How Brown
06-11-2009, 05:49 AM
The Forums thanks Rob very much for his time and effort in responding to these questions........
******************
1. As a Ripperologist who is primarily known for his efforts in regard to Aaron Kosminski, please explain how you became more focused on Kosminski...or perhaps, less focused on other suspects and selected Kosminski due to a hunch or perception on your part ?
I got interested in Kozminski after reading Sugden and gradually coming to the conclusion that I was not satisfied with the reasons he gave for dismissing Kozminski as a suspect. This led me to reexamine Kozminski as a suspect, and to compare him with the generic characteristics of serial killers. As I did so, Kozminski seemed like a more likely Ripper suspect. After publishing an article in Ripperologist, I received a lot of good feedback and suggestions from various Ripperologists, most notably Chris Phillips. Chris discovered a naturalization application memorial for an Israel Lubnowski-Cohen, who he guessed may have been a brother of Morris Lubnowski (this turned out to be true). This was important, since most naturalization applications up to 1896 did not list place of birth. So for example, Morris Lubnowski's 1888 application did not list place of birth. This made it impossible to guess where in Poland Aaron was from, and thus hampered any attempts to find his genealogical records, since Polish archives are not centrally indexed, but rather were located in regional archives. So you would have to know the general area where a person was from to perform a search without shelling out a prohibitive amount of money. But Israel's application was later (1901) and it listed his place of birth as Klodawa, Poland. So Chris suggested Aaron might also be from that area, and I shelled out the $100 for research fees. This led to the discovery of Aaro's vital documents, and all the lter discoveries about Aaron's family genealogy, which then led to later discoveries, etc. Chris, in fact, did much more of the subsequent research than I did, and I give all the credit to him. In all this time, I did the research in my spare time. And between Chris and I, we put together an extremely extensive amount of documentation of Aaron Kozminski. Chris even located several descendants of Kozminski's siblings. In all this time, nothing I ever discovered suggested anything that would exclude Aaron as a suspect in the case, and in my opinion, the opposite happened. The more we discovered, the more he seemed to fit as a suspect. Chris does not share my opinions on this though. My ultimate goal in all this has been to find out more about this suspect, and to explore Anderson's claim that kozminski was the Ripper, and see whether he could have been right.
2. Have you ever had a remotely similar inkling to investigate the backgrounds of the other Macnaghten suspects/ men ( Druitt & Ostrog) in the past and if so...where did you stand now as far as their candidacies as being the Ripper?
I have never felt much inclined to research Ostrog or Druitt, since neither of these ever struck me as likely Ripper suspects. Ostrog was a non-started, and Druitt seemed only to have been a suspect because of his suicide, coincidentally which occurred around the time the murders (canonical) ended. I have briefly been interested in other suspects, notably Arbie LaBruckman and Ameer Bin Ali (spelling), but I never followed up on that very much.
3. An off the wall throwaway question: Are you completely satisfied with Pizer's alibi..that being his brother & kinfolk... although the police apparently were?
I am fairly satisfied with Pizer's alibi, and clearly he was not the Ripper. I also do not agree with Martin Fido's theory that Pizer was not Leather Apron.
4. You have been around in the field for some years now. Briefly, or if possible,elaborate on the trends you see transpiring in the field. For example, documentaries such as the one that Phil Hutchinson and the far better looking Lindsay Siviter appeared on last year focused on the environs of JTR...and the upcoming British documentary which SPE will briefly appear in that is devoted to an aspect of the case and not the whole...the origin of the author of the name, Jack The Ripper, featuring Mr. Cook are two examples of what can be described as specialized Ripperology. Is this what Rob House sees as becoming the trend of the future or an anomaly or phase?
