Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Karsten Giese, Jeff Leahy, etc...New David Kozminski/Cohen Thread

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

  • Karsten Giese, Jeff Leahy, etc...New David Kozminski/Cohen Thread

    This link takes you to the JTR Missing Evidence thread which evolved into a Cohen/Kozminski discussion....

    http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=23534&page=3
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

  • #2
    Old 09-10-2015, 09:03 PM #672
    Jonathan Hainsworth
    Researcher

    Join Date: Jun 2010
    Posts: 1,335
    Default
    As you requested Ed,

    The 1908 interview in "The Daily Chronicle", with Sir Robert Anderson :

    ''In two cases of that terrible series [the Ripper crimes] there were distinct clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin. In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fireplace, and smashed it beyond recognition. In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognized as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated ... I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes, for the reasons, among others, that I have given you.'

    As the late Philip Sudgen cogently wrote in the 2006 intro to his excellent book:

    'Even in the brief allusion to the Ripper case there are two glaring errors. Sir William Harcourt ceased to be Home Secretary in 1885, three years before the murders began. The man with whom Anderson dealt with in 1888 was Henry Matthews. The reference to the pipe is also incorrect. Anderson's mention of a fireplace clearly indicates that he had the murder of Mary Kelly in mind for this was the only one in the series committed indoors. Dr. Phillips, the divisional police surgeon, was called out to the scene of the crime. And a pipe belonging to Joe Barnett, Kelly's lover, was found in Mary's room. But this was not the pipe that was smashed. Anderson was confusing the Kelly murder with that of Alice McKenzie in Castle Alley about nine months later. A clay pipe found with Alice's body was thrown to the floor and broken. However, this incident occurred at the mortuary, during the post-mortem examination, not at the crime scene, and the culprit was one of the attendants, not Dr. Phillips. So here, two years before his memoirs appeared, and speaking of investigations for which he bore overall responsibility, Anderson was confounding officials and running quite separate incidents together in his head.'

    In the interests of transparency, Sugden regarded Druitt as a terminally weak suspect and his 'patron', Sir Melville Macnaghten, as quite under-informed and unreliable -- indefensibly so over the chief's mistakes about Ostrog, who had been completely cleared by late 1894.

    Jeff never deals with the 1908 late primary source. You can see why.

    There is also this on Casebook for you to consider:

    http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/brokenpipe.html
    Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 06:28 PM #671
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    A useful contribution to is debate Jeff...

    I however agree somewhat with your earlier point about the memorandum. In fact we are forced to put too much weight on all the paltry existing records. We are trying to solve a puzzle with 90% of the pieces missing - like that TV show that I'm sure everyone watches I'm sure - Catchphrase. Trying to guess the catchphrase after only one square is revealed.
    But the Ripper case is not unique in that regard. Most historical interpretation is based on very partial records.

    It is too easy to cast aspersions on records due to the partial survival.
    For instance we have the 6 foot 7 inch tall record for the Asylum inmate Joseph Fleming. That is what the one record that recorded his height says. As such it realistically has to be accepted as by far the most likely height of Fleming. Although some claim it must be a mistake. If all such historical records were similarly doubted we would have little or no history. The same goes for the 6 year timescale in Kosminski's medical notes.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 04:24 PM #670
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Jeff

    The problem with your Cox tale is that he talks of a working man from a reasonably well off family and a private hospital.
    Anderson talks of a very poor family.
    The medical record show he didn't work and was only committed to public asylums.

    Either we've got a lot of muddle or different people being spoken of.
    ED…you've just told me off on Facebook so will reply inn the morning..however I will leave you with one of my favourite winston Churchhill quotes:

    Madam "Sir you are drunk'

    Churchhill "Madam you are ugly…however I shall be sober in the morning"

    Jx
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 02:37 PM #669
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robert Linford View Post
    Jeff, as an example of how sloppy Macnaghten was : he doesn't even mention in his memorandum that Druitt committed suicide.
    To be fair Robert…MacNaughten was simply asked to prepare a report should it be required, to address Cutbush as Jack the Ripper..

    In the event of everything it was never required or released.

    My personal belief is that the Abberconway was a draft version and that the final report was never considered as anything other than a passing whim

    I think MacaNughten had a personal interest in the case and had probably formed his opinion on Druit before the report was compiled

    But I think we over consider the memoranda due to it being what little survives on the Ripper case…

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 12:15 PM #668
    Karsten Giese
    Registered User

    Join Date: Dec 2013
    Posts: 49
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    Hi Karsten, yes the cocktail is what I've been arguing for some time.

    I've been using the terms Schizophrenic (Paraniod, hebephrenic, Catatonic) but I'm also aware that they well be defunct in the future into a single spectrum..

    I'm wondering if the term Psychopath is equally arkaic? (Perhaps this is something Robert has been hinting at?)

    I've moved on to the term Cluster B personality disorders and it might simply be that 'lack of empathy' traditionally associated with the term psychopath, is just one facet of the Cluster B spectrum

    Especially when looking at historical cases. There doewsnt appear to have been an attempt to be more specific about serial killer types and mental conditions until Douglas and Hazelwood in the later 1980's, and even then they didn't profile mental illness…the aim was to help police officers with no knowledge of mental illness..

    one of the resulting problems being heavy generalisations with terms like Paraniod Schizophrenic and Psychopath.

    Ian Brady recently being diagnosed with schizophrenia makes me wonder if in extreme cluster B personality disorders the sufferer can experience forms of psychosis? Just a theory

    But I readily accept David Canters observation that no scientific study or research (Meaning properly controlled testing and analysis has ever been done) much of what we know therefore is case study.

    And when you look at a serial killer like Albert Fish surely we must conclude that their is far more going on inside this mans head than Schizophrenia or simply being a psychopath.

    Of course I stand by my generalisation to Christer that someone like Alber Fish isn't your typical psychopath. But I accept that without knowing what an average Psychopath is, its very difficult to draw a conclusion either way..

    So I think we must be cautious about some off these terminologies, how they were reached Historically and who made those diagnosis.. And add to that a difference in the use and experience of those conditions from one country to the next..

    In short Karsten I agree we are looking a multifaceted mental state but still have much to learn from new study and research on both schizophrenia and serial killers per se

    Yours Jeff

    PS Catrins ex-partner suffered bi-polar and cluster B personality disorders. Particularly given to periods of 'grandious' However she claimed it was often difficult almost impossible to separate out where one condition stops and the other begins
    Hi Jeff,

    The biggest mistake people make is black and white thinking regarding psychiatric disorders. As I have said before it is a very complex issue and there is no final solution. The human psyche is difficult to comprehend. Probably, our knowledge about the universe is bigger than that. There are all the clusters and definitions but it is more or less just an assistance, an orientation, to understand all these things. Most it is difficult to make a clear distinction. Schizophrenia, PTSD, Borderline personality disorder, Split personality, Depression, Psychopathy, Anxiety disorder, Schizotypal personality disorder, are we able to understand what each of them truly means? I don´t think so. Bethink: There is a high comorbidity, "they overlap each other". We are trying to explain the psychological profil of Jack the Ripper (it is arrogance, however, we need to do) but better we learn more about ourselves, first.

    My ex-partners, family members, friends, colleagues, friends of friends etc. are bipolar, suffer from borderline, anxiety disorder, PTSD or depression, I "see" psychopathy und I know about split personality... It is a real adventure staying on top of all this...

    All my experience (I am not an expert) tells me that Jack the Ripper was mad. Sometimes it was visible, sometimes it was not. It was the "work" of a person who had suffered from schizophrenia and for sure there were also other disorders.

    He wanted to destroy women, especially of the prostitutes class, on a scale from 1-5 the prostitutes were= 4, he himself= 5 - the lowest level. He was incredible afraid of women.

    Yours Karsten.
    Karsten Giese is offline Add Infraction for Karsten Giese Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 11:38 AM #667
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    In case I haven't seen it Jonathan,- are you able to provide a link to Anderson's 1908 interview?

    Jeff

    The problem with your Cox tale is that he talks of a working man from a reasonably well off family and a private hospital.
    Anderson talks of a very poor family.
    The medical record show he didn't work and was only committed to public asylums.

    Either we've got a lot of muddle or different people being spoken of.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 10:29 AM #666
    Robert Linford
    Researcher Extraordinaire

    Robert Linford's Avatar

    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Posts: 13,650
    Default
    Jeff, as an example of how sloppy Macnaghten was : he doesn't even mention in his memorandum that Druitt committed suicide.
    Robert Linford is online now Add Infraction for Robert Linford Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 09:28 AM #665
    Jonathan Hainsworth
    Researcher

    Join Date: Jun 2010
    Posts: 1,335
    Default
    I can answer those questions, as I have done so many times.

    Like Ed, I have discovered that you don't read other people's posts.

    The reason Mac writes that Ostrog is still alive is that he wants to eliminate this suspect because only a man who killed himself or was soon after sectioned could have done that to Kelly. He can still function, unlike poor Dr Druitt. Whereas Kosminski is alive, that's a given, and may have been released from his asylum -- obviously he cannot be the Ripper either, according to this "awful glut" litmus criteria.

    Macnaghten is saying he thinks Kosminski is still in the asylum, but if he isn't -- because he is supposedly not sure -- well, he cannot be Jack, because Jack cannot get better after Miller's Court. There was supposedly no coming back from that corner of Hades.

    We are so used to thinking of the alternative being dead, because of Anderson and Swanson's complete howler, that we forget that there is another alternative interpretation e.g. and I believe he still is [in the asylum].

    As for Cox the small amount of data he supplies does not match Aaron Kosminski, quite the opposite as Kosminski was in a public asylum put there by family. Of course that is true of Anderson and Swanson too, who describe a Ripper who does not match Aaron Kosminski; either in the timing of his being sectioned or of his expiring (Anderson predeceased his suspect by a year).

    Speaking of facts, do you know that you never, ever address the 1908 interview with Anderson? The one that proves, if further proof were necessary, that the old man had a muddled and self-serving memory.
    Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 08:46 AM #664
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
    We have been over this so many times but you still don't get it.

    Macnaghten is not saying that Kosminski is still alive.

    Because he knows he is still alive. That's a given.
    Know Jonathon it's your opinion, what you believe MacNaughten is trying to say… But as I've repeatedly pointed out in the same document while addressing Ostrog he clearly states…and this is the important part he doesn't say believes in backers…he says HE IS STIL ALIVE

    So if MacNaughten knew Kozminski was alive why didn't he state so, he did about Ostrog

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
    What Mac is claiming to be uncertain about -- by the way, this is a bit of deceit as he knows this too -- is whether the Polish suspect is still in an asylum or not, not if he is dead or alive.

    He believes that he is still locked up, and ... he was.
    No MacNaughten simply doesn't know what happened to Kozminski after March 1889…thats because the police didn't place him in an Asylum…Kozminski's own family did to take him out of the police survey lance conducted by COX….and what Cox says matches what MacNaughten says because the file MacNaughten is reading was probably created by COX.

    And though Cox believed he was the murderer he clearly says they found no proof…and we can presume that that is what the fie says also

    And if everybody stoops and thinks for one moment, if Kozminski is not Cox's suspect, why doesn't MacNaughten mention Cox's suspect in his list? I mean several men followed this guy for 3 months, must have cost a fortune and there must have been lots of paperwork associated with that survey lance? Plus everything Cox says about his suspect fits what we now know about kozminski, and how many other families in the Eastend could have afforded Private asylums as described by Cox….Come on its bleeding obvious its the same suspect

    Yours jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 08:25 AM #663
    Jonathan Hainsworth
    Researcher

    Join Date: Jun 2010
    Posts: 1,335
    Default
    We have been over this so many times but you still don't get it.

    Macnaghten is not saying that Kosminski is still alive.

    Because he knows he is still alive. That's a given.

    What Mac is claiming to be uncertain about -- by the way, this is a bit of deceit as he knows this too -- is whether the Polish suspect is still in an asylum or not, not if he is dead or alive.

    He believes that he is still locked up, and ... he was.

    Your attempt to pretend apples are bananas won't fly, as any objective and fair reading of the surviving sources, albeit limited though they are, shows that Sir Melville Macnaghten cleaves closer to the facts about Aaron Kosminski than does Sir Robert Anderson, as the latter thinks he was off the streets soon after the 'autumn of terror' and dead soon after that.

    These twin claims, pretty fundamental ones, do not match Aaron Kosminski (but do broadly match David Cohen).

    There is no mystery as to how this happened. Sir Robert's memory began to fail him. He's not a liar, but he was very conceited and therefore very unreliable.

    For example, in 1908 Sir Robert gave an interview in which he is hopelessly muddled about pipes, medicos and Home Secretaries.

    Moreover, and this is just as significant, his default position is to blame somebody else for the lack of a satisfactory legal conclusion to the Ripper case. In 1908 he quite wrongly blames a doctor for supposedly destroying the clue that could have put away the Polish suspect. That allegedly incompetent medico is really a composite, and, furthermore, did not do the things Anderson claims he did. He was not to blame.

    In 1910, initially as an afterthought, Anderson, in just the same blase way blames a witness--who is also likely a composite figure, say Lawende and Violena--for letting them all down, when he did not in quite the self-serving, mean-spirited way he is characterized and caricatured as doing.
    Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 08:07 AM #662
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    Hi Jeff,
    It is always worthwile to have a look at killers like Chase, Mullin, Napper, Clark, Sappington, Miyazaki, Dzumagaliev, Toole, McCauley and Negromonte etc.

    At the crime scenes we see "hatred of women" (destruction), it is the psychopath. No normal behavior at the crime scenes, this is the schizophrenia. Somewhere in the middle we see the "Lust murderer", who did play with the abdomen. It is more the psychopath who is the murderer. But we should better look for someone with schizophrenia before we are looking for someone who is only a psychopath.

    Yours Karsten.
    Hi Karsten, yes the cocktail is what I've been arguing for some time.

    I've been using the terms Schizophrenic (Paraniod, hebephrenic, Catatonic) but I'm also aware that they well be defunct in the future into a single spectrum..

    I'm wondering if the term Psychopath is equally arkaic? (Perhaps this is something Robert has been hinting at?)

    I've moved on to the term Cluster B personality disorders and it might simply be that 'lack of empathy' traditionally associated with the term psychopath, is just one facet of the Cluster B spectrum

    Especially when looking at historical cases. There doewsnt appear to have been an attempt to be more specific about serial killer types and mental conditions until Douglas and Hazelwood in the later 1980's, and even then they didn't profile mental illness…the aim was to help police officers with no knowledge of mental illness..

    one of the resulting problems being heavy generalisations with terms like Paraniod Schizophrenic and Psychopath.

    Ian Brady recently being diagnosed with schizophrenia makes me wonder if in extreme cluster B personality disorders the sufferer can experience forms of psychosis? Just a theory

    But I readily accept David Canters observation that no scientific study or research (Meaning properly controlled testing and analysis has ever been done) much of what we know therefore is case study.

    And when you look at a serial killer like Albert Fish surely we must conclude that their is far more going on inside this mans head than Schizophrenia or simply being a psychopath.

    Of course I stand by my generalisation to Christer that someone like Alber Fish isn't your typical psychopath. But I accept that without knowing what an average Psychopath is, its very difficult to draw a conclusion either way..

