Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Were They Watching Kosminski ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    But Anderson doesn't really state that they found the suspect during the house to house; he states that the failure of the house-to-house, as well as inquiries into all men living alone, led to the theory that the murderer wasn't living alone, but was being shielded/protected by his Jewish people.

    So, the way I look at it, it was merely a working hypothesis in 1888; it wasn't an actual investigation of a specific suspect, though it may (and probably did) lead to one.

    People interpret things differently, but the whole thrust of Anderson's statement is that the suspect was being shielded from the police, with the obviously implication that he was living with them, no? Why would a tight-knit Jewish family, living in a strange land, send their mentally troubled brother to live in a private lodging house?

    Further, if Kosminski was out on his own, or even living in a private lodging house, how would his family have been able to shield him, as per Anderson? How would they even known what he was up to? It doesn't seem to fit with the character and implications of Anderson's statements.

    Even the claim that the suspect was the 'sole occupant' of certain premises 'after nightfall' suggests to me that he was living with the family during daylight hours. It sounds to me--and this is a guess obviously--that, since he wasn't working, they had him sleep in a store room or shop at night to keep guard on the place.

    Comment


    • #32
      People interpret things differently, but the whole thrust of Anderson's statement is that the suspect was being shielded from the police, with the obviously implication that he was living with them, no? Why would a tight-knit Jewish family, living in a strange land, send their mentally troubled brother to live in a private lodging house?
      I think it is easier to look after someone with mental health problems part time . And it would be far easier to as you said let him live somewhere guarding a family members' workshop at nights. I do think Aaron quite possibly watched Jacob Cohens' clothes shop in Carter Lane in the City in 1889 and possible 1888?. Possibly why he was walking the unmuzzled dog near there. If only we could find out when that business of Davies, Cohen and Abrahams started? It wound up in 1889. If it had started in 1888 Aaron could have been living there when the murders were committed.

      I think it would be quite helpful to find when that busness started if anyone has any ideas ?

      Andersons' statement was that the family covered for him.
      I think they were probably trying to protect him and were not 100% sure if it was him or not. Woolfe covered for him for the Batty street incident. Its possible they got him out of the way and then moved themselves. He was probably just one of a lot of suspects.

      One has to remember in late 1888 Betsy was pregnant again and if Aaron had the problem of excessive masturbation she would not want him to be near her kids especially as those houses were not very big in Providence street. Far easier to feed him sometimes and organise someone to wash his clothes.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
        But Anderson doesn't really state that they found the suspect during the house to house
        I don't know! Anderson: "...police had made a house-to-house search for him... And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice." Cox stated: "We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated". That does not rule out that "Kosminski" had been one of these many people while the murders were being perpetrated. Maybe Kosminski was one of a few "prime" suspects but no hard proof against him. If PC Smith, Schwartz (in the best case Schwartz recognized Kosminski as the man at the doorway) and Lawende failed, if BS Man could not be found, then the police were powerless. Strideīs attacker was BS Man. I can imagine that there were many people who thought one of their relatives had something to do with the crimes. As far as I know Woolf and Betsy Abrahams were low-class Jews unlike Isaac and Bertha Abrahms. Isaac was a member of the Masonic Order until he quit the Freemasons in March 1889!!! Possibly there was a Rabbi in the family, Israel Lubnowski, no idea if he lived in London 1888. It might have been useful to sent him outside London, far away from Whitechapel and prostitutes. Quite possible that the family had relations and the money to shield him. The private asylum would have been a smaller institution, probably Jewish.

        Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
        Why would a tight-knit Jewish family, living in a strange land, send their mentally troubled brother to live in a private lodging house?

        Further, if Kosminski was out on his own, or even living in a private lodging house, how would his family have been able to shield him, as per Anderson?

        since he wasn't working, they had him sleep in a store room or shop at night to keep guard on the place.
        "... at night to keep guard"? Who shielded him there?

        I think that Aaron Kozminski had spent the most of his time after March 1889 in that asylum. I know, if Coxī suspect was Aaron Kozminski then he walked alone at night, he walked alone with a dog in December 1889. Maybe the family did know, if he left his home or his place of work, the police is there. A risk they took? The risk of "caught red- handed"?

        Another proposed solution: At some point after the Kelly murder his family gave him up. No other murder took place, no hard proof, just moral proof. And everytime when his condition got worse they sent him to a private asylum (Sagar: and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum).

        Anderson claimed he was a quiet and harmless individual! And he was probably a serial killer. How to stop a individual like him? Who can stop him? Brothers, the sister, friends? I donīt think. He took the protection he could get. As much as necessary to get from a crisis. No child, running to mummy. I think itīs misconception, Jack the Ripper was not looking for help and just accepted help, as much as necessary, to survive.

        I think the family did what they could do... probably not the things we think of... not all the things we expect...

        Comment


        • #34
          Hi Karsten. But, in regards to Anderson's statement in his memoirs, the part you left out is particularly important, no?

          "During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice."

          Just think about this strange comment for a minute. It's a bit enigmatic, isn't it?

          Anderson makes two contradictory statements and they don't quite 'gel' without reading between the lines.

          1. In the first sentence Anderson states the Met investigated men who could come and go in secret. In other words, men who were living alone. He does not elaborate.

          2. In the second statement he writes that the conclusion the Met came to is that the murderer was a low-class Jew who was being protected by his people. He even lumps them together "he and his people," which suggests complicity.

          How and why would he have drawn the conclusion of statement #2, based on the investigation of men living alone (statement #1)?

          The only way it makes sense (to me) is if the investigation of single men came up completely empty and thus Anderson figured that the murderer wasn't, in fact, able to come and go in secret but instead was being shielded by the people that lived with him.

          In Anderson's mind, living alone and being a certain type of low-class Jew were one and the same, because Jews "don't give up their own to Gentile justice."

          Admittedly, he doesn't state that directly, but I don't know how else to read it.

          P.S. Yes, I accept your point. I acknowledge that the later statement that the Polish suspect (evidently Kosminski) was the 'sole occupant' of certain premises is highly problematic. It also doesn't 'gel' with the main thrust of the argument, but it does keep Kosminski at least somewhat under the roof of his family, and one might argue that they had seen enough to raise their suspicions.

          Comment


          • #35
            Hi R.J.!

            Anderson:

            "One did not have to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice."

            "Recalling that all the murders were committed within a certain area, Sir Robert remarked: We knew that the murderer must live within that area, and we felt further that either he was a man living by himself or that his people were shielding him, for he must have gone home drenched with blood. If you remember the murder in Millerīs Court you will recollect that the place where the body was found presented a terrible spectacle. Blood was splashed all over the walls. The murder could not have escaped being smothered with blood."

            Walter Dew:

            "SOMEONE, somewhere, shared Jack the Ripper's guilty secret. Of this I am tolerably certain. The man lived somewhere. Each time there was a murder he must have returned home in the early hours of the morning. His clothing must have been bespattered with blood.

            These facts alone ought to have been sufficient to arouse suspicion, and to cause a statement to be made to the police.

            Suspicion, I have no doubt, was aroused, but that statement to the police was never made..."

            https://www.casebook.org/ripper_medi...walterdew.html

            I always interpreted this as:

            How many people were living absolutely alone in Whitechapel at that time? And the police assumed, that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders, and assumed someone somewhere shared Jack the Ripper's guilty secret. Someone must have noticed the sexual maniac but gave no statement to the police. They assumed he wasnīt not living absolutely alone, not able to live absolutely alone even if he had tried to live alone. They didnīt expect this man living by himself but they did not ruled out it. There were members of his family or friends, neighbors, colleagues, they thought of.

            If Bertha had contacted the police, during the house to house search... the conclusion they came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews... and the result proved that their diagnosis (see above) was right on every point. Profiling in 1888 in London.

            Enigmatic? I don't think so. But it is just my interpretation of what Anderson said, R.J. Of course, I could be wrong.

            Thatīs all I can say.

            Karsten.

            Comment


            • #36
              Schwartz or Lawende?

              I think it is possible that Schwartz identified Aaron Kozminski. He just identified him as "Pipeman"and he was not the Seaside Home witness. Maybe he identified the same man Packer had seen with Stride. So it would be possible that Aaron Kozminski was "Pipeman" and lived in "the next street". It is a fact, that his brother Woolf and his wife Betsy Abrahams lived at 25 Providence Street at the time of the murders and that they moved from this street after the Double Event. Aaron Kozminski (Pipeman) could have been the man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. Packer, certainly not a reliable witness but had seen something and knowledege on where the man lived. Schwartz desribed Pipeman as "age, 35, hair, light brown, 5 ft 11in". Aaron Kozminski, possibly, "23 years old, black, curly hair, 5 ft 6in". Remember what happened to me 15 years ago. Is it possible that Schwartz despite his description could identified him?

              Echo 1 October 1888/ The Sotsman 2 October 1888:

              The Berner Street Club

              "In the course of conversation the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had, no doubt, been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen - or, at least, a man whom some persons regard as the murderer - being chased by another man along Fairclough Street which runs across Berner Street, close to the club, and which is interesected on the right by Providence Street, Brunswick Street, and Christian Street, and on the left by Batty Street and Grove Street, the two latter running up into Commercial Road. The pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body."

              Is it possible, during the house-to-house inquiry, after the Stride murder, that the police had found out that a man stated he had chased another man (probably BS Man) on the night of the murder? When they found him did Schwartz him recognize in spite of his description as "Pipeman"? ... "the secretary of the club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase"... Packerīs man in "the next street"? The man with the "not wholly accepted statement"? With the search from 3-18 October 1888 the police tried to put more pressure on people to get more information from them, from people that had an awful suspicion, so my impression. And it worked, see Mrs. Kuer and Betsy? After these information they were able to put Aaron Kozminski on the top of their list. Watched him at the East End infirmary and, when at home again, at 25 Providence Street where his brother him shielded while Betsy with her Children moved to Isaac or Matilda in Greenfield Street and later on to Yalford Street. During the surveillance the police found out that the bloody shirts in Batty Street belonges to Aaron. Some time later the PC near Mitre Square recognized Aaron Kozminski in Height and Build as the man he had seen on the night of the murder. In Berner Street, Aaron Kozminski wasnīt just a "witness" who chased the presumable Ripper, he was also seen that same night near Mitre Square.

              He presumable was the Ripper himself and with this knowledge the police watched him for months. This "quiet and harmless individual in the ordinary way" became, "when the paroxysms came upon" and "his ferocity knew no bounds" Jack the Ripper the man the police were looking for. When Aaron was sent to a private asylum, in March 1889, at the same time Isaac quit the Freemasons.

              Lawende? Maybe he had seen another couple.

              Anderson:

              "I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him"

              I wouldnīt be surprised if the City Policeman worked undercover in the "private asylum" and could find out that Aaron Kozminski had information on the "attacker" of Stride, BS Man.

              BS Man could have been the Seaside Home witness. Possibly that Aaron Kozminski had already chosen Liz Stride as victim before BS Man appeared. Maybe both men "talked" to each other. And when BS Man left the scene he saw Aaron Kozminski and Liz Stride entering the Dutfieldīs Yard. If "Pipeman" is "Kosminski" BS Man was "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer". Perhaps BS Man lived not far from the crime scene in Berner Street.

              The City officer "had placed the whole of his information before them, and received a bonus for his pains."

              Anderson:

              "In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had had taken it up, thrown it into the fire-place and smashed it beyond recognition."

              Schwartz about "Pipeman":

              "had a clay pipe in his hand"

              Who knows, maybe Anderson gave a hint that the Polish Jew, "Kosminski", is identical with "Pipeman".

              Karsten.

              Comment


              • #37
                This is almost off topic but I have been thinking about peripheral things that might have excited JtR, like the dock fire and Lord Mayor's Day. Did he kill when his emotions were heightened?

                Some think Liz Stride was the victim of a domestic issue, perhaps Michael Kidney attacked her. Some think BS Man was not the killer. In that vein, what if BS Man spoke to her, tried to get her to come with him, she said "no" but not loudly and then she fell in the pathway, and this altercation excited an onlooker? Maybe Pipeman?

                There are lots of issues with the Double Event and one of them is that those two crimes happened earlier than the other murders. The risk was extremely high, of getting caught outside a club with people inside. Did excitement impel the killer to attack, risks be damned?
                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                Comment


                • #38
                  Another possible description of a man with Liz Stride is the one from Nathan Shine. According to his family, he had witnessed a man with a long bladed, thin knife standing over a woman on Berner Street. Nathan Shine, then about 18 years old, seems not to have gone to the authorities.

                  His description of the man was, age about 30, 5' 6" tall, pale complexion, dark hair, small dark brown moustache, full, roundish face, broad shoulders, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak. This description plus a more detailed discussion can be found at: https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/12027.html (As I recall, all this comes out in Sassienie family records and I believe the Sassienies were Dutch Jews.)

                  We have one thread here about Nathan from 2009 but most of the links don't work. (I started a couple others in the past because Nathan's story is so similar to Schwartz' story and I have wondered if they could be the same person. At this time I believe they are different people.) Personally, I believe Nathan Shine's story.

                  A possible scenario could be that BS man pulled Liz down, did what he could to frighten off Schwartz and Pipeman, someway got Liz through and behind the gate of Dutfield's yard, cut her throat, was interrupted by Nathan Shine and decided to flee.

                  The only reason I am tacking all this on here is because of Shine's description which can be added to other descriptions given below. Is he possibly describing Kosminski...or not?
                  The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                    Another possible description of a man with Liz Stride is the one from Nathan Shine. According to his family, he had witnessed a man with a long bladed, thin knife standing over a woman on Berner Street. Nathan Shine, then about 18 years old, seems not to have gone to the authorities.

                    His description of the man was, age about 30, 5' 6" tall, pale complexion, dark hair, small dark brown moustache, full, roundish face, broad shoulders, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak. This description plus a more detailed discussion can be found at: https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/12027.html (As I recall, all this comes out in Sassienie family records and I believe the Sassienies were Dutch Jews.)

                    We have one thread here about Nathan from 2009 but most of the links don't work. (I started a couple others in the past because Nathan's story is so similar to Schwartz' story and I have wondered if they could be the same person. At this time I believe they are different people.) Personally, I believe Nathan Shine's story.

                    A possible scenario could be that BS man pulled Liz down, did what he could to frighten off Schwartz and Pipeman, someway got Liz through and behind the gate of Dutfield's yard, cut her throat, was interrupted by Nathan Shine and decided to flee.

                    The only reason I am tacking all this on here is because of Shine's description which can be added to other descriptions given below. Is he possibly describing Kosminski...or not?

                    As I am aware there is no description of Aaron Kosminski from 1888, so your question cannot be answered.

                    What also cannot be established is whether Aaron Kosminski was even the Kosminski referred to in the very dubious marginalia.

                    Identification issues regarding witnesses to crimes even in the 21st century come under close scrutiny. So we should not rely on any of the descriptions given by the witnesses back then. No one ever saw the killer, and if you rule out Stride as being a Ripper victim the varying descriptions which are left a sparse to say the least.

                    But of course, we see time and time again these weak descriptions as given by witnesses back then being used to fit a suspect.

                    I think the term square pegs into round holes is apt

                    As we have seen the main suspects researchers refer to all emanate from nothing more than senior police officers opinions in later years, and none of them seem to agree on the same suspect, so that must start the warning bells ringing. So which, if any were really suspects by reason of evidence back then in 1888. After all these named suspects all cant have been this elusive serial killer can they? The answer would appear to be none !

                    Time and time again we see researchers referring to a person as a suspect when in fact they are nothing more than perhaps a person of interest. To help clarify the difference see below

                    Person of interest A person that has specific characteristics or activities that warrant further investigation

                    Suspect A suspect is someone whom police believe may actually have committed a crime being investigated

                    The suspect/witness sections in Ripperlogy has become a game of pin the tail on the donkey.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      [QUOTE=R. J. Palmer;354369]

                      Anderson makes two contradictory statements and they don't quite 'gel' without reading between the lines.

                      1. In the first sentence Anderson states the Met investigated men who could come and go in secret. In other words, men who were living alone. He does not elaborate.

                      Hi RJ...Its been speculated in the past that Aaron might have worked for the family as some sort of night watchman at BUSINESS premises. These would allow someone to come and go in secret, at least at night when they are vacated.

                      Although I accept that Sweater shops often worked night and day with people sleeping on the premises...

                      But a small shop near the Princess Alice pub would fit some of the observations


                      Yours Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I think the term square pegs into round holes is apt

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        As someone who has spent a career knocking more square pegs into round holes than almost any other ripperologist, i hope you don't mind a little snigger at that statement.

                        Yours jeff

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hi Anna!

                          Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                          This is almost off topic but I have been thinking about peripheral things that might have excited JtR, like the dock fire and Lord Mayor's Day. Did he kill when his emotions were heightened?

                          Some think Liz Stride was the victim of a domestic issue, perhaps Michael Kidney attacked her. Some think BS Man was not the killer. In that vein, what if BS Man spoke to her, tried to get her to come with him, she said "no" but not loudly and then she fell in the pathway, and this altercation excited an onlooker? Maybe Pipeman?

                          There are lots of issues with the Double Event and one of them is that those two crimes happened earlier than the other murders. The risk was extremely high, of getting caught outside a club with people inside. Did excitement impel the killer to attack, risks be damned?
                          Maybe it makes sense to compare the Stride murder (Eddowes surely wasn't "planned") with the murder of Chapman three weeks before. In the latter case the Ripper met the victim, killed it and was going home when "it was getting light". In the Ripper case, I wonder whether there is a correlation between crime scene and time when the murders occured. The earlier a murder occured the closer the home of the perperator. If I remember correctly, in the case of Sutcliffe it was precisely the opposite.

                          Letīs have a look at the time of death:

                          Tabram: 2:30 AM
                          Nichols: 3:40 AM
                          Chapman: 5:45 AM
                          Stride: 1:00 AM
                          Eddowes: 1:35 AM
                          "Goulston Street around 2:30 AM" (another "crime scene")
                          Kelly: 4:00 AM

                          We see, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly later at night/ very early in the morning

                          Tabram, Stride, Eddowes and the Goulston Street is the other group.

                          Look at the map (click on -Alle zeigen-, -show all-):

                          https://jacktheripper.de/material/karte_ea/index.html

                          Back to "Were They Watching Kosminski":

                          Sagar mentioned Butchers Row on Aldgate High Street (see AHS on the map, near Somerset Street)
                          Cox mentionend a Shop in Leman Street (below 1)
                          To Aaron Kozminski: Providence Street (Woolf Abrahams) right of 4 below Batty Street, Isaac Abrahams (+ his Garden Workshop behind the house) and Matilda Lubnowski (Greenfield Street) above 4.

                          We find all of them, Butchers Row, Leman Street, Providence Street and Greenfield Street, close to the crime scenes of Tabram, Stride, Eddowes and "Goulston Street. Those murders took place earlier at night.

                          One might think that the suspect or the suspects were living near or between the 1,4,5, 7. Exactly the crimes that took place earlier at night.

                          Back to Chapman and Stride:

                          The distance between crime scene Hanbury Street (Chapman) and the street he lived (or slept at least) could have been a problem after the murder of Chapman, with bloody clothes when it was getting light. Perhaps his real "hunting ground" was located north of Old Montague Street (Nichols, Chapman and Kelly that took place later at night). His experience with the Chapman murder when it was already getting light could have induced to act differently the next time. But I think there are many possibilities. Who knows, maybe something happened to him hours before, an insult that made him angry. And instead of going home he looked for the next victim or Eddowes run into him when he was going "home" (or to one of "certain premises after nightfall").

                          Btw.: The Canadian Newspaper I mentioned it also could referred to Cutbush.

                          Karsten.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Karsten Giese View Post
                            Schwartz or Lawende?

                            Hi Karstein trusting you are well..Getting colder here in Brexit torn UK.

                            I think it is possible that Schwartz identified Aaron Kozminski. He just identified him as "Pipeman"and he was not the Seaside Home witness.
                            Karsten.
                            I guess my main worry here is that it would make Stride particularly unlucky, as Shwartz describes BS as throwing her to the ground..

                            So it would involve her being attacked twice..

                            That said I think I've come across cases where that has happen, someone being attacked and then being seen as vulnerable by their eventual killer..

                            I've always thought it possible however that the man seen by Brown with stride was also the Pipeman....So if she left the Pipeman crossed the road towards Outfield Yard...Schwart might have witness Stride approaching BS and asking for help, Schwartz POV was 180 degrees at this point so BS would block his view of Stride...The question of course would be why would he 'throw her to the ground?'

                            It is however interesting speculation that i have never considered before..

                            My preference however is an unknown witness coming to Police attention at a later date, around or shortly after the walking the dog, especially if Kozminski was still being watched and still in and out of asylums

                            Yours Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Karsten Giese View Post
                              Hi Anna!

                              Maybe it makes sense to compare the Stride murder (Eddowes surely wasn't "planned") with the murder of Chapman three weeks before. In the latter case the Ripper met the victim, killed it and was going home when "it was getting light". In the Ripper case, I wonder whether there is a correlation between crime scene and time when the murders occured. The earlier a murder occured the closer the home of the perperator. If I remember correctly, in the case of Sutcliffe it was precisely the opposite.

                              Karsten.
                              Surely only works if Kozminski is based near Greenfield street....What about if he has access to a Little Shop near the Princess Alice?

                              Yours Jeff

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Hi Jeff!

                                Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                                So it would involve her being attacked twice..f
                                Unusual, indeed...

                                What about Emma Smith? Not far from the Tabram crime scene in Osborn Street... "when at least three, maybe four youths began following her from Whitechapel Church". If the Ripper is responsible for this crime he could be the man who "viciously jabbed a blunt object into her vagina" moments later after the youths were gone. A woman, Smith, just beaten and raped, surely it was not easy for her to differentiate a single attacker from a group.

                                Karsten.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X