This is a difficult question to answer. I am not sure I can identify any clear trends in the field, although perhaps there is an increasing tendency of researchers to dismiss more and more aspects of the case... a sort of minimalist approach, which I do not see as being very productive. For example, suggesting that there were only 3 Ripper victims to me seems a bad idea. In general, I am a bit concerned at the tendency to dismiss more and more things as being suspicious, or throwing out pieces of evidence if they are perceived as being flawed. In a sense, this comes from over-analysis. If you think about something for too long, you can start to find problems with anything, and you will invent all sorts of crazy explanations that move farther and farther away from the occam's razor approach. This to me is like the physics paper that proved mathematically the impossibility of a hummingbird being able to fly. Too much time spent looking at these things and you will begin to throw out everything. There is a problem with just going over and over the same stuff for too long. I like simplicity. In general, I feel that the tendency to reject things, and to bash theories comes from frustration... specifically the frustration that comes from the inability to solve the case, and from the paucity of information about certain aspects of it. Studying Kozminski has been like this. There are so many gaps in his history that it can be maddening. Also, there are the obvious problems with the statements of Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson and others. But I have faith that there must be a simple explanation for these things. I simply do not accept that Anderson was lying, nor do I accept that both Anderson and Swanson were deluded in the same way. There must be a better explanation. In my opinion, Kozminski was a strong suspect, but there was simply no hard evidence against him that would hold up in court. Anderson essentially said this on numerous occasions. Sometimes I have to just let go, and accept that some things will remain unknowable. I think it is more dangerous to try to construct bizarre explanations that fit these anomalies, than it it to just accept that we will never know what the explanation is. I am also a bit frustrated by what I see as defeatism in the field. There is a lot of politics in Ripper research, and I try to avoid this whenever possible. People tend to enjoy shooting things down, casting doubt, without considering the other options. This makes me wonder if people would prefer to keep the case unsolved. I agree with Stewart Evans that the case is unlikely to be solved, at least to the satisfaction of the majority of Ripperologists. But I would like to see more collaboration, and more of a positive, forward thinking approach to many of these issues. It is very easy to attack theories, and to inject doubts. But in many cases, this just derails any progressive reseaerch or progress that might happen otherwise. In Kozminski research for example, I would much rather see other Ripperologists try to help with the ongoing research, and come up with progressive ideas for exploring new avenues of research. I have the utmost respect for the people in this field, and I greatly respect the many authors and researchers who have worked on the case, even if I disagree with some of their specific conclusions and theories. There are many great minds in this field, and I would love to get their help in trying to advance our knowledge of Kozminski. But what happens mostly is this never ending focus on Anderson... focusing on his character, and suggesting he was wrong. OK. We have all heard these arguments a million times. And we have heard the back and forth arguments between Stewart, Martin, and Paul... but it is really like trench warfare at this pont. I am trying to explore the other possibility, specifically, what if Anderson was right? Kozminski is still a viable suspect, and I think a lot more progressive research can be done on him. I will continue turning over all the stones. If further research can prove Aaron Kozminski was not the Ripper, that will be progress in my eye. On the other hand, future research may strengthen the case against Kozminski. But neither of those results will ever be achieved by continuing to focus on the same old arguments about Anderson's supposed senility, and about the contradictions that are apparent in the Swanson marginalia and the Macnaghten memorandum.
5. Which search tools do you recommend for the rank and file and newcomer to Ripperology? I use the electronic Boston Library,and the Free Library of Philadelphia.
I have been writing a book for the past year, and in that time I have relied primarily on the inquest reports (in the Ultimate), Press reports on casebook.org, and a mountain of books on the Ripper case, London history, Jewish history, the history of asylums in England, books on serial killers, etc. There are many great online resources now for researching genealogy, and Chris knows much more about this than I do. Of course Sugden's book is great, as is the Ultimate Sourcebook, Begg's Book, Stewart's new book on Scotland Yard, etc. Even for a newcomer, I would reccomend the Ultimate Sourcebook, since the inquests are fascinating. It is also intersting to compare the various versions of the inquests as printed in different newspapers... the most reliable versions in my opinion are in the Morning Advertiser and the Daily Telegraph, since these seem to be more like verbatim accounts of the inquests, as opposed to the summaries printed in other papers.
6. I've go to ask you this one. I'm sure you are aware of the marathon discussion on George Hutchinson's signature(s).
I am not familiar with that thread actually. Maybe I will check it out.
Thanks for the chance to speak in this forum. I hope I have not come across as pompous in my answers. I tried to be as honest as possible.**
******************
1. As a Ripperologist who is primarily known for his efforts in regard to Aaron Kosminski, please explain how you became more focused on Kosminski...or perhaps, less focused on other suspects and selected Kosminski due to a hunch or perception on your part ?
I got interested in Kozminski after reading Sugden and gradually coming to the conclusion that I was not satisfied with the reasons he gave for dismissing Kozminski as a suspect. This led me to reexamine Kozminski as a suspect, and to compare him with the generic characteristics of serial killers. As I did so, Kozminski seemed like a more likely Ripper suspect. After publishing an article in Ripperologist, I received a lot of good feedback and suggestions from various Ripperologists, most notably Chris Phillips. Chris discovered a naturalization application memorial for an Israel Lubnowski-Cohen, who he guessed may have been a brother of Morris Lubnowski (this turned out to be true). This was important, since most naturalization applications up to 1896 did not list place of birth. So for example, Morris Lubnowski's 1888 application did not list place of birth. This made it impossible to guess where in Poland Aaron was from, and thus hampered any attempts to find his genealogical records, since Polish archives are not centrally indexed, but rather were located in regional archives. So you would have to know the general area where a person was from to perform a search without shelling out a prohibitive amount of money. But Israel's application was later (1901) and it listed his place of birth as Klodawa, Poland. So Chris suggested Aaron might also be from that area, and I shelled out the $100 for research fees. This led to the discovery of Aaro's vital documents, and all the lter discoveries about Aaron's family genealogy, which then led to later discoveries, etc. Chris, in fact, did much more of the subsequent research than I did, and I give all the credit to him. In all this time, I did the research in my spare time. And between Chris and I, we put together an extremely extensive amount of documentation of Aaron Kozminski. Chris even located several descendants of Kozminski's siblings. In all this time, nothing I ever discovered suggested anything that would exclude Aaron as a suspect in the case, and in my opinion, the opposite happened. The more we discovered, the more he seemed to fit as a suspect. Chris does not share my opinions on this though. My ultimate goal in all this has been to find out more about this suspect, and to explore Anderson's claim that kozminski was the Ripper, and see whether he could have been right.
2. Have you ever had a remotely similar inkling to investigate the backgrounds of the other Macnaghten suspects/ men ( Druitt & Ostrog) in the past and if so...where did you stand now as far as their candidacies as being the Ripper?
I have never felt much inclined to research Ostrog or Druitt, since neither of these ever struck me as likely Ripper suspects. Ostrog was a non-started, and Druitt seemed only to have been a suspect because of his suicide, coincidentally which occurred around the time the murders (canonical) ended. I have briefly been interested in other suspects, notably Arbie LaBruckman and Ameer Bin Ali (spelling), but I never followed up on that very much.
3. An off the wall throwaway question: Are you completely satisfied with Pizer's alibi..that being his brother & kinfolk... although the police apparently were?
I am fairly satisfied with Pizer's alibi, and clearly he was not the Ripper. I also do not agree with Martin Fido's theory that Pizer was not Leather Apron.
4. You have been around in the field for some years now. Briefly, or if possible,elaborate on the trends you see transpiring in the field. For example, documentaries such as the one that Phil Hutchinson and the far better looking Lindsay Siviter appeared on last year focused on the environs of JTR...and the upcoming British documentary which SPE will briefly appear in that is devoted to an aspect of the case and not the whole...the origin of the author of the name, Jack The Ripper, featuring Mr. Cook are two examples of what can be described as specialized Ripperology. Is this what Rob House sees as becoming the trend of the future or an anomaly or phase?
This is a difficult question to answer. I am not sure I can identify any clear trends in the field, although perhaps there is an increasing tendency of researchers to dismiss more and more aspects of the case... a sort of minimalist approach, which I do not see as being very productive. For example, suggesting that there were only 3 Ripper victims to me seems a bad idea. In general, I am a bit concerned at the tendency to dismiss more and more things as being suspicious, or throwing out pieces of evidence if they are perceived as being flawed. In a sense, this comes from over-analysis. If you think about something for too long, you can start to find problems with anything, and you will invent all sorts of crazy explanations that move farther and farther away from the occam's razor approach. This to me is like the physics paper that proved mathematically the impossibility of a hummingbird being able to fly. Too much time spent looking at these things and you will begin to throw out everything. There is a problem with just going over and over the same stuff for too long. I like simplicity. In general, I feel that the tendency to reject things, and to bash theories comes from frustration... specifically the frustration that comes from the inability to solve the case, and from the paucity of information about certain aspects of it. Studying Kozminski has been like this. There are so many gaps in his history that it can be maddening. Also, there are the obvious problems with the statements of Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson and others. But I have faith that there must be a simple explanation for these things. I simply do not accept that Anderson was lying, nor do I accept that both Anderson and Swanson were deluded in the same way. There must be a better explanation. In my opinion, Kozminski was a strong suspect, but there was simply no hard evidence against him that would hold up in court. Anderson essentially said this on numerous occasions. Sometimes I have to just let go, and accept that some things will remain unknowable. I think it is more dangerous to try to construct bizarre explanations that fit these anomalies, than it it to just accept that we will never know what the explanation is. I am also a bit frustrated by what I see as defeatism in the field. There is a lot of politics in Ripper research, and I try to avoid this whenever possible. People tend to enjoy shooting things down, casting doubt, without considering the other options. This makes me wonder if people would prefer to keep the case unsolved. I agree with Stewart Evans that the case is unlikely to be solved, at least to the satisfaction of the majority of Ripperologists. But I would like to see more collaboration, and more of a positive, forward thinking approach to many of these issues. It is very easy to attack theories, and to inject doubts. But in many cases, this just derails any progressive reseaerch or progress that might happen otherwise. In Kozminski research for example, I would much rather see other Ripperologists try to help with the ongoing research, and come up with progressive ideas for exploring new avenues of research. I have the utmost respect for the people in this field, and I greatly respect the many authors and researchers who have worked on the case, even if I disagree with some of their specific conclusions and theories. There are many great minds in this field, and I would love to get their help in trying to advance our knowledge of Kozminski. But what happens mostly is this never ending focus on Anderson... focusing on his character, and suggesting he was wrong. OK. We have all heard these arguments a million times. And we have heard the back and forth arguments between Stewart, Martin, and Paul... but it is really like trench warfare at this pont. I am trying to explore the other possibility, specifically, what if Anderson was right? Kozminski is still a viable suspect, and I think a lot more progressive research can be done on him. I will continue turning over all the stones. If further research can prove Aaron Kozminski was not the Ripper, that will be progress in my eye. On the other hand, future research may strengthen the case against Kozminski. But neither of those results will ever be achieved by continuing to focus on the same old arguments about Anderson's supposed senility, and about the contradictions that are apparent in the Swanson marginalia and the Macnaghten memorandum.
5. Which search tools do you recommend for the rank and file and newcomer to Ripperology? I use the electronic Boston Library,and the Free Library of Philadelphia.
I have been writing a book for the past year, and in that time I have relied primarily on the inquest reports (in the Ultimate), Press reports on casebook.org, and a mountain of books on the Ripper case, London history, Jewish history, the history of asylums in England, books on serial killers, etc. There are many great online resources now for researching genealogy, and Chris knows much more about this than I do. Of course Sugden's book is great, as is the Ultimate Sourcebook, Begg's Book, Stewart's new book on Scotland Yard, etc. Even for a newcomer, I would reccomend the Ultimate Sourcebook, since the inquests are fascinating. It is also intersting to compare the various versions of the inquests as printed in different newspapers... the most reliable versions in my opinion are in the Morning Advertiser and the Daily Telegraph, since these seem to be more like verbatim accounts of the inquests, as opposed to the summaries printed in other papers.
6. I've go to ask you this one. I'm sure you are aware of the marathon discussion on George Hutchinson's signature(s).
I am not familiar with that thread actually. Maybe I will check it out.
Thanks for the chance to speak in this forum. I hope I have not come across as pompous in my answers. I tried to be as honest as possible.**