    So I think we must be cautious about some off these terminologies, how they were reached Historically and who made those diagnosis.. And add to that a difference in the use and experience of those conditions from one country to the next..

    In short Karsten I agree we are looking a multifaceted mental state but still have much to learn from new study and research on both schizophrenia and serial killers per se

    Yours Jeff

    PS Catrins ex-partner suffered bi-polar and cluster B personality disorders. Particularly given to periods of 'grandious' However she claimed it was often difficult almost impossible to separate out where one condition stops and the other begins
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 07:43 AM #661
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
    When Macnaghten writes about "Kosminski" in the so-called Aberconway version that "... He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum, about March 1889.” he means he believes that the Polish suspect is still in an asylum, but is not sure.

    Ergo he knew Kosminski was still alive, he was just not sure if he was still sectioned.
    We;ve been over this many time Jonathon. However for everyone else benefit you can't add up bananas and come to an answer in Apples.

    McNaughten Does not know kozminski is still alive. He doesn't know what happened to him after he entered the asylum..

    he says (I believe he still is) … this is a belief not an assirtion that he knows what happen to Kozminski and this is counter as you go on to explain that when he does know something he states it as such directly. He sway of Ostrog: HE IS STILL ALIVE

    In other words MacNaughten knows Ostrog is alive but doesn't know what happened to Kozminski after he went into the Asylum in March 1889

    Its so clear and obvious its been staring everyone in the face all along…and it explains why Swanson and Anderson have a different opinion to MacNaughten and via him Griffiths and Simms..

    Swanson and Anderson do their ID in secret to avoid riots, when the ID is unsuccessful they hush it up and put kozminski in Colney Hatch, note that only six months previously July 1890 the family had failed to do so, so my guess is that Anderson help matters along the way

    But MacNaughten don't know didly squat after March 1889

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 06:26 AM #660
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    The trouble is Chris your criticism has been amply demonstrated to be without foundation and you are incapable of defending your position.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 05:42 AM #659
    Jonathan Hainsworth
    Researcher

    Join Date: Jun 2010
    Posts: 1,335
    Default
    When Macnaghten writes about "Kosminski" in the so-called Aberconway version that "... He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum, about March 1889.” he means he believes that the Polish suspect is still in an asylum, but is not sure.

    Ergo he knew Kosminski was still alive, he was just not sure if he was still sectioned.

    Why did he write that?

    Because he wanted the document to give the impression that if the Pole might be out on the streets again then he could not be Jack, who was obviously incapable of, you know, eh, getting better after what happened in Miller's Court.

    Ostrog he just writes was still alive, again ipso facto he could not really be Jack either because the killer would have to kill himself, almost instantly.

    Therefore Macnaghten did not suggest to Major Griffiths that perhaps the Polish suspect was deceased, not did Sims in 1907 and 1910-- and he wasn't deceased, Druitt was.

    And by the time Macnaghten either showed Griffiths this version of his report, or communicated its suspects contents verbally, he knew that Michael Ostrog had been cleared of the Whitechapel murders by being in a French asylum (which Sims alludes to in 1907)

    There is no evidence that Aaron Kosminski was placed in care in a private asylum in March 1889, whilst there is evidence that Aron was permanently sectioned in 1891 and, at some point after that, chronic masturbation was divided to be the root cause of his insanity. This is what Macnaghten correctly writes, the question being why he backdated the timing of the incarceration. Many beleive it was because he was poorly informed. Consider, though, that if he had written Feb 1891 -- a time when Mac had been on the Force for nearly two years -- it would have wrecked his thesis about the "awful glut" litmus test allegedly rendering the suspect incapable of functioning normally.

    You see either you backdate the incarceration, or you have to drop "Kosminski".
    Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 05:17 AM #658
    CGP
    Researcher

    Join Date: Nov 2014
    Posts: 225
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
    You joined this discussion because ...
    Actually, I took exception to you making up stuff that wasn't true. But if you want to behave like that it's "no skin off my nose".
    CGP is offline Add Infraction for CGP Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 04:11 AM #657
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    Chris
    It has become painfully obvious that you have no coherent argument to put forward.

    Jeff makes valient efforts to defend his position in detail. As does poor old Trevor.
    You have been totally and publicly unable to.
    Jonathan - who I frequently and good naturedly cross swords with - always fights his corner, and has provided yet further unanswered detail which torpedoes your assertions.

    You joined this discussion because you took exception to my reflection upon the irony that the primary reason for Kosminski's suspect status - his recorded overt madness - could not have had a grip on him when he committed the crimes (presuming he committed the crimes) and instead he must have been influenced by an unrecorded psychopathic condition.

    You said - to paraphrase - that there wasn't the slightest iota of evidence to even suggest that the primary reason for Kosminski's suspect status was his madness.
    You have been provided with a mass of detail to suggest otherwise.
    So yes it has been a waste of time for you.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 04:00 AM #656
    CGP
    Researcher

    Join Date: Nov 2014
    Posts: 225
    Default
    Just to be clear - of course in Ripperology people hold all kinds of speculative opinions, and it can be interesting (up to a point, and within reason) to discuss their speculative reasons for holding those opinions.

    But once they lose the ability to distinguish between fact and speculation, and start filling up these boards with things that appear to be statements of fact but in reality are pure speculation (or even pure invention), then rational debate becomes impossible.
    CGP is offline Add Infraction for CGP Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 03:56 AM #655
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    Jeff
    Well they don't fit like a glove - we still have Swanson thinking Kosminski was long dead and we have the farce of the ID which must supposedly have been good enough - if the witness had done his duty - to hang Kosminski.
    Also Anderson was adamant that his Jewish suspect was from the lowest class - not from a well off family.
    That is one reason to disbelieve Cox was talking about the same person. Or they are just all muddled up which is just as likely.
    If the Kosminski file ended in March 1889, what should that tell you about his actual status as a police suspect? It should tell you that he wasn't regarded very highly for them to loose track of him at such an early date.
    I would suggest the evidence points very firmly to the police being unaware of him until 1891.

    Trevor
    You are wrong about the suicide mentioned by Macnaghten not being Druitt, but right thinking Kosminski may not necessarily be Aaron Kosminski. Jewish people did frequently switch names.

    Jonathan
    That is interesting about Chris finding the 'Referee' article. Perhaps he had forgotten about it.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 03:44 AM #654
    CGP
    Researcher

    Join Date: Nov 2014
    Posts: 225
    Default
    Ed

    I think the stuff you're coming out with is just about as confused and nonsensical as anything I've ever read in Ripperology - and that's saying something!

    What a waste of time.
    CGP is offline Add Infraction for CGP Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 03:25 AM #653
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Ed
    There is nothing to link the name Kosminski to Aaron Kosminki.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Kozminski is an unusual name which Swanson takes care to spell correctly. Only one Kozminski has been found in the Asylum records, but he was there, simply two years after Martin Fido expected to find him

    So the question isn't is this the right Kozminski. The question is what happened to make that two year delay

    And once you find the simple answer to that question all the pieces of the puzzle fit like a glove

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 03:21 AM #652
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Macnaghten also says he doesn't now where Ostrog was, so he couldn't really give an ending for him could he.
    MacNaughten also states Ostrog is alive directly where as he simply say about kozminski in brackets (I believe he still is) In other words he doesn't know.

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 03:19 AM #651
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robert Linford View Post
    Ed, I know there was a great deal of muddle in the mind of Macnaghten, and it's a crying shame that a 'top' policeman talking about the murders so soon after they occurred, should have furnished us with this BS.
    I disagree, McNaughten was clear. However he wasn't there. Ddint join the department until mid 1889.

    The only solution to the problem is Mcnaughten worked from a files about the various suspects considered, and that the file on Kozminski ended in March 1889… Thus MacNughten doesn't know what happened to kozminski after that date (as he states) and knows nothing about Colney Hatch

    Thus given what he knows he prefers Druit

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 03:14 AM #650
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Robert
    Not that you are likely to agree - you ain't that kinda guy - but there is muddle about the 'official Scotland Yard suspects' - which is in my opinion due to them being suspects that came to light after the fact. In Kosminski's case after his final committal. In Druitt's case some time (probably several years) after his suicide.
    Given what Cox says "they got on the suspect trail shortly after the MJK murder, and that suspect was alive and kicking until March 1889 and placed in a Private Asylum.

    How many people can afford a Private asylum? we can deduce that whoever Cox followed was not a poor lunatic but a man who either had people or someone close to him had money

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 03:09 AM #649
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
    I know that, Chris. Which was why I pointed out that the ID as such would have rested on what was seemingly confirmed through it. It was therefore not primary but secondary, as far as I understand.

    The ID did not form out of thin air - it served the purpose of bringing a passed event to the attention of the police.

    But what event?
    Once you have eliminated the various possibilities and fitted the various timings together and what each person said the only answer to this question is the Crawford Letter was the trigger

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 02:56 AM #648
    Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Posts: 1,260
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Macnaghten also says he doesn't now where Ostrog was, so he couldn't really give an ending for him could he.

    Let me get this straight. Are you also seriously trying to doubt that Kosminski wasn't being referred to as the person committed to an asylum by his family?
    Are you also going to tell me that Druitt wasn't referred to as the person who committed suicide?
    Ed
    There is nothing to link the name Kosminski to Aaron Kosminki. Likewise there is nothing to suggest Druitt was the suicide victim.

    On the subject of Kosmsinki what evidence is there to disprove the fact that Kosminski was not his right name, he might have come to the notice of the police and given a false name

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Trevor Marriott is offline Add Infraction for Trevor Marriott Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-10-2015, 01:30 AM #647
    Christer Holmgren
    Researcher

    Join Date: Jan 2013
    Posts: 1,839
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CGP View Post
    You haven't been taking English lessons from Christer, have you?
    Yes, you ARE trying to be nice, are you not? Thank you, Chris - very civil of you.
    __________________
    "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.
    Christer Holmgren is online now Add Infraction for Christer Holmgren Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 11:17 PM #646
    Jonathan Hainsworth
    Researcher

    Join Date: Jun 2010
    Posts: 1,335
    Default
    On this level, Ed and Christer are completely correct about the Macnaghten Report(s).

    In the so-called Aberconway version, Macnaghten is saying exactly that: That the killer had to be a man whose mind was turned into mush by his bestial savaging of Mary Jane Kelly.

    Therefore here are three suspects who, Mac claims, fit the bill as opposed to Thomas Cutbush or anybody else who could be shown to function beyond November 9th 1888: an allegedly instant suicide (M. J. Druitt); a man who could not stop masturbating and had to be sectioned, allegedly in early 1889 ("Kosminski"); and a total and utter swine whose whereabouts were allegedly unknown (Ostrog).

    And yes, Macnaghten means that Kosminski was [allegedly] suspected by his relations who had him committed, that they believed they may have locked away the Ripper.

    And yes, Anderson initially mentioned the alleged positive identification as an afterthought/footnote (it was never brought up by him in the meagre extant record before 1910). As Anderson's contrite and conciliatory letter to Mentor shows he regarded the masturbation element as the damning one, and does not even mention the i.d.

    Chris himself found a "Referee" article from 1910 by Sims/Dagonet -- and presumably originated with and backed by Macnaghten -- that absolutely denied that any other Hebrew people had assisted the Polish suspect (for the first and only time Sims revealed that there was a final version of the allegedly definitive "Home Office Report").
    Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:27 PM #645
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    A crying shame? Perhaps its just because they were defeated by the case and some of them didn't like admitting it, so supplied self comforting BS.
    In my opinion this is what you get from Anderson and Macnaghten.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:25 PM #644
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    Macnaghten also says he doesn't now where Ostrog was, so he couldn't really give an ending for him could he.

    Let me get this straight. Are you also seriously trying to doubt that Kosminski wasn't being referred to as the person committed to an asylum by his family?
    Are you also going to tell me that Druitt wasn't referred to as the person who committed suicide?
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:22 PM #643
    Robert Linford
    Researcher Extraordinaire

    Robert Linford's Avatar

    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Posts: 13,650
    Default
    Ed, I know there was a great deal of muddle in the mind of Macnaghten, and it's a crying shame that a 'top' policeman talking about the murders so soon after they occurred, should have furnished us with this BS.
    Robert Linford is online now Add Infraction for Robert Linford Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:19 PM #642
    Robert Linford
    Researcher Extraordinaire

    Robert Linford's Avatar

    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Posts: 13,650
    Default
    Then what about Ostrog? No mention of him topping himself or going into an asylum a few weeks after the Kelly murder. Yet he's on the list.
    Robert Linford is online now Add Infraction for Robert Linford Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:17 PM #641
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    Robert
    Not that you are likely to agree - you ain't that kinda guy - but there is muddle about the 'official Scotland Yard suspects' - which is in my opinion due to them being suspects that came to light after the fact. In Kosminski's case after his final committal. In Druitt's case some time (probably several years) after his suicide.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:13 PM #640
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    Robert
    That is what he says.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:12 PM #639
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    Of course that extract calls into doubt the Seaside Home ID.

    'No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer'.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:05 PM #638
    Robert Linford
    Researcher Extraordinaire

    Robert Linford's Avatar

    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Posts: 13,650
    Default
    So K's mind gives way altogether on November 9th but he is only detained March 1889?
    Robert Linford is online now Add Infraction for Robert Linford Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 07:03 PM #637
    Robert Linford
    Researcher Extraordinaire

    Robert Linford's Avatar

    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Posts: 13,650
    Default
    "There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect.' ' To me, this has the ring of someone talking about 1888-9, not 1891.
    Robert Linford is online now Add Infraction for Robert Linford Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 06:50 PM #636
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    Do you know what a caveat is?
    Do you know how caveats are usually expressed? In English?
    That you are making these half arsed attempts at correcting my expression is another indication that you have nothing meaningful in the way of counter argument.

    Even if Macnaghten preferred Druitt as a suspect, this does not mean that he didn't know the reasons for Kosminski's suspect status nor that he was unaware of the thinking about Kosminski at Scotland Yard.

    It is strange indeed for you to try and claim that the passage I quoted was not about Kosminski. As you seem to be having some difficulty after all those years studying Kosminski - I will refresh your befuddled memory by quoting a more extensive passage.

    A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.

    No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:

    (1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

    (2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

    Hopefully you are now able to see the connection.

    You also don't seem to grasp that all they had was theories - Anderson and Macnaghten - Cox and Sagar for that matter. We are dealing with theories and the basis on which they built these theories.

    I would say - although this is conjecture - the only reason Kosminski came to light at all was because of his confinement to an asylum. Which, if true, would make that very obviously the primary reason for the police theory that he was a major suspect. But even without this conjecture there is enough in the record to say that it was the primary reason. Not the only reason - but the primary reason.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 06:40 PM #635
    CGP
    Researcher

    Join Date: Nov 2014
    Posts: 225
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Chris - by adding the caveat 'presuming of course they mean Kosminski', very obviously I wasn't presuming they meant Kosminski!!!!
    I see. When you write "Presuming of course they mean Kosminski", you mean you aren't presuming that.

    You haven't been taking English lessons from Christer, have you?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Macnaghten set out some general opinions (theories) about the culprit that would apply to whoever the culprit was - before detailing his three suspects. He was not just shooting the breeze.
    The whole passage makes it abundantly clear that the brain giving away did indeed refer to Kosminski - if Kosminski was the culprit...
    This stuff just gets sillier and sillier. Even as a statement about the murderer, this is presented only as a theory. And you know full well Macnaghten didn't believe Kosminski was the murderer. In the Aberconway draft he wrote that he was inclined to exonerate him.

    It's absolute nonsense to present this as a statement by Macnaghten about Kosminski.
    CGP is offline Add Infraction for CGP Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 06:27 PM #634
    Edward Stow
    Researcher

    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,756
    Default
    Chris - by adding the caveat 'presuming of course they mean Kosminski', very obviously I wasn't presuming they meant Kosminski!!!!
    Gaw blimey.

    I don't know why you think I got Anderson's reasoning wrong. I did't specify whether he thought the culprit was living alone or with family who would shield him. The quote I used doesn't specify this particularly either. He could come and go in secret because the family would not say anything. Couldn't he.
    But this is not exactly relevant to the point at hand, is it.

    Macnaghten set out some general opinions (theories) about the culprit that would apply to whoever the culprit was - before detailing his three suspects. He was not just shooting the breeze.
    The whole passage makes it abundantly clear that the brain giving away did indeed refer to Kosminski - if Kosminski was the culprit...

    'A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.'

    The suicide is Druitt, the asylum inmate Kosminski. They are both mentioned immediately afterwards with these details attached. This is kindergarten stuff.

    The memorandum is a historical document whether you like it or not. It can be taken as an accurate representation of Macnaghten's opinion (although Jonathan Hainsworth might disagree). We are discussing what the police's opinion was. What their theory was. Not whether the police's opinon was true or accurate.
    Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old 09-09-2015, 06:20 PM #633
    Robert Linford
    Researcher Extraordinaire

    Robert Linford's Avatar

    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Posts: 13,650
    Default
    A primary reason - is the first reason. Perhaps the main reason.

    I liked the 'perhaps' - a definite improvement.
    Old Today, 02:06 PM #712
    Karsten Giese
    Registered User

    Join Date: Dec 2013
    Posts: 49
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    And the witness?

    Was just a slight hope...

    Okay:

    Anderson:

    "One did not need 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. 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 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”.

    Anderson thought his people knew of his guilt if he was not living absolutely alone. It means that Kosminski was most of his time living alone (at least during the time of the murders) but not always. He lived in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders which means around Wentworth Street/ Old Montague Street. Sometimes he must have lived with his people. In the case of Aaron Kozminski I can imagine that he occupied a shop in Whitechapel and Matilda/ Betsy brought some food on certain days or they came to collect his laundry (Aaron was a compulsive masturbator, maybe it was better to bring his laundry to a laundress – Mrs. Kuer, Batty Street). And on other days, Woolf/ Morris came over to see what is going on. I am not sure whether his people knew of his guilt as Anderson said.

    “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, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."

    The individual whom we suspected… the murderer…

    Swanson:

    "because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind…"

    2x the suspect… murderer…

    "And after this identification which suspect knew no other murder of this kind took place in London".

    Suspect…

    "Continuing from page 138, after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect’s return to his brother’s house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was the suspect – DSS".

    4x the suspect

    Obviously, for Anderson and Swanson: Kosminski was THE SUSPECT. All the time until the Seaside Home ID took place (and after this) he was the prime suspect. They did believe that he is the MURDERER.

    "And after this identification which suspect knew no other murder of this kind took place in London".

    Right from the start, I always thought this statement is not for the Seaside Home identification. It was not clear to me what has happened but the suspect Kosminski had been identified after the Kelly murder, relating to an incident. Today I think that this is the Brick Lane incident. No accusing of a crime, no witness who can testify (at the moment).

    Identified by an incident and the murders stopped.

    Remember the words of Anderson:

    "And if the Police here had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice."

    “after this identification which suspect knew… and he knew he was identified”

    The witness was for sure… The police knew the witness would recognise Kosminski. There was no doubt. Kosminski had known that he was seen by a witness and Kosminski himself did recognise the witness. I am absolutely convinced that the detectives said to him (after the ID): You are identified as Jack the Ripper!

    This time, identified by a witness.

    This identification at the Seaside Home (1890) took place long after the incident (and “identification”) in November 1888.

    As I said before, I think that the Police “built a case - Matilda” in the second half of 1890, suddenly, whatever the reasons were...

    “suspected was caged in an asylum”… “at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty”

    Jeff, you know I guess that the Seaside Home was a branch (a kind of summer residence) of this asylum. I suspect that shortly after his admission he had been sent to this Seaside Home. Of course, I do not know it but in my theory it is possible that the police made a deal with "Matilda". The "fun thing" is, the WITNESS "declined to swear to him" "...and also because his evidence would convict the suspect and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind". That is very weak and they had some bad luck.

    For sure, I am convinced that the witness was the only person who had ever had a good view of the "murderer", but in what way and in what connection? "Had a good view of the murder"... What does it mean? The witness was also Jew, okay, and he had a bad feeling after the identification when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew. But is it possible that the "Jewish Constellation" was secondary? Is it possible that he had a bad feeling because he saw a "murderer" who has not committed any murder? Maybe, he saw an attempted murder and a knife with a long blade. For changing his mind: If he had seen the "murderer" at one of the Ripper crime scenes (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly), then, I guess, it would have been sufficient to show him the crime scene photographs (Eddowes, Kelly). Jew, one way or the other it seems difficult not to swear to him looking at the pictures.

    Karsten.


    Sorry again to all fans of The Missing Evidence and sorry for still Off Topic.
    Karsten Giese is offline Add Infraction for Karsten Giese Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Today, 11:12 AM #711
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    I think David Cohen was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    Yours Karsten.
    And the witness?


    Bye the way however you look at this, it can't help but be concluded how coincidental the David Cohen arrest is with this incident... Lets hope more reports turn up...Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Today, 08:49 AM #710
    Karsten Giese
    Registered User

    Join Date: Dec 2013
    Posts: 49
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    Oh and Rob Clacks guy was Douglas not Canter

    As a thought my guess is the Hospital in Poland was also one of the circ's...although Hospitals do require Hairdressers
    Of course, Jeff...

    Finally, one last thing:

    Evening Telegraph, 22 November 1888

    “The Central News says:- The man who was taken into custody near Brick Lane early this morning was simply arrested for assaulting a prostitute, and will be charged with that offence. The case has no connection whatever with yesterday's outrage. On later inquiries at the Commercial Street Police Station, the Central News was informed that the man wanted for the murderous assault on Mrs Farmer had not yet been apprehended.”

    The man will be charged with that offence!!!

    Did it really happen? Is there a case?

    Reynolds Newspaper 9 December 1888 (via Scott Nelson):

    “KEEPING A BROTHEL IN WHITECHAPEL
    Gertrude Smith, a well-dressed middle-aged woman of 254 High-street (sic-Whitechapel Road), Whitechapel, surrendered to answer a charge preferred against her by Mr. Metcalf, vestry clerk of St. Mary, Whitechapel, on behalf of the overseers of the parish, for unlawfully keeping her house as a brothel. Uriah Harvey, who was specially engaged by the vestry of Whitechapel, owing to gross immorality taking place in certain houses, to keep a watch, gave evidence of the number of both sexes which entered and left the defendant’s house. On Saturday night, the 24th November, ten men and as many well-known prostitutes infesting the neighbourhood entered and left defendant’s house; Sunday, the 25th, twelve couples; Monday, the 26th, three couples; Saturday, December 1st, eighteen couples. It was ostensibly a cigar shop, and when the parties entered, the defendant was at the door letting them in. When Inspector Ferris (sic - Metropolitan Police Inspector Arthur Ferrett) entered, he found two well-known prostitutes in bed. In answer to Mr Lushington, Inspector Ferris said there had been no complaints of disturbances or robberies at defendant’s house. Mr Lushington convicted the defendant in taking part in keeping a brothel and fined her £10 and £5 costs, or one month. The money was paid.”

    December 8th hearing at Thames Magistrates Court (Dec.7th, the day the charge was made)

    Gertrude Smith/ Mary Jones – Keeping a brothel
    Ellen Hickey – Assault on N. Cohen
    Aaron Davis Cohen – Lunatic wandering at large (Cohen was brought in on the 7th by PC Patrick as a lunatic wandering at large)

    N. Cohen did not appear in court and the case against Hickey was dropped. Aaron Davis Cohen was eventually admitted to the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary under the name David Cohen.

    When did the assault take place on N. Cohen by Ellen Hickey? N. Cohen = Male or female?

    It is possible that N. Cohen and Aaron Davis Cohen have known each other. Perhaps they might even have been related. There was an “observation” on November 24th, 25th, 26th and December 1st. Maybe it already took place on November 21, 22 and 23. Early morning 22 November 1888 is the day of the Brick Lane incident. Opposite 254 Whitechapel Road were the entrance of Great Garden Street and the entrance of the Black Lion Yard. Via Old Montague Street you have reached the Brick Lane.

    Morning Advertiser (London), 22 November 1888

    “A man was arrested in the East-end early this morning under very suspicious circumstances. Between one and two o’clock a woman, who was in the company with a man in a narrow thoroughfare near Brick-lane, was heard to call "Murder!" and "Police!" loudly…”

    “in a narrow thoroughfare near Brick-lane” Could this be Black Lion Yard opposite the brothel on Whitechapel Road? This is unlikely. But the man was captured near Brick Lane (near Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton’s brewery) after the "man was seen making off at a rapid pace. He was pursued through several streets by the police and detectives". So it is possible that the "narrow thoroughfare" was Black Lion Yard. Perhaps, the man fled in the direction of his home near Brick Lane. It reminds me of the escape route after the Double Event. Matilda Lubnowski later changed her name to Matilda Cohen. I ask myself whether it might be possible that N.Cohen is M. Cohen and Aaron Davis Cohen is Aaron Kozminski. The Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary changed the name of Aaron Davis Cohen to David Cohen. It seems to me that David Cohen was the wrong man. He was not Aaron Davis Cohen. N. Cohen did not appear in court and I think that Aaron Kozminski was not in Whitechapel on 7 December 1888 but in a private asylum in Surrey. At the time it is possible that the police did not know where he is. In the end they discovered him in an asylum in Surrey. Aaron Davis Cohen: 23 years of old, Single, Tailor, Hebrew, Insane, speaking German and a lunatic at large, all this was Aaron Kozminski, too… But it seems to me that they did not know who David Cohen really was. “He was a young foreign Jew with dark brown hair, beard and eyes”. The man Cox suspected was about five feet six inches in height, with short, black, curly hair. I think David Cohen was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Yours Karsten.
    Karsten Giese is offline Add Infraction for Karsten Giese Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Today, 07:37 AM #709
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    I agree with the possibility that Aaron could have had problems with the female members of his family. It fits what we know about Schizophrenia per ce.. Did not Rob House at one time explore the possibility that the female members might have been involved with prostitution? Wasn't there a link to a brothel with this Farmer woman?

    There was a brothel incident with an Aaron Davis Cohen (David Cohen?), N. Cohen, Gertrude Smith, Mary Jones and Ellen Hickey - Whitechapel Road- (early December 1888). It seems it was a police raid. There also was a police raid with Sagar opposite Butchers Row on Aldgate High Street in December 1890. I have to read up about it again...

    "It is not uncommon for young men with schizophrenia to develop a sexual attraction to their mother or sister or for people with schizophrenia to think that they have somehow become gay even though previously they were very happily heterosexual"

    Well, was there any act of sex between Aaron and his mother Golda, his sister Matilda or his sisters-in-law Bertha and Betsy? If not, were they whores in his eyes because they had sex with their husbands Morris, Isaac, Woolf and Golda with a lover? Did Isaac, Woolf and Morris have direct contact with prostitutes?

    Yes the professor Rob Clack put forward spoke about the psychological barrier of the Whitechapel Road, and Kozminski in this context.

    David Canter? Rob Clack is as good as David Canter…

    Behind this barrier his family was living there in Greenfield Street and Providence Street and with their former home in Berner Street, next to Dutfields Yard. Maybe, Stride was a victim because she was standing in front of his former house.

    Swanson suggests that the City Police were involved later on also? So this raises a lot of questions. Could Sagar have been involved in a much later survey lance in 1892?

    See above, brothel raid December 1890 or else Sagar watched him a few weeks after the Kelly murder, including the Brick Lane incident (before Cox did). But I do not think that Cox´s shop was on Butchers Row. Perhaps also in the summer of 1890, I really do not know…

    Major Smith is the only person that appears to know something about Anderson's later ID

    No real proof Jeff! Not for him, not for Cox, not for Sagar, not for Macnaghten, just circumstances as described in my post above + the former Home Berner Street + Woolf´s address 25 Providence Street in 1888 + Matthew Packer (In my opinion, it is possible that Packer saw Kosminski in the course of the night on this street. But what is it worth?).

    Surely the Lodger references a brother with a cut Corn?

    Of course, you are right, I referred only to the text from Echo, October 20, 1888.

    Your losing me…Are you saying Kozminski had a shop in Bricklane or Greenfield Street or both?

    I guess Brick Lane was in Whitechapel and Greenfield Street was in Mile End but I am not sure. Providence Street/ Batty Street were in St. George in the east. Maybe I am wrong. The paper wrote: Whitechapel. “Certain premises in Whitechapel” and “several shops in the East End” could mean the addresses in Greenfield Street, Providence Street, Leman Street Shop (see Cox) and Butchers Row (see Sagar).

    It would simply make more sense that before his illness started Woolf and Aaron went into business together, using money from other family members i.e. Issac… Remember people started out in life much younger than today, a young jewish boy is a man at his barmitzpher…13?

    However, I think it is possible that Aaron Kozminski had his own business with the support of his family, from his own desire or his people wanted to get rid of him.

    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.

    Kozminski had a failed love affair that drove him mad? Its a sweet romantic notion but it doesn't fit for me.. Now over bearing mother and sisters, I get that..

    We can safely say: Jack the Ripper was not romantic. Quite certainly, he had had bad experience with female persons in his life, mother, sisters, sisters-in-law... and just little help from male persons, father, brothers and brothers-in-law... Aaron´s father died early... But is it impossible that Jack the Ripper had a partner sometime once in his life? And if, in that case, she was certainly not an angel of love (and a member of the family, I guess).

    But you again come back to the Aron Cohen and Aron Kozminski mix up

    It is just a gut feeling...

    But yes was Martin Fido actually correct? He simply had the wrong killer given what little he was aware of in 1986-7. Don't they both go to Leaman street police street station about the same time, if Robs H Batty theory is correct? And of course as you have pointed out they were both treated by Dr Seward..

    I very much doubt we are going to get much support but if you get it all laid out I'm happy to see what Martin Fido makes of your theory

    Without Martin Fido, Rob House and Paul Begg I would not be here (is it a good or a bad thing?). I am a fan of each of them and I cannot compare with them. They are real Ripperologists and I don´t have the skills to find the answers to all unsolved problems. I can only speculate about it.

    I do not expect the necessary support. Why? It is too simply constructed.

    Just a thought but if this man is Kozminski, then would not this have flagged up with the suggested 'Batty Street' arrest and questioning on the 14th October?

    I hope I understand this correctly.

    If they have found him after the DoubleEvent and the bloody clothing were belonging to him, and they also have found a wound on him, and the Policeman near Mitre Square stated that the Pole, "was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder", then I really do wonder what had been worth it. Over a month later he attacked his own sister, not a prostitute. Did it change everything?

    To Matilda:

    A mix up of Annie Farmer (November 21, 1888 about 9:30 AM) and the Brick Lane incident (November 22, 1888 between one and two o’clock).

    22. November 1888 Morning Advertiser (London)

    “Great excitement was caused in the East-end, and throughout the metropolis generally, yesterday by the attempted murder of a woman in the district of the tragedie… is known as Annie, or Matilda, Farmer. She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age.”

    I think Annie Farmer was older than Matilda Lubnowski. Aaron´s sister was a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age in 1888. I do not think that Annie Farmer was of good appearance.

    This attack is interesting only two days after the attack on Annie Chapman

    On Saturday morning, Jeff. 10. September was a Monday in 1888. It happened shortly before Chapman was murdered.

    No witness (Long, Schwartz, Lawende, Hutchinson, PC near Mitre Square) could say: Yes, this is the man I saw. Maybe, there were witnesses who saw him near the crime scenes but without one of the victims.

    Enough already? I think we should stop writing here.
    Hi Karsten

    Yes it might be better to start a knew thread starting a new timeline of events that may or may not connect the suspects Kozminski and Cohen to the autumn 1888 and early 1889...

    I think your correct to keep an open mind on many possibilities... Lets face it the old way of thinking aint got very far so far so time to re-avaluate

    I'm busy with some new toys at present but will attempyt to cut and paste as much as possible into a single frame

    Oh and Rob Clacks guy was Douglas not Canter

    Sorry about my chapman mix up... there are a hell of a lot of news paper reports to try and fix in the time frame...

    I'd like to balance these with Abberline, Griftiths and Sims, although I'm pretty certain the later are referencing a more detailed McNAughten Home office report...

    As a thought my guess is the Hospital in Poland was also one of the circ's...although Hospitals do require Hairdressers

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Today, 05:57 AM #708
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Couldn't Cohen's non-anglicized last name simply have been Kosminski?
    Hi Scot, the answer to that is we don't know

    But I certainly have no problems re-avaluating...

    What we know is we have two very similar young men both on the street at the same time, who are both clearly insane...

    And if Karsten is correct about the Brick lane assault, then its possible both men end up at the Leaman police Station at the same time

    So is there possibly confusion? Well yes I can believe that..

    But given what transpires, or at least what I believe to be a logical conclusion... Cox follows Aaron Kozminski while David Aron Cohen goes to Colney Hatch

    Aaron Kozminski and his wealthy family place koz in a private asylum for several months...

    But the information given in the marginalia suggests a later ID done in secret, Abberline is fairly certain the lunatic is dead, and that seems to be the word around his old department... So i think everyone believed the lunatic dead including Swanson...

    So the question is what did Anderson believe? Well he also 'believed' the lunatic was dead, so had there been a mix-up between Cohen and Kozmionski? (We know Cohen died shortly after he entered the asylum)

    or had Anderson allowed the belief to protect the family and stop potencial riots?

    I note also that Sims in 1903... Clearly references the Home Office report. Presumably the one created by MacNaughten, and thus prefers the drowned Doctor theory which Abberline strongly rejects....But the story of the dead lunatic seems far more hazy... 'or a lunatic or such kind' So i don't think Abberline knew about the ID or any great info on Kozminski other than Cox's surveillance which was unsuccessful

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Yesterday, 04:09 PM #707
    Scott Nelson
    Schoolyard Bully

    Scott Nelson's Avatar

    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Posts: 673
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post

    But you again come back to the Aron Cohen and Aron Kozminski mix up

    And I can hear your average Kozminskite screaming and running for the door 'No No Not again!"

    But yes was Martin Fido actually correct? He simply had the wrong killer given what little he was aware of in 1986
    Couldn't Cohen's non-anglicized last name simply have been Kosminski?
    Scott Nelson is offline Add Infraction for Scott Nelson Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Yesterday, 12:47 PM #706
    Karsten Giese
    Registered User

    Join Date: Dec 2013
    Posts: 49
    Default
    I agree with the possibility that Aaron could have had problems with the female members of his family. It fits what we know about Schizophrenia per ce.. Did not Rob House at one time explore the possibility that the female members might have been involved with prostitution? Wasn't there a link to a brothel with this Farmer woman?

    There was a brothel incident with an Aaron Davis Cohen (David Cohen?), N. Cohen, Gertrude Smith, Mary Jones and Ellen Hickey - Whitechapel Road- (early December 1888). It seems it was a police raid. There also was a police raid with Sagar opposite Butchers Row on Aldgate High Street in December 1890. I have to read up about it again...

    "It is not uncommon for young men with schizophrenia to develop a sexual attraction to their mother or sister or for people with schizophrenia to think that they have somehow become gay even though previously they were very happily heterosexual"

    Well, was there any act of sex between Aaron and his mother Golda, his sister Matilda or his sisters-in-law Bertha and Betsy? If not, were they whores in his eyes because they had sex with their husbands Morris, Isaac, Woolf and Golda with a lover? Did Isaac, Woolf and Morris have direct contact with prostitutes?

    Yes the professor Rob Clack put forward spoke about the psychological barrier of the Whitechapel Road, and Kozminski in this context.

    David Canter? Rob Clack is as good as David Canter…

    Behind this barrier his family was living there in Greenfield Street and Providence Street and with their former home in Berner Street, next to Dutfields Yard. Maybe, Stride was a victim because she was standing in front of his former house.

    Swanson suggests that the City Police were involved later on also? So this raises a lot of questions. Could Sagar have been involved in a much later survey lance in 1892?

    See above, brothel raid December 1890 or else Sagar watched him a few weeks after the Kelly murder, including the Brick Lane incident (before Cox did). But I do not think that Cox´s shop was on Butchers Row. Perhaps also in the summer of 1890, I really do not know…

    Major Smith is the only person that appears to know something about Anderson's later ID

    No real proof Jeff! Not for him, not for Cox, not for Sagar, not for Macnaghten, just circumstances as described in my post above + the former Home Berner Street + Woolf´s address 25 Providence Street in 1888 + Matthew Packer (In my opinion, it is possible that Packer saw Kosminski in the course of the night on this street. But what is it worth?).

    Surely the Lodger references a brother with a cut Corn?

    Of course, you are right, I referred only to the text from Echo, October 20, 1888.

    Your losing me…Are you saying Kozminski had a shop in Bricklane or Greenfield Street or both?

    I guess Brick Lane was in Whitechapel and Greenfield Street was in Mile End but I am not sure. Providence Street/ Batty Street were in St. George in the east. Maybe I am wrong. The paper wrote: Whitechapel. “Certain premises in Whitechapel” and “several shops in the East End” could mean the addresses in Greenfield Street, Providence Street, Leman Street Shop (see Cox) and Butchers Row (see Sagar).

    It would simply make more sense that before his illness started Woolf and Aaron went into business together, using money from other family members i.e. Issac… Remember people started out in life much younger than today, a young jewish boy is a man at his barmitzpher…13?

    However, I think it is possible that Aaron Kozminski had his own business with the support of his family, from his own desire or his people wanted to get rid of him.

    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.

    Kozminski had a failed love affair that drove him mad? Its a sweet romantic notion but it doesn't fit for me.. Now over bearing mother and sisters, I get that..

    We can safely say: Jack the Ripper was not romantic. Quite certainly, he had had bad experience with female persons in his life, mother, sisters, sisters-in-law... and just little help from male persons, father, brothers and brothers-in-law... Aaron´s father died early... But is it impossible that Jack the Ripper had a partner sometime once in his life? And if, in that case, she was certainly not an angel of love (and a member of the family, I guess).

    But you again come back to the Aron Cohen and Aron Kozminski mix up

    It is just a gut feeling...

    But yes was Martin Fido actually correct? He simply had the wrong killer given what little he was aware of in 1986-7. Don't they both go to Leaman street police street station about the same time, if Robs H Batty theory is correct? And of course as you have pointed out they were both treated by Dr Seward..

    I very much doubt we are going to get much support but if you get it all laid out I'm happy to see what Martin Fido makes of your theory

    Without Martin Fido, Rob House and Paul Begg I would not be here (is it a good or a bad thing?). I am a fan of each of them and I cannot compare with them. They are real Ripperologists and I don´t have the skills to find the answers to all unsolved problems. I can only speculate about it.

    I do not expect the necessary support. Why? It is too simply constructed.

    Just a thought but if this man is Kozminski, then would not this have flagged up with the suggested 'Batty Street' arrest and questioning on the 14th October?

    I hope I understand this correctly.

    If they have found him after the DoubleEvent and the bloody clothing were belonging to him, and they also have found a wound on him, and the Policeman near Mitre Square stated that the Pole, "was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder", then I really do wonder what had been worth it. Over a month later he attacked his own sister, not a prostitute. Did it change everything?

    To Matilda:

    A mix up of Annie Farmer (November 21, 1888 about 9:30 AM) and the Brick Lane incident (November 22, 1888 between one and two o’clock).

    22. November 1888 Morning Advertiser (London)

    “Great excitement was caused in the East-end, and throughout the metropolis generally, yesterday by the attempted murder of a woman in the district of the tragedie… is known as Annie, or Matilda, Farmer. She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age.”

    I think Annie Farmer was older than Matilda Lubnowski. Aaron´s sister was a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age in 1888. I do not think that Annie Farmer was of good appearance.

    This attack is interesting only two days after the attack on Annie Chapman

    On Saturday morning, Jeff. 10. September was a Monday in 1888. It happened shortly before Chapman was murdered.

    No witness (Long, Schwartz, Lawende, Hutchinson, PC near Mitre Square) could say: Yes, this is the man I saw. Maybe, there were witnesses who saw him near the crime scenes but without one of the victims.

    Enough already? I think we should stop writing here.
    Karsten Giese is offline Add Infraction for Karsten Giese Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Yesterday, 10:40 AM #705
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    Morning Advertiser (London), 22 November 1888

    “A man was arrested in the East-end early this morning under very suspicious circumstances. Between one and two o’clock a woman, who was in the company with a man in a narrow thoroughfare near Brick-lane, was heard to call "Murder!" and "Police!" loudly. At the moment the man was seen making off at a rapid pace. He was pursued through several streets by the police and detectives who have lately been concentrated in considerable numbers in the neighbourhood, and was captured near Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton’s brewery. The man is reported to have drawn a knife, and made a desperate resistance, but he was eventually overpowered, and conveyed to the Commercial-street station.”
    Just a thought but if this man is Kozminski, then wouldn't this have flagged up with the suggested 'Batty Street' arrest and questioning on the 14th October?

    What is interesting is that if the attack was on a member of his own family and they refused to give evidence, he almost certainly would have been released as they would not have been able to press charges.. This has been changed (Very dangerously in my view) in modern domestic Violence cases, the police have to arrest if called of a domestic incidence even if the possible assaulted person deny's everything..

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    Evening Telegraph, 22 November 1888

    “The Central News says:- The man who was taken into custody near Brick Lane early this morning was simply arrested for assaulting a prostitute, and will be charged with that offence. The case has no connection whatever with yesterday's outrage. On later inquiries at the Commercial Street Police Station, the Central News was informed that the man wanted for the murderous assault on Mrs Farmer had not yet been apprehended.”
    OK I get confused here…Who was the prostitute… is this link to the man arrested with a knife or not?

    Who assault Mrs Farmer and what was her relationship to Matilda?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    Evening News, 23 November 1888

    “No person was in custody last evening in connection with the latest East-end outrage. The detention of a man early yesterday morning on suspicion of being the woman Farmer's assailant was due to the cries of a woman, who said the man had drawn a knife, but it appears that the occurrence was an ordinary drunken quarrel, to which the police attached no importance. Several men have been brought to the police-station in the district on suspicion, but have been released after enquiries. There was an absence of crowds in the streets yesterday, but the district remains in a very excited state.”
    OK…The woman assaulted was Matilda. Was Mrs Farmer also assaulted when she went to help or get involved?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    The Bristol Mercury (Bristol)
    29 December 1888

    “The Dublin Express London correspondent on Thursday gave as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer, that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who to avert a terribly family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm's way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this story, detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted.”
    [/QUOTE]

    So if Kozminski was involved in the first assault then released because know one wished to make charges.. Then following the embaracement the family had him whisked away to a private asylum, taking matters into there own hands…

    Why are police still searching Private Asylums? Is he still wanted for questioning?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    After the Brick Lane incident and before Cox´s surveillance has started, Kosminski "was forced to spend a portion of his time in an (private) asylum in Surrey" (Cox)?

    Failed attack in Hanbury Street:

    The star, 10 SEPTEMBER, 1888.

    “With regard to the bright farthings, a woman has stated that a man accosted her on Saturday morning and gave her two "half-sovereigns," but that, when he became violent, she screamed and he ran off. She discovered afterwards that the "half-sovereigns" were two brass medals. It is said that this woman did accompany the man, who seemed as if he would kill her, to a house in Hanbury-street, possibly No. 29, at half-past two a.m. This woman, Emily Walter, a lodger in one of the common lodging-houses of Spitalfields, was asked to describe the man, but her description of him was not considered clear. Still the police determined to follow up the matter, more particularly because the woman states that the man seemed ready to kill her. The woman's description did not answer the description of the man "Leather Apron," for whom they have been searching in connection with the murder of Mary Ann Nicholls.”

    Karsten.
    This attack is interesting only two days after the attack on Annie Chapman, if I were the police I'd be taking this very seriously indeed

    Yours Jeff
    Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Yesterday, 07:49 AM #704
    Karsten Giese
    Registered User

    Join Date: Dec 2013
    Posts: 49
    Default
    Yes Jeff, it is "Off Topic" and that is not fair.

    What are we to do now?

    Very briefly…

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    Do you have an exact date on this how it fits into the over all time-line and how it fits some of the other failed attacks you have mentioned in the past (I believe you mentioned a failed attack in Hanbury street)
    Morning Advertiser (London), 22 November 1888

    “A man was arrested in the East-end early this morning under very suspicious circumstances. Between one and two o’clock a woman, who was in the company with a man in a narrow thoroughfare near Brick-lane, was heard to call "Murder!" and "Police!" loudly. At the moment the man was seen making off at a rapid pace. He was pursued through several streets by the police and detectives who have lately been concentrated in considerable numbers in the neighbourhood, and was captured near Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton’s brewery. The man is reported to have drawn a knife, and made a desperate resistance, but he was eventually overpowered, and conveyed to the Commercial-street station.”

    Evening Telegraph, 22 November 1888

    “The Central News says:- The man who was taken into custody near Brick Lane early this morning was simply arrested for assaulting a prostitute, and will be charged with that offence. The case has no connection whatever with yesterday's outrage. On later inquiries at the Commercial Street Police Station, the Central News was informed that the man wanted for the murderous assault on Mrs Farmer had not yet been apprehended.”

    Evening News, 23 November 1888

    “No person was in custody last evening in connection with the latest East-end outrage. The detention of a man early yesterday morning on suspicion of being the woman Farmer's assailant was due to the cries of a woman, who said the man had drawn a knife, but it appears that the occurrence was an ordinary drunken quarrel, to which the police attached no importance. Several men have been brought to the police-station in the district on suspicion, but have been released after enquiries. There was an absence of crowds in the streets yesterday, but the district remains in a very excited state.”

    The Bristol Mercury (Bristol)
    29 December 1888

    “The Dublin Express London correspondent on Thursday gave as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer, that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who to avert a terribly family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm's way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this story, detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted.”

    After the Brick Lane incident and before Cox´s surveillance has started, Kosminski "was forced to spend a portion of his time in an (private) asylum in Surrey" (Cox)?

    Failed attack in Hanbury Street:

    The star, 10 SEPTEMBER, 1888.

    “With regard to the bright farthings, a woman has stated that a man accosted her on Saturday morning and gave her two "half-sovereigns," but that, when he became violent, she screamed and he ran off. She discovered afterwards that the "half-sovereigns" were two brass medals. It is said that this woman did accompany the man, who seemed as if he would kill her, to a house in Hanbury-street, possibly No. 29, at half-past two a.m. This woman, Emily Walter, a lodger in one of the common lodging-houses of Spitalfields, was asked to describe the man, but her description of him was not considered clear. Still the police determined to follow up the matter, more particularly because the woman states that the man seemed ready to kill her. The woman's description did not answer the description of the man "Leather Apron," for whom they have been searching in connection with the murder of Mary Ann Nicholls.”

    Karsten.
    Karsten Giese is offline Add Infraction for Karsten Giese Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
    Old Yesterday, 06:23 AM #703
    Jeff Leahy
    TV Producer/Director

    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: East Farleigh
    Posts: 3,932
    Default
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
    Take your time; I am not in any hurry. (I am keeping my fingers crossed for you.)
    Thats OK might be a couple of days now.. Also have to update my computer to run FCPX… Ironically the new mac system is called 'Kozimite' (I've just noticed you can down load the new El Captain software before 30th September at Apple..)
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

    Comment


    • #3
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Just a couple more points:

      Macnaghten wrote: "He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies." Cox stated: "The motive was, there can not be the slightest doubt, revenge. Not merely revenge on the few poor unfortunate victims of the knife, but revenge on womankind... The murderer was a misogynist, who at some time or another had been wronged by a woman". I´m not sure, Jeff, but I guess that these "strong homicidal tendencies" might have been an intra- family problem. And what is it worth if there were a few prostitutes who testified that this "Kosminski" is Leather Apron? What is it worth if the "Constable near Mitre Square" said: Yes, he looks like the man who coming out of the court near Mitre Square? What is it worth if the bloody clothing in Batty Street had belonged to Kosminski? Schizophrenics injure themselves in some cases ("Cutting his corn"). What is it worth if Kosminski was not able to produce an alibi? Maybe these were the circs as Macnaghten stated: "There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect' ". If the "suspect" Aaron Kozminski attacked his own sister near Brick Lane with a knife after the Kelly murder and there was a witness then this was a "big thing" for the police. But if the sister refused to give evidence... they had to wait patiently... Sagar stated: "identification being impossible... Eventually we got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum, and the series of murders came to an end." Sounds like the situation, Brother/sister and Colney Hatch. Before Aaron Kozminski went to Colney Hatch, Jacob Cohen said: "he took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister". Jacob Cohen also said: "he has not worked for years". Remember Cox: "very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls". "Very soon" could mean that Aaron Kozminski stopped working long before march 1889. Between that point and Colney Hatch two years gone by. Two years!!! (A job in Butchers Row later could have been an attempt to get Aaron back into work). Cox again: "Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes" - after Kelly- . After Kelly there were investigations relating to private asylums as newspapers reported. Who knows, possibly, the police were looking for Aaron Kozminski and they also found David (Aaron Davis) Cohen and there was confusion for a short time. The name of Kozminski´s cousin was Cohen, too, Jacob Cohen. Both men, Aaron Kozminski and David Cohen, were patients in Colney Hatch. After his admission, David Cohen died shortly afterwards in Colney Hatch. Both men were very similar. This could be a reason why Swanson thought Kominski is dead, he got the false information, not about Kosminski but about Cohen.
      Kozminski had a failed love affair that drove him mad? Its a sweet romantic notion but it doesn't fit for me.. Now over bearing mother and sisters, I get that..

      But you again come back to the Aron Cohen and Aron Kozminski mix up

      And I can hear your average Kozminskite screaming and running for the door 'No No Not again!"

      But yes was Martin Fido actually correct? He simply had the wrong killer given what little he was aware of in 1986-7. Don't they both go to Leaman street police street station about the same time, if Robs H Batty theory is correct? And of course as you have pointed out they were both treated by Dr Seward..

      I very much doubt we are going to get much support but if you get it all laid out I'm happy to see what Martin Fido makes of your theory
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old Yesterday, 06:14 AM #702
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Hello Jeff,

      I have an idea, a hypothesis. It would be nice to know what had happened in the night after the Farmer incident in Brick Lane or near Brick Lane. Maybe that the name "Matilda" comes from an incident after the attack on Annie Farmer. In my theory, it is impossible that Schwartz and Lawende were the witnesses at the Seaside Home. However, I believe that Schwartz and Lawende were confronted with "Kosminski" at the time of the murders but they did not recognize him. Macnaghten´s "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer" is probably "true". It referred to the official files. A file: Jack the Ripper/ Victim "Matilda", Suspect: Kosminski did not exist. However, it seems that there was a "witness" near Brick Lane in November 1888. In my theory, it is possible that shortly before "Kosminski" became totally insane the police confronted this witness with the suspect (or vice versa). "When a person with schizophrenia becomes violent the victim is usually someone from their own family or someone else close to them such as a carer", so it is quite possible that Aaron Kozminski threatened his sister Matilda or his sister-in-law Betsy. His cousin Jacob Cohen reported an incident of this kind. Perhaps I could go a stage further and say that Aaron Kozminski threatening his Mother Golda, his sister Matilda and his sister-in-law Betsy over time. Reason enough for the family to give him up, at some point at time. I do not rule out that Matilda Lubnowski was a "victim" in November 1888 and, then, Betsy Abrahams in the summer of 1890.
      OK, were off thread here a little so I'm happy to transfer to another thread if Howard would prefer? These things just sometimes arise and take off by themselves…

      I guess the whole Anderson/Swanson/Macnaughten debate has been stuck in the doldrums for s long time and its interesting that someone is thinking outside the 'box'..

      Of course if Lawende did ID kozminski and he failed (Even though he said he wouldn't recognise the man) then haven't we the problem that Kozminski might be your man in Bricklane but not the ripper.. And its od that Schwartz, who would have had a good look at BSM, would not have given a positive ID, so I sort of reject this idea..

      That said, the idea of an unknown Jewish witness to an attack on Matilda in Brick lane is a very interesting one? Do you have an exact date on this how it fits into the over all time-line and how it fits some of the other failed attacks you have mentioned in the past (I believe you mentioned a failed attack in Hanbury street)

      I agree with the possibility that Aaron could have had problems with the female members of his family. It fits what we know about Schizophrenia per ce.. Did not Rob House at one time explore the possibility that the female members might have been involved with prostitution? Wasn't there a link to a brothel with this Farmer woman?

      Sorry if I'm batting stuff from the top of my head

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Looking at the Cox story it makes the impression on me that he observed a man who crossed the Whitechapel High Street/ Road and "made his way down to the St. George in the east". Kosminski´s brother Woolf (with Betsy) living there at the time of the murders (Providence Street) near the Stride crime scene in Berner Street (Dutfields Yard). In 1881/82 Woolf Abrahams lived next to the Dutfields Yard. It is possible that Cox watched this suspect in a shop near Brick Lane, not far from the Smith and the Tabram crime scenes. The suspect had short, black, curly hair and for me it sounds like a foreigner. Cox´s colleague Sagar stated he had knowledge about a "man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square". Sagar observed the suspect in Butchers Row on Aldgate High Street and I think that Sagar shadowed his man later in time than Cox (End of 1888-about march 1889). I consider it even possible that both City Police detectives, Cox and Sagar, were watching the same suspect.
      Yes the professor Rob Clack put forward spoke about the psychological barrier of the Whitechapel Road, and Kozminski in this context.

      And yes I think Cox only shadowed Kozminski after the MJK murder and up to MArch 1889.

      Sagar is a far bigger problem, and appears to reference stuff that could apply much later possibly even after the Mckenzie murder. Remember that at this Time anderson was still saying they didn't have a clue.

      Swanson suggests that the City Police were involved later on also? So this raises a lot of questions. Could Sagar have been involved in a much later survey lance in 1892?

      Although not clear… Major Smith is the only person that appears to know something about Anderson's later ID, so possibly also about a later survey lance…Though I don't feel that Anderson supplied him the full story.

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Well, we could say that Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten referred to Kosminski and Cox and Sagar to another suspect or even to two other suspects. In this connection three Jack the Ripper suspects are perfectly possible. But in my theory I want to believe that these men (MET Police and City Police) were talking about one suspect, Kosminski (Aaron Kozminski).
      Yes I've raised this question several times and its just been ignored. However if Cox trailed someone, lets call him Mr X, and it wasn't Kozminski, then why didn't MacNaughten write about Mr X being a more likely suspect than Cutbush? After all Cox and his men felt certain that the man they followed was the Ripper.

      Logic dictates therefore that Mr X and Kozminski are one and the same person.

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      (Not to forget: The Batty Street Lodger!)

      Sagar: “and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum”.
      Yes the problem is that there are four retirement versions one of which places the suspect in 'Australia'? However as I've repeatedly said the Private Asylum theory matches the early police investigations. And a family placing someone in such an institution would require money, so it rules out your average east end citizen…. But it doesn't rule out the comparatively wealthy Kozminski family… The Tayloring workshop in Greenfeild street grossing more the the average High Court judge in the period if Rob Houses figures are correct?

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      In the case of Sagar, the suspect had some friends. The suspect of Cox "from time to time he become insane" ran an own shop but I can´t believe that he lived absolutely alone. During he was in an asylum (Surrey) someone had to care about the business. Friends?
      Well yes the phrase 'From time to time became insane' has always fascinated me… Its a very modern phrase, and accurate incite into schizophrenia. Of course Bi-polar also has these cyclical patterns. But Schizophrenia fits like a glove.

      You've hinted at this shop in Bricklane before. Is there anyway of double checking premises and owners. Ed used some sort of 19th Century Yellow Pages… or is the turn around just to tight to tell?

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      "Batty Street Lodger", October 20, 1888, Echo:

      "There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of the doors."


      Yep, first pointed out by Rob House. Clearly the police had someone under survey lance after the double event and two men arrested 13th and 14th October… This also fits nicely with what Cox says but also Andersons comments about getting on a trial following his return…So these date s all match.

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      It reminds me of Cox who stated:

      "and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls".
      Yes or perhaps the psychotic episode usually around 18 weeks simply came to an end...

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Clearly, in both cases, Lodger and Cox suspect, no direct reference to family or friends.
      Surely the Lodger references a brother with a cut Corn?

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      "This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy"

      Where? Which street? Near Brick Lane?
      Your losing me…Are you saying Kozminski had a shop in Bricklane or Greenfield Street or both?

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      We know that Kosminski "was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall" (Sims). Cox said: "He occupied several shops in the East End... While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months". Anderson: "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."
      Then the logic is that if he had a shop in Brick lane it wasn't for long.. As Cox watched a premise in a certain street Most probably Greenfeild Street

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      In each case, Sims/ Anderson + Cox, it is possible that this man was Kosminski and that they have not been sure where he was and whether he was alone when the murders occurred (as his family).
      OK

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Maybe, between the several shops there was an "own shop". In my opinion, it is possible that a brother, maybe Woolf, ran a shop together with Aaron Kozminski (as later with Cohen and Davis). In this case Aaron might have (mainly) worked and lived in this shop at the time of the murders. At weekends and during Bank Holidays there were no customers and probably no family members when he came back with bloody clothes and "body parts" and other trophies. During the week it is absolutely possible that the brother was already in the shop when Aaron came back from his late walks abroad and nightly prowls (Cox).
      Yes its a logical conclusion.. What was wolf doing for employment? I see what you are getting at. Neither he or Morris appear to have worked for Issac… And given the later business in St Pauls .. Logic dictates there was a premises somewhere in 1888….Fantastic reasoning

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Cox spoke of his place of business, the shop of the man, his little shop, his own house... these "signs" speak against Aaron Kozminski

      But: He occupied several shops in the East End speaks for Kosminski.
      OK .. Your not just say there might have been shops but that there must have been a shop other than the premises in Greenfeild street .. Great logic

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Karsten Giese View Post
      Perhaps it was his desire to work and live alone most of the time, and his family has supported him in his wish.
      Yours Karsten.
      It would simply make more sense that before his illness started Woolf and Aaron went into business together, using money from other family members i.e. Issac… Remember people started out in life much younger than today, a young jewish boy is a man at his barmitzpher…13?

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-13-2015, 06:20 PM #701
      Karsten Giese
      Registered User

      Join Date: Dec 2013
      Posts: 49
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
      Having sone problems here in the uK

      Have read your post and will reply, however may have to go to wales for a few days (Emergency potential)

      But will reply, many thanks

      Jx
      Take your time; I am not in any hurry. (I am keeping my fingers crossed for you.)

      Just a couple more points:

      Macnaghten wrote: "He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies." Cox stated: "The motive was, there can not be the slightest doubt, revenge. Not merely revenge on the few poor unfortunate victims of the knife, but revenge on womankind... The murderer was a misogynist, who at some time or another had been wronged by a woman". I´m not sure, Jeff, but I guess that these "strong homicidal tendencies" might have been an intra- family problem. And what is it worth if there were a few prostitutes who testified that this "Kosminski" is Leather Apron? What is it worth if the "Constable near Mitre Square" said: Yes, he looks like the man who coming out of the court near Mitre Square? What is it worth if the bloody clothing in Batty Street had belonged to Kosminski? Schizophrenics injure themselves in some cases ("Cutting his corn"). What is it worth if Kosminski was not able to produce an alibi? Maybe these were the circs as Macnaghten stated: "There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect' ". If the "suspect" Aaron Kozminski attacked his own sister near Brick Lane with a knife after the Kelly murder and there was a witness then this was a "big thing" for the police. But if the sister refused to give evidence... they had to wait patiently... Sagar stated: "identification being impossible... Eventually we got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum, and the series of murders came to an end." Sounds like the situation, Brother/sister and Colney Hatch. Before Aaron Kozminski went to Colney Hatch, Jacob Cohen said: "he took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister". Jacob Cohen also said: "he has not worked for years". Remember Cox: "very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls". "Very soon" could mean that Aaron Kozminski stopped working long before march 1889. Between that point and Colney Hatch two years gone by. Two years!!! (A job in Butchers Row later could have been an attempt to get Aaron back into work). Cox again: "Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes" - after Kelly- . After Kelly there were investigations relating to private asylums as newspapers reported. Who knows, possibly, the police were looking for Aaron Kozminski and they also found David (Aaron Davis) Cohen and there was confusion for a short time. The name of Kozminski´s cousin was Cohen, too, Jacob Cohen. Both men, Aaron Kozminski and David Cohen, were patients in Colney Hatch. After his admission, David Cohen died shortly afterwards in Colney Hatch. Both men were very similar. This could be a reason why Swanson thought Kominski is dead, he got the false information, not about Kosminski but about Cohen.
      Karsten Giese is offline Add Infraction for Karsten Giese Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-13-2015, 03:11 PM #700
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Having sone problems here in the uK

      Have read your post and will reply, however may have to go to wales for a few days (Emergency potential)

      But will reply, many thanks

      Jx
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-13-2015, 08:42 AM #699
      Karsten Giese
      Registered User

      Join Date: Dec 2013
      Posts: 49
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
      Karsten has speculated that Kozminski might have been connected to a shop in Bricklane.

      It would explain why it took the police so long to arrange the ID, especially if kozminski's sister was the person attacked , she was bringing the charges and their was a witness… would also explain why the suspect instantly recognised his accuser..

      Perhaps Karsten might comment?Yours Jeff

      Hello Jeff,

      I have an idea, a hypothesis. It would be nice to know what had happened in the night after the Farmer incident in Brick Lane or near Brick Lane. Maybe that the name "Matilda" comes from an incident after the attack on Annie Farmer. In my theory, it is impossible that Schwartz and Lawende were the witnesses at the Seaside Home. However, I believe that Schwartz and Lawende were confronted with "Kosminski" at the time of the murders but they did not recognize him. Macnaghten´s "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer" is probably "true". It referred to the official files. A file: Jack the Ripper/ Victim "Matilda", Suspect: Kosminski did not exist. However, it seems that there was a "witness" near Brick Lane in November 1888. In my theory, it is possible that shortly before "Kosminski" became totally insane the police confronted this witness with the suspect (or vice versa). "When a person with schizophrenia becomes violent the victim is usually someone from their own family or someone else close to them such as a carer", so it is quite possible that Aaron Kozminski threatened his sister Matilda or his sister-in-law Betsy. His cousin Jacob Cohen reported an incident of this kind. Perhaps I could go a stage further and say that Aaron Kozminski threatening his Mother Golda, his sister Matilda and his sister-in-law Betsy over time. Reason enough for the family to give him up, at some point at time. I do not rule out that Matilda Lubnowski was a "victim" in November 1888 and, then, Betsy Abrahams in the summer of 1890.

      Looking at the Cox story it makes the impression on me that he observed a man who crossed the Whitechapel High Street/ Road and "made his way down to the St. George in the east". Kosminski´s brother Woolf (with Betsy) living there at the time of the murders (Providence Street) near the Stride crime scene in Berner Street (Dutfields Yard). In 1881/82 Woolf Abrahams lived next to the Dutfields Yard. It is possible that Cox watched this suspect in a shop near Brick Lane, not far from the Smith and the Tabram crime scenes. The suspect had short, black, curly hair and for me it sounds like a foreigner. Cox´s colleague Sagar stated he had knowledge about a "man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square". Sagar observed the suspect in Butchers Row on Aldgate High Street and I think that Sagar shadowed his man later in time than Cox (End of 1888-about march 1889). I consider it even possible that both City Police detectives, Cox and Sagar, were watching the same suspect.

      Well, we could say that Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten referred to Kosminski and Cox and Sagar to another suspect or even to two other suspects. In this connection three Jack the Ripper suspects are perfectly possible. But in my theory I want to believe that these men (MET Police and City Police) were talking about one suspect, Kosminski (Aaron Kozminski).

      (Not to forget: The Batty Street Lodger!)

      Sagar: “and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum”.

      In the case of Sagar, the suspect had some friends. The suspect of Cox "from time to time he become insane" ran an own shop but I can´t believe that he lived absolutely alone. During he was in an asylum (Surrey) someone had to care about the business. Friends?

      "Batty Street Lodger", October 20, 1888, Echo:

      "There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of the doors."

      It reminds me of Cox who stated:

      "and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls".

      Clearly, in both cases, Lodger and Cox suspect, no direct reference to family or friends.

      "This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy"

      Where? Which street? Near Brick Lane?

      We know that Kosminski "was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall" (Sims). Cox said: "He occupied several shops in the East End... While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months". Anderson: "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."

      In each case, Sims/ Anderson + Cox, it is possible that this man was Kosminski and that they have not been sure where he was and whether he was alone when the murders occurred (as his family).

      Maybe, between the several shops there was an "own shop". In my opinion, it is possible that a brother, maybe Woolf, ran a shop together with Aaron Kozminski (as later with Cohen and Davis). In this case Aaron might have (mainly) worked and lived in this shop at the time of the murders. At weekends and during Bank Holidays there were no customers and probably no family members when he came back with bloody clothes and "body parts" and other trophies. During the week it is absolutely possible that the brother was already in the shop when Aaron came back from his late walks abroad and nightly prowls (Cox).

      Cox spoke of his place of business, the shop of the man, his little shop, his own house... these "signs" speak against Aaron Kozminski

      But: He occupied several shops in the East End speaks for Kosminski.

      Perhaps it was his desire to work and live alone most of the time, and his family has supported him in his wish.

      Yours Karsten.
      Karsten Giese is offline Add Infraction for Karsten Giese Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-13-2015, 02:37 AM #698
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
      But was the "Matilda in Bricklane" Aaron's sister?
      The news paper story doesn't give a surname. However its an intriguing question?

      This man certainly threatened the woman with a knife. And this might give a reason for its mention in the asylum admittance i.e. it refers to a specific story and the witness.

      Karsten has speculated that Kozminski might have been connected to a shop in Bricklane.

      It would explain why it took the police so long to arrange the ID, especially if kozminski's sister was the person attacked , she was bringing the charges and their was a witness… would also explain why the suspect instantly recognised his accuser..

      Perhaps Karsten might comment?

      I'd be most interested in any new press reports discovered on this attack…

      If kozminski was the killer then I think it reasonable given the high level of risk that there was a large number of failed attempts

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 07:11 PM #697
      Jonathan Hainsworth
      Researcher

      Join Date: Jun 2010
      Posts: 1,335
      Default
      To Ed

      The problem with the Anderson-Swanson-"Kosminski" theory is that is all tip, and no iceberg.
      Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 06:12 PM #696
      Scott Nelson
      Schoolyard Bully

      Scott Nelson's Avatar

      Join Date: Mar 2007
      Posts: 673
      Default
      But was the "Matilda in Bricklane" Aaron's sister?
      Scott Nelson is offline Add Infraction for Scott Nelson Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 04:38 PM #695
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
      If the letter has anything to do with Aaron Kosminski, it was more likely a "distant relation" spoken of, ie., Betsy, Aaron's sister-in-law. She was likely the one threatened with the knife.
      I've not ruled out any possibility… However I'm intrigued by Karsten's suggestion that the witness was neither Lawenda or Schwartz but the man who witnessed the attack on Matilda in Bricklane?

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 03:39 PM #694
      Scott Nelson
      Schoolyard Bully

      Scott Nelson's Avatar

      Join Date: Mar 2007
      Posts: 673
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
      Thats because Anderson was convinced of Kozminski's guilty following the Crawford letter meeting with Aarons sister, probably Matilda.
      If the letter has anything to do with Aaron Kosminski, it was more likely a "distant relation" spoken of, ie., Betsy, Aaron's sister-in-law. She was likely the one threatened with the knife.
      Scott Nelson is offline Add Infraction for Scott Nelson Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 01:48 PM #693
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      Jeff
      It's not me that has to like it or nor about the Kosminski family being well off - it's you as Anderson said his suspect was from a dirt poor background!
      Horses and Courses one mans rich person is anothers UKIP voter

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      Regarding Anderson's befuddled mind - I would say that do far as his Police career went, the Ripper case loomed large. But as you correctly point out his theological obsession took pride of place in his thoughts - another reason why he was do hopelessly muddled in his Ripper recollections.
      I think your trying to have your cake and eat it here… Either Anderson was a brilliant writer who enthralled his generation (Bizarre though it may seem) or he was muddled and confused

      The two don't sit together well

      I'll see during the week if I can find Paul Begg's Feature on Anderson

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 12:03 PM #692
      Edward Stow
      Researcher

      Join Date: Dec 2012
      Posts: 2,756
      Default
      Jeff
      It's not me that has to like it or nor about the Kosminski family being well off - it's you as Anderson said his suspect was from a dirt poor background!

      Regarding Anderson's befuddled mind - I would say that do far as his Police career went, the Ripper case loomed large. But as you correctly point out his theological obsession took pride of place in his thoughts - another reason why he was do hopelessly muddled in his Ripper recollections.
      Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 11:35 AM #691
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      It is clear from what Anderson said that the JtR case was of tremendous importance to him. Its 'non solving' was an affront to his dignity - a rebuke to his intelligence..
      While Anderson continued speaking on the penal system. I think his main concern was a sense of injustice about the criticism to fail to catch the ripper when he felt, unlike the french, he didn't have the tools to do what was wanted.. I think that was actually the thrust behind his Jack the Ripper comments in TLSOMOL however his industry and energy was clearly in his theological work…just look how many books this man wrote! Are you really trying to tell me his brain was failing?

      Religious subjects[edit]
      The Bible and Modern Criticism
      The Bible or the Church
      The Buddha of Christendom
      The Coming Prince
      Daniel in the Critics' Den
      A Doubter's Doubts about Science and Religion (reissued by Cambridge University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-1-108-00014-7)
      Entail of the Covenant
      Forgotten Truths
      The Gospel and Its Ministry
      The Honour of His Name
      Human Destiny
      The Lord From Heaven
      Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament
      Pseudo-Criticism
      Redemption Truths
      The Silence of God
      Types in Hebrews
      Unfulfilled Prophecy
      The Way
      For Us Men (reissued as Redemption Truths by Morgan & Scott Ltd, 1910)
      In Defence: A Plea For The Faith

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      If Kosminski was supposedly the no 1 suspect there is no conceivable excuse for Anderson to even possibly believe that he was dead - no excuse for him to allow himself to be misinformed. If he lost sight of Kosminski then he could be released and strike again. To suggest Anderson was under informed about a genuine no 1 suspect is to accuse him of gross incompetence of the highest order..
      Um… Well there by hangs that thought…what if he was released again..To which my solutions answers that very well. He'd already been aware of Kozminski going in and out of Asylums via the family..they could not guarantee the money required and thats what happened..

      I think the ID was agreed to place Aaron in Broadmoore…when that failed Anderson arranged for Kozminski to be taken to Colney Hatch under the terms that he would never be released… So no I don't think he was worried I think he knew he would stay there…the real question is did he know about the transfer to Leavesdon?

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      there is that letter Rob House fund i the files where Anderson asked to be directly informed if a particular inmates status changed. No such letter exists for Kosminski but lets say it was lost. Are you claiming the asylum mistakenly informed Anderson that Kosminski was dead and Anderson just shrugged hos shoulders and said 'fine'?.
      Well we know the Kozminski Leavesdon files have gone missing. My guess is most of what was written also went missing. We are only looking at the tip of an iceberg.

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      It adds up even less than the ID parade - which Swanson also mentioned - but which Anderson very clearly did not put much store in..
      Thats because Anderson was convinced of Kozminski's guilty following the Crawford letter meeting with Aarons sister, probably Matilda.

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      Harcourt was Anderson's direct boss and Anderson had a bit of a negative obsession with him. To get him mixed up with Matthews shows a poor mind..
      I refer you back to the list of books above, I don't think you can make poor mind fit..

      Some years back Paul Begg wrote a long feature on Anderson for Ripperologist Magazine. In it he replies to all the criticisms laid at Andersons door by various modern commentators and Historians

      I will try and find my copy, as I don't have a photographic memory, but I do remember the broad trust of events and what was argued..I will try and find a copy or some people here like Chris George might know where it is available?

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      I agree glaring errors were made about all the supposed suspects - which tells me hey were not actually proper investigated - a the time of the crimes - suspects..
      I think MacNaughten had his Druit theory, hence his muddle about the doctor and that he simply went into a room found the various files picking the main suspect file created by Cox and his team on Kozminski

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      TLSOMOL in so far as the Ripper investigation is concerned is drawn in very wide brush strokes No detail really that he cold be tripped up over - yet he still was. he said his suspect was a very poor Jew. It does not pass muster to claim that Anderson was only referring to Aaron Kosminski as being poor. Clearly he meant his whole family.
      As I said previously I think he based that opinion on Kozminski condition in late 1891.. To Anderson these people were poor polish Jews.. I vary much doubt that he asked to see Wolfs bank accounts or Matilda's for that matter.

      I mean at present people are talking about poor refugees entering the country from Syria…in reality many of these people are from the middle classes, they are doctors lawyers and people with trades, there homes destroyed in the syrian wars…

      Whether you like it or not the Kozminskis were comparatively wealthy east end jews who later ran a pub and moved to Ramsgate to run a guest house. They were tradesman who worked hard.

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 09:32 AM #690
      Edward Stow
      Researcher

      Join Date: Dec 2012
      Posts: 2,756
      Default
      It is clear from what Anderson said that the JtR case was of tremendous importance to him. Its 'non solving' was an affront to his dignity - a rebuke to his intelligence.

      If Kosminski was supposedly the no 1 suspect there is no conceivable excuse for Anderson to even possibly believe that he was dead - no excuse for him to allow himself to be misinformed. If he lost sight of Kosminski then he could be released and strike again. To suggest Anderson was under informed about a genuine no 1 suspect is to accuse him of gross incompetence of the highest order.
      there is that letter Rob House fund i the files where Anderson asked to be directly informed if a particular inmates status changed. No such letter exists for Kosminski but lets say it was lost. Are you claiming the asylum mistakenly informed Anderson that Kosminski was dead and Anderson just shrugged hos shoulders and said 'fine'?

      It adds up even less than the ID parade - which Swanson also mentioned - but which Anderson very clearly did not put much store in.

      Harcourt was Anderson's direct boss and Anderson had a bit of a negative obsession with him. To get him mixed up with Matthews shows a poor mind.

      I agree glaring errors were made about all the supposed suspects - which tells me hey were not actually proper investigated - a the time of the crimes - suspects.

      TLSOMOL in so far as the Ripper investigation is concerned is drawn in very wide brush strokes No detail really that he cold be tripped up over - yet he still was. he said his suspect was a very poor Jew. It does not pass muster to claim that Anderson was only referring to Aaron Kosminski as being poor. Clearly he meant his whole family.
      Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 08:00 AM #689
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      Jeff
      We also have Anderson thinking Kosminski died in the asylum some time before. .
      I've addressed this at length Ed. There could be several reasons for this. But he was in contact with the head of Colney hatch we know that. So the possibilities are that he was incorrectly informed. Note he only ever BELIEVED he was dead. Or something else that has crossed my mind was a deliberate attempt to protect the family when he released his book…it still strikes me as odd that the asylum records for 15 years before have gone missing

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      We also have the so called ID much reduced in importance. .
      An ID supported by Swanson?

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      We have Anderson being prone to muddling important details up..
      He got the name of the Secretary of state incorrect. That was in an interview so he wasn't working from notes.

      There are no such errors in TLSOMOL suggesting he worked from diary and notes.

      Minor mistakes are made by almost everyone including Macnuaghten who believed Druit was a doctor

      Minor errors don't equate to total memory loss

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      We also have Macnaghten muddling things up - which Jonathan thinks he did deliberately..
      Yes bizarre why would he do this? It makes far more sense that he simply didn't have a lot of information in front of him. Personally I believe he had already form his Druit theory through Chums some time earlier, and when looking at the kozminski file dated up to March 1889 was not convinced this suspect was better than Druit… And I can't help thinking he made a reasonable choice given what little he had on Kozminski.

      Yours Jeff

      PS I think everyone over estimates the importance of the JtR case to Anderson. I think it amused him how the story continued to have wings… Andersons life long work was on theology and i think this was far more important to him
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-12-2015, 06:06 AM #688
      Edward Stow
      Researcher

      Join Date: Dec 2012
      Posts: 2,756
      Default
      Jeff
      We also have Anderson thinking Kosminski died in the asylum some time before.
      We also have the so called ID much reduced in importance.
      We have Anderson being prone to muddling important details up.

      We also have Macnaghten muddling things up - which Jonathan thinks he did deliberately. I am wholly unconvinced by that argument but I will endeavour to read his book if it comes in at less than £500 a copy.
      Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 06:55 PM #687
      Jonathan Hainsworth
      Researcher

      Join Date: Jun 2010
      Posts: 1,335
      Default
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYBbvj8NKx8
      Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 09:52 AM #686
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
      To Ed

      As you say he doesn't read our posts..
      I try to avoid yours Jonathon as they are long winded full of opinions stated as facts…and try to build an entire case around Anderson getting the name of the Home secretary wrong..

      As another poster has recently pointed out we don't know which pipe Anderson might have been referencing…so we don't know he made an error on that

      And clearly his reference to the graffiti was correct

      So thats all you have..Anderson in an interview made a 'name' error. In an interview without reference..

      As he almost certainly wrote TLSOMOL from notes and 'reference' it contains no such errors

      Yours jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 09:15 AM #685
      Jonathan Hainsworth
      Researcher

      Join Date: Jun 2010
      Posts: 1,335
      Default
      To Ed

      As you say he doesn't read our posts.

      The 1908 interview shows Anderson confusing and/or conflating not only Home Secretaries (and thus political parties and particular governments) but also the different pipes broken at two different murder sites -- and the one he claims that involved the loss of a vital clue by a clumsy medico is really the 'Clay Pipe' McKenzie murder that he claims in his 1910 memoir he knew was not a Ripper slaying.

      But you know we've been told, Anderson is no muddler because ... because, he says so, or others say so. It's like glimpse of North Korea.

      Now I am being attacked for my Druitt theory when I have not mentioned it: to the contrary I have been on m y best behavior in saying that Macnaghten appears to have made a series of errors in his report(s), and I have made it clear that Sudgen thinks very little of Mac as a source or Druitt as a suspect.

      This eccentric poster actually stole the notion of Anderson and Swanson concealing the truth about Kosminski from Macnaghten -- from me!

      In the sense that I had originally proposed the theory that Mac concealed the truth about Druitt (and Kosminski) from them. At first he bucketed my theory as the worst kind of conspiracy-mongering before blithely and shamelessly appropriating it.

      The difference is that i have never suggested an institutional conspiracy and cover-up, as he does now.
      Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 08:58 AM #684
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post

      Jeff has tried this before to excuse Anderson's glaring stuff-ups. He says it was because Anderson was tired, and when we are tired we can all make mistakes. Too true.

      There is just one problem.

      It is not the same interview where he says he was tried.

      .
      Then working from memory I've mudded up two interviews. What I haven't muddled is what happened.

      There is no evidence that Anderson was becoming muddled and this is agreed by most experts including Fido and Begg.

      All you have is Anderson miss remembering the home secretaries name, its not like they were working in the same office is it?

      Besides misremebering specifics like names and dates is a completely different thing to remembering the broad thrust of what happened.

      And your still faced with the reality of my simple double event theory, while your Druit theory rely's on complex web of deception by MacNAughten for no apparent reason that lifts the Jack the Case at the time way above its actual importance to those involved..

      And of course it still relies on you squeezing round pegs into square holes by claiming MacNaughten knew Kozminski was alive when you actually read the Marginalia its quite clear he did not KOZ: (I believe still is) OSTROG: He is still alive

      rather a big hole in your theory is it not?

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 07:12 AM #683
      Jonathan Hainsworth
      Researcher

      Join Date: Jun 2010
      Posts: 1,335
      Default
      Thanks Ed.

      Martin Fido is a brilliant writer, one of the greatest on this subject, but on this point he is quite wrong. Anderson is hopelessly mistaken -- if he means Aaron Kosminski.

      My posts managed, though, to flush Jeff out, but, alas, its the usual theorizing presented as definitely ascertained facts, e.g. Kosminski was sectioned twice, and so on.

      Yet the chronic masturbation as the reason for his being incarcerated as hopelessly insane ("solitary vices"; "unmentionable vices") clearly refers to events that happened only in 1891.

      But the 1891 incarceration has been backdated by Macnaghten to March 1889 and Anderson, from 1895, also alludes to a brief reign of terror, one cut short by being safely caged in a madhouse and [from 1910] allegedly he was identified by a Judas witness, and soon after that he was safely deceased.

      (as a side-note, Swanson does not write "believed" in his annotations, whereas Anderson uses the same word to his son as Littlechild did about Tumblety supposedly killing himself. Was somebody telling them stuff about Ripper suspects that they had to take on their word?)

      Jeff has tried this before to excuse Anderson's glaring stuff-ups. He says it was because Anderson was tired, and when we are tired we can all make mistakes. Too true.

      There is just one problem.

      It is not the same interview where he says he was tried.

      The one Jeff always says it is, it isn't. Whether he knows it or not, he is referring to Hargrave L. Adam's "C.I.D. Behind the Scenes at Scotland Yard", in which the author noted that Anderson, from memory, muddled up two murder cases (sound familiar?) and also, being fair, that he said he was too exhausted to properly recall.

      The 1908 interview is a perfect train-wreck from a completely different source.

      And yes I would recall the correct Home Secretary if he had been my boss, as I can recall every boss I have worked for with clarity, as most people no doubt can. Unless their memory, through no fault of their own, has begun to crumble due to advancing age.

      Plus it is not just the Home Secretaries he muddles up but the pipes and the medicos too.

      This is understandable because he initially believed that McKenzie and Coles were Ripper victims (which exlcudes both Cohen and Kosminski) but was obviously influenced by Macnaghten to begin recalling the protracted investigation between August 1888 and March 1891 (plus a brief revival in 1895 with Grant) as a single season of terror, with everybody knowing it was all over with Kelly.

      Jeff never deals with the issue of the blatant self-serving bias of Anderson because he confuses it with an accusation of deliberate deception, which, again, it it is not. A primary source that considers itself always to be correct has to be treated with great caution (and be verified by other less biased sources, if possible).

      It is my subsidiary thesis that an oblivious Anderson and Swanson are referring, quite sincerely and quite mistakenly, to the fictional variant of Aaron Kosminski, known as "Kosminski", and created, I theorize, by Macnaghten for his own purposes.
      Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 07:12 AM #682
      Jon Simons
      Registered User

      Join Date: Jun 2009
      Posts: 256
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      Of course conjecture is part and parcel of any reinvestigation of the case.
      .
      Shouldn`t that be reinvention of the case ?
      Jon Simons is offline Add Infraction for Jon Simons Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 07:10 AM #681
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      You are forced into make incredible conjectural points to make Kosminski fit as a viable, a credible, police suspect - I.e. One not just plucked from the asylum registers as an East End Jew, sent down at very roughly the right time and with the whiff of sexual degradation about him.
      Of course conjecture is part and parcel of any reinvestigation of the case.
      But you haven't even got him to a single crime scene and already it's massive heaps of conjecture.
      Well you said yourself in your previous post. All we have is unconnected squares…we can either sit back and say …hey look unconnected squares, and some ripperologists do…

      Or you can try and figure out what the squares mean and that by its nature requires conjecture… I have no problem with that..

      However I do try and keep that conjecture into the realms of possibility…fore instance by looking at news paper reports on the Batty Street Lodger and the bloody shirt, we never see the name Kozminski, but there is lots to reasonable conjecture that might be taken from these reports…the location, the german speaking brother, the arrests made on the 13th 14th October 1888…etc

      Place the squares in their correct order and step back and a picture starts to form. And when we today look at the Kozminski picture there are more such squares than on almost any other suspect

      But what I'm arguing is a solution so simple, that its the only possible conjecture that makes any sense:

      Anderson and MacNaughten are describing two completely different events… MacNaughten the suyveylance on a suspect up to March 1889. And Anderson an ID in late 1890 early 1891.

      The only thing that holds them together is they are talking about the same suspect

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 06:59 AM #680
      Edward Stow
      Researcher

      Join Date: Dec 2012
      Posts: 2,756
      Default
      You are forced into make incredible conjectural points to make Kosminski fit as a viable, a credible, police suspect - I.e. One not just plucked from the asylum registers as an East End Jew, sent down at very roughly the right time and with the whiff of sexual degradation about him.
      Of course conjecture is part and parcel of any reinvestigation of the case.
      But you haven't even got him to a single crime scene and already it's massive heaps of conjecture.
      Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 06:19 AM #679
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jonathan Hainsworth;277193
      Jeff never deals with the 1908 late primary source. You can see why.

      [URL
      http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/brokenpipe.html[/URL]
      Thats because from memory Paul Begg has dealt with this on many occasions and Anderson Caveated the interview by saying it was 'late' and he was 'teird'.

      All it amounts to is that he muddled the name of the home secretary. Can you name the secretary of state ten years ago?

      Besides it seems probable that when writing his auto biography Anderson worked from notes and a diary

      The account of the writing would match the graffiti

      The pipe is more interesting and has been long discust with many possibilities

      There we certain circumstances etc

      However writing in 1947 Arthur Posonby Moore Anderson: " Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe and believed that he died in an asylum.

      Note the word 'Believed'

      Clearly there was no statement of fact

      Note that he doesn't use the word Jewish but Alien from Eastern Europe…a match for Aaron Kozminski

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 05:59 AM #678
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      Fido responded that while some were inaccurate - eg Swanson - Anderson was not. I couldn't off the top of my head recall the 1908 newspaper report - or his sons biography.
      The son states that his father believed his suspect 'died in an asylum'.
      First of all its important to remember that MacNaughten didn't have a clue what happened to Aaron Kozminski after March 1889, as he was reading the report or file created by Cox and his team. This makes sense other wise there would be another suspect name would there not?

      So MacNaughten doesn't know what happened to Kozminski or about Colney Hatch, only Cox's Privavte Asylum in Surrey.

      Anderson and Swansons is done in secret following the family coming forward (Crawford) and to protect the family and avoid riots the ID done in secret and fails. Unable to get the suspect in Broadmoore the next best thing is Colney Hatch. Bear in mind Colney hatch is an asylum Hospital that sets out to cure, so possibly Anderson pulled strings and kept an eye on his suspect. There is evidence of correspondence between Anderson and the person in charge of Colney Hatch..So where better for Anderson to place him? He can no longer come and go as would be the case in a private asylum.

      A mix up occurs when its clear Kozminski is not curable (Possibly trouble) and he is transferred to Leavesdon. One suggestion is that Dr Seward who treated both David Cohen and Kozminski might have confused them? or perhaps Anderson was simply given the wrong information by the head of Colney Hatch.

      But this would explain why Anderson believed Kozminski dead and this information would have been passed to Swanson..

      The only curious thing here, and it might just be that a coincidence it happens, is that the Leavesdon Asylum records for the period unto the publication of Anderson's book TLSOMOL are missing?

      So perhaps Anderson thought it best for the family and everyone concerned that the suspect was to all intensive purposed considered dead.

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 05:47 AM #677
      Jeff Leahy
      TV Producer/Director

      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: East Farleigh
      Posts: 3,932
      Default
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Edward Stow View Post
      Jeff

      The problem with your Cox tale is that he talks of a working man from a reasonably well off family and a private hospital.
      Anderson talks of a very poor family.
      The medical record show he didn't work and was only committed to public asylums.

      Either we've got a lot of muddle or different people being spoken of.
      Cox tells a clear tale, which if you think about it can only connect to a time frame February March 1889. Thats because its at this time unto about April 1889 that the Sweatshop inquirary was taking place in parliament.

      And Cox claimed that he and his officers assumed the discusise of factory inspectors at a certain premises.

      What we know about kozminski today of course is while he was poor, his brother owned a comparatively wealthy Tayloring Sweat shop in Greenfeild street, his brother own an expensive silver watch. And the family per ce appear to have come from various trades. Butchers, shoe makes, Taylors. So may have been connected to various shops or premisise.

      And while we know Kozminski hadn't plied his trade (Hairdressing) in years. Someone in the early on set might make a perfect night watchman for such premises, as schizophrenics typically experience lack of sleep.

      That might also make the use of those premise at night an issue with an obsessive night watchman.

      Cox clearly states that the man he followed was placed in a private Asylum in Surrey and this would match MacNaughtens date March 1889. And how many people as described by Cox, shifty and from time to time becoming insane (Schizophrenics from time to time become insane) Had a family with the wealth and money to pay such a fee?

      So Kozminski is to some extent a better fit for Cox's suspect than he is Andersons

      However if Anderson only witnessed Kozminski two years later when he was eating from the gutter perhaps his observations were more spot on…

      So my suggestion to your question is the time frame of two years…

      The man described by Cox is the Kozminski in early 1889

      The man described by Anderson is the Kozminski in late 1890

      Yours Jeff
      Jeff Leahy is online now Add Infraction for Jeff Leahy Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 04:58 AM #676
      Edward Stow
      Researcher

      Join Date: Dec 2012
      Posts: 2,756
      Default
      I had also forgotten what was said in Anderson's son's biography.
      I knew Anderson was unreliable but his own autobiography is drawn in wide brush strokes wherever it deals with his suspect.
      At the conference (sorry to go on about the conference all the time) I asked Martin Fido whether it wasn't the case that the named police suspects were all suspect as suspects because glaring errors were made about them in their description... Such as that Kosminski was dead when he wasn't - which rather pointed to him not being a properly investigated - and so monitored - prime suspect.

      Fido responded that while some were inaccurate - eg Swanson - Anderson was not. I couldn't off the top of my head recall the 1908 newspaper report - or his sons biography.
      The son states that his father believed his suspect 'died in an asylum'.
      Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 04:43 AM #675
      Edward Stow
      Researcher

      Join Date: Dec 2012
      Posts: 2,756
      Default
      Two good posts in succession Jonathan.
      What's happening?
      Edward Stow is online now Add Infraction for Edward Stow Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-11-2015, 02:20 AM #674
      Jonathan Hainsworth
      Researcher

      Join Date: Jun 2010
      Posts: 1,335
      Default
      Is it also possible that, as Anderson claims, the destruction of this hypothetical pipe at the Kelly murder scene derailed the case against the Polish suspect?

      I think not.

      What is more likely is that Anderson originally had no sense of the case ending with Kelly (that's Managhten's retrospective mythologising from 1894). He, like most people, believed that Frances Coles was the final victim and then the killings finally stopped, after more than two years.

      As Evans and Rumbelow argued in 2006 it is too much of a coincidence that a Kosminski was sectioned mere days before a Ripper suspect (Tom Sadler) was "confronted" with a Jewish witness, which went nowhere.

      By 1895, just three years later, Anderson has reportedly begun to truncate that protracted timeline into the single 'autumn of terror', just as Macnaghten did in his report(s). He reportedly talked of a prime suspect who was on the prowl for a short time until he went into care and, according to his son and Swanson, Anderson believed that he died there.

      Neither of those bits of data match Aaron Kosminski.

      By 1908 Anderson is arguably hopelessly muddled between pipes, medical personnel and victims, and, most tellingly, between Liberal and Tory Home Secretaries (and his memory devolves in a partisan way: he, a Tory, falsely blames a Liberal minister for putting him under unfair pressure).

      The egocentric Anderson's default position is to blame others, others who are in fact not to blame for his inability to bring this over-rated threat to justice. What's more the people he blames (the doctor; the witness) do not literally exist as his memory has become such a dog's breakfast.
      Jonathan Hainsworth is offline Add Infraction for Jonathan Hainsworth Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
      Old 09-10-2015, 11:10 PM #673
      Scott Nelson
      Schoolyard Bully

      Scott Nelson's Avatar

      Join Date: Mar 2007
      Posts: 673
      Default
      Anderson was at the scene of the Kelly murder. There is the possibility that a clay pipe in her room was smashed by one of the attending doctors in the fireplace, as he said.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Howard

        Firstly many thanks for creating this new thread. Clearly a completely different discussion had developed out of the 'Missing evidence thread' and while excited by some new lines of reasoning, I think both Karsten and myself were aware that the conversation should be under another heading

        Whether that heading should be David Cohen or not? Is another question?

        Clearly the discussion here is far broader and more encompassing about the Police 'LUNATIC' theory in general..

        But what Karsten has been speculating (Re David Cohen) is certainly interesting.

        Let me state clearly that for a very long time and since Paul Begg explained it in detail, I've been of the opinion the witness at the Swanson ID could NOT have been Lawenda, the knock out blow is simply why would he agree to attend a later ID parade having already positively ID'd Kozminski. It has never made sense so for the point of this discussion..Lawenda is gone.

        Which until now has only left one possibility...Schwartz. Of course I've established that of all the witnesses the only person who had a good, close , well lite view of his suspect BSM was Schwartz. But the Stride murder throws up many problems, not the least was she a ripper victim or simply a one off kozminski attack.

        Personally I am of little doubt given Blackwells estimated time of death that BSM was Strides killer. That a different knife was NOT used. That double events are not uncommon in serial killer activity.

        So it was Schwartz?

        Well now Karsten appears to be getting at a new David Cohen theory that connects to Aron Kozminski. A second attack in Brick lane on the 7th? (Hope i have that correct Karsten) November so shortly before the MJK murder.

        In this attack, as I understand Karsten is suggesting that Aron Kozminski attacked his sister with a knife, and the witness to that attack is the witness referred to by Swanson in the Marginalia

        ie a 'second' witness.

        Here Karsten claims that there was confussion with David Cohens arrest, shortly after the Kelly murder and the Kozminski family placing Aaron out of harms way in a Private asylum.... This is supported by News Paper articles suggesting the police were searching Private Asylums for the killer around 22nd December 1888.

        David Cohen going into the asylum at Colney Hatch and dying shortly afterwards (I believe the following autumn)

        So its a new confusion theory between David (Aaron) Cohen (Which was also Matildas adopted name) and Aaron Kozminski

        But there are a lot of news paper reports, and various police statements to cross match. I also think that Rob House's Batty street Lodger theory fits in fairly well to the time scale/line. Its always assumed that the police didn't have much of a clue to go on...but clearly hints in the various News Paper reports suggest otherwise...

        Anderson 'On my return' i.e. shortly after the Batty Street event

        Cox 'Shortly after the last murder' (Presumably Kelly)

        Suggest that the police did have a LUNATIC theory that they were actively chasing a suspect...

        A suspect that the police debt in general believed died shortly after being placed in an asylum. Something we know was not the case with Aaron Kozminski who was transferred to Leavesdon 1894 and did not die until 1919

        But what we do have are lots of News Paper reports, they are often frustrating because they contain errors but I've always believed not to throw the baby out with the bath water and hope this thread can continue to develop a single time line for the police LUNATIC theory from Slate august 1888 to March 1889, when MacNaughten, who I believe had access to a file compiled by COX, said the suspect went into an asylum, and COX said a Private Asylum in Surrey

        When we know, David Cohen went to Colney Hatch a public Asylum in Middlesex.

        But was this police error on Andersons part or a deliberate attempt to quash the 'lunatic' theory protect the family of kozminski (Threatened with a knife in Bricklane) and to stop anti jewish riots in the Eastend?

        Yours Jeff

        PS Many thanks for your hard work Howard, piecing some of the discussion so far...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
          Well now Karsten appears to be getting at a new David Cohen theory that connects to Aron Kozminski. A second attack in Brick lane on the 7th? (Hope i have that correct Karsten) November so shortly before the MJK murder.

          In this attack, as I understand Karsten is suggesting that Aron Kozminski attacked his sister with a knife, and the witness to that attack is the witness referred to by Swanson in the Marginalia

          ie a 'second' witness.

          Here Karsten claims that there was confussion with David Cohens arrest, shortly after the Kelly murder and the Kozminski family placing Aaron out of harms way in a Private asylum.... This is supported by News Paper articles suggesting the police were searching Private Asylums for the killer around 22nd December 1888.
          Hi Jeff!

          Again:

          The man was arrested (Brick Lane) for assaulting a prostitute (22 November 1888, between one and two o’clock), and will be charged with that offence.

          The brothel in 254 Whitechapel Road was observed in November and December 1888. There were reports from 24, 25, 26 November 1888 and 1 December 1888, so I think it is possible that this brothel war also open on 22 November 1888.

          December 8th hearing at Thames Magistrates Court (Dec.7th, the day the charge was made)
          Gertrude Smith/ Mary Jones – Keeping a brothel
          Ellen Hickey – Assault on N. Cohen
          Aaron Davis Cohen – Lunatic wandering at large (Cohen was brought in on the 7th by PC Patrick as a lunatic wandering at large)

          I know nothing about a hearing of the Brick Lane incident. But is it possible that about two weeks later this case was connected with the charges of Smith/Jones and Hickey/ N.Cohen + Aaron Davis Cohen? It seems that David Cohen has only been just two weeks in London (Jewish Temporary Shelter/ Leman Street -relatives unknown-). Clearly, it does not have to have anything to do with the Brick Lane incident or with Matilda Lubnowski and Aaron Kozminski, and it well could be that David Cohen is Aaron Davis Cohen. But in case he is not... ?

          And remember, the Black Lion Yard was opposite the 254 Whitechapel Road Brothel, a narrow thoroughfare. It leads to the Old Montague Street and then to the Brick Lane up to the Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton’s brewery where the man was captured after he was pursued through several streets by the police and detectives.

          Yours Karsten.

          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry Karsten i was muddling up the dates with December.

            So the attack was on the 22nd November and Police were searching private asylums on the 22nd December.

            So two weeks after the MJK murder

            Many thanks Jeff

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
              Sorry Karsten i was muddling up the dates with December.

              So the attack was on the 22nd November and Police were searching private asylums on the 22nd December.

              So two weeks after the MJK murder

              Many thanks Jeff

              Some more:

              I am convinced that Joseph Lawende had been the best (known) witness. Perhaps he is identical with the "Policeman near Mitre Square" (but I believe, the PC really did exist). Whoever, "Identified by height and built" that´s all the (best known) witness offered, no more... Number 1 were Lawende and the PC. In the best case Schwartz was number 2.

              I guess, we do not know who the witness was which did identify Kosminski at the Seaside Home.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Karsten Giese View Post

                I guess, we do not know who the witness was which did identify Kosminski at the Seaside Home.
                Its never been proven who it was. Certainly Rob House prefers Lawende as do a number of researchers on the subject

                However Paul Begg pointed out that Lawenda was in another ID after 1892 when Kozminski was sent to Colney Hatch.

                So the ID must have happened before then.

                And what would the police say to Lawende? Excuse me sir but last month you came to an ID and positively identified a suspect but refused to testify. Would you now consider looking at another man who might be Jack?

                Responce: But if the last man I saw was Jack the Ripper this man can't possibly be him also?

                So Lawed doesn't make sense as a witness.

                Now if Matilda goes to Crawford and says my brother tried to kill me in brick lane and I have reason to believe he is the Whitechapel murderer... Then if we have a witness to that attack and a family member making an accusation?

                Petty convincing

                Yours Jeff

                PS For what its worth I think there was a PC witness also. Would make sense. And if that was in the file MacNAughten read, then thats what happened...Its ripperologist who have gotten it wrong..

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                  Its never been proven who it was. Certainly Rob House prefers Lawende as do a number of researchers on the subject

                  However Paul Begg pointed out that Lawenda was in another ID after 1892 when Kozminski was sent to Colney Hatch.

                  So the ID must have happened before then.

                  And what would the police say to Lawende? Excuse me sir but last month you came to an ID and positively identified a suspect but refused to testify. Would you now consider looking at another man who might be Jack?

                  Responce: But if the last man I saw was Jack the Ripper this man can't possibly be him also?

                  So Lawed doesn't make sense as a witness.

                  Now if Matilda goes to Crawford and says my brother tried to kill me in brick lane and I have reason to believe he is the Whitechapel murderer... Then if we have a witness to that attack and a family member making an accusation?

                  Petty convincing

                  Yours Jeff

                  PS For what its worth I think there was a PC witness also. Would make sense. And if that was in the file MacNAughten read, then thats what happened...Its ripperologist who have gotten it wrong..
                  His sister Matilda Lubnowski lived 16 Greenfield Street not far behind the brothel 254 Whitechapel Road. In my thinking I can well imagine that Matilda could determine a change (or something else) at Aaron after the Kelly murder. One night Matilda followed Aaron, saw him stop and speak to a prostitute (Ellen Hickey, drunken) at the entrance area of the brothel, Matilda calling attention to herself, a dispute arose between Hickey and Matilda, after this Aaron assaulting Matilda in Black Lion Yard and was seen by a witness. Is it impossible? If Aaron Kozminski had been the Batty Strett suspect (October 1888), then, after this (November 1888), he had more than a serious problem.

                  It would not surprise me if Lawende was used after the Kosminski ID in other cases like Sadler (1891) and Granger (1894), just when he was not the Seaside Home witness. Even if, Jeff, he could the police reassure at least that Sadler and Grainger were not the man he had seen.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There is a lot of information here! I have a question about the private asylum issue. I recently found a short article in a Welsh paper from about Dec. 22, 1888, saying authorities were going through private asylums looking for a potential JtR committed by family or friends. When I read it I thought of some of Jonathan H.'s work on Druitt and what MacNaughten knew, and sort of thought it supported that line of thinking.

                    In short I assumed the authorities were looking for a mentally ill and committed member of a wealthy family, i.e. a family wealthy enough to support a private committal.

                    How expensive was it to support a family member in a private asylum? Would a Jewish immigrant family like the Kozminskis have used a regular asylum or did the Jews have hospitals that largely took care of Jewish people? I think I understand from this thread that the Kozminskis were presumed wealthy enough to support a family member in an asylum?

                    Can we learn anything about what the authorities were thinking by what asylums they were checking? (If we have that information?) In other words, would they have looked at certain places if they suspected an upper class Englishman, as opposed to a place that an immigrant Jewish family might have selected? What I thought I got from the newspaper article was that many different asylums were checked.
                    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                      There is a lot of information here! I have a question about the private asylum issue. I recently found a short article in a Welsh paper from about Dec. 22, 1888, saying authorities were going through private asylums looking for a potential JtR committed by family or friends. When I read it I thought of some of Jonathan H.'s work on Druitt and what MacNaughten knew, and sort of thought it supported that line of thinking.

                      In short I assumed the authorities were looking for a mentally ill and committed member of a wealthy family, i.e. a family wealthy enough to support a private committal.

                      How expensive was it to support a family member in a private asylum? Would a Jewish immigrant family like the Kozminskis have used a regular asylum or did the Jews have hospitals that largely took care of Jewish people? I think I understand from this thread that the Kozminskis were presumed wealthy enough to support a family member in an asylum?

                      Can we learn anything about what the authorities were thinking by what asylums they were checking? (If we have that information?) In other words, would they have looked at certain places if they suspected an upper class Englishman, as opposed to a place that an immigrant Jewish family might have selected? What I thought I got from the newspaper article was that many different asylums were checked.
                      Hi Anna

                      I think the thinking here is the exact opposite of Jonathan H. i.e. that MacNaughten did NOT know what happened to Kozminski after March 1889. Thats because when he checks the files in 1894, he comes across the information put together by Cox. And Cox states specifically that the suspect was placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey. And that Anderson/Swansons ID takes place in secret end 1891 (check the Crawford letter).

                      There are many Asylums in Surrey of various sizes. Thats because 1888 the boundaries of Surrey went right up to the Thames at Southwark so included Bedlam (Now the Imperial War Museum)

                      I've checked the records at Holloway, but the Male private registers are missing. There were however female jewish patients and one lady from Whitechapel was owing to insanity caused by the Whitechapel Murderer.

                      Patients would charge by the quarter upfront (I'll check Guy Blythman's book for detail later) but this would have been in the reach of the wealthy Kozminski family. We know Wolf owned a Silver watch in 1887 which someone attempted to steal. So if this was used (pawned) to pay for Aarons treatment the money would run out and he would be back on the street in three months (In time of the MacKenzie murder). Private patients could come and go unlike patients in Public asylums.

                      What is interesting about Holloway is it had a Seaside Home in Hove. These would be used for convalescence. And would join Anderson's argument that the ID took place in an Asylum with Swansons 'Seaside Home'

                      The Dublin Times ran an article on the 22nd December claiming that Police were checking Private Asylums. This would match with Karstens suggested mix-up with David Cohen (Who went to Colney Hatch) and the incident in Brick Lane, where a man threatened a Matilda with a knife (Sound Familiar?)

                      However Cox claims to have got on the suspects trail after the last murder (Kelly) and to have discuised themselves as Sweat shop factory inspectors. This matches the sweat shop bil going through parliament at that time, Jan feb March april 1889. And that matches MacNaughtens claim that the suspect entered an Asylum in March 1889.

                      Coming in and out of the Private Asylum would also match what we know about schizophrenia, an illness that attacks in waves, or periods of recovery leading to progressive 'psychotic' episodes over several months or years.

                      The kozminski family (Issac) ran a Tailoring sweat shop in Greenfield Street. Morris Lubnoski (Cohen) Matildas husband, was a boot maker

                      But it is not known what Woolf was doing for work at the time? Although we know he was later running a business in St Pauls. The question is what were he a Aaron Kozminski doing in 1888?

                      And Karsten is speculating that they may have had a shop in Bricklane, given what Cox says about occupying his own little shop and various premises.

                      Yours Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Karsten Giese View Post
                        His sister Matilda Lubnowski lived 16 Greenfield Street not far behind the brothel 254 Whitechapel Road. In my thinking I can well imagine that Matilda could determine a change (or something else) at Aaron after the Kelly murder. One night Matilda followed Aaron, saw him stop and speak to a prostitute (Ellen Hickey, drunken) at the entrance area of the brothel, Matilda calling attention to herself, a dispute arose between Hickey and Matilda, after this Aaron assaulting Matilda in Black Lion Yard and was seen by a witness. Is it impossible? If Aaron Kozminski had been the Batty Strett suspect (October 1888), then, after this (November 1888), he had more than a serious problem.
                        .
                        Hi Karsten

                        I think your thinking has a lot of merit. But this aint gonna go down well with those people who might believe Kozminski was JtR.

                        What we're saying here is that Aaron accