889 that Martin did not extend his searches far enough and therefore missed Aaron Kosminski. Believing that Anderson would not have lied about his Polish Jew, Martin concluded that the suspect was in the records somewhere, albeit under another name, and the most likely candidate he'd come across was, in his eyes, David Cohen.

There was absolutely no "slide over" from one individual to another. Martin had settled on David Cohen for good and sensible reasons long before he came across Aaron Kosminski's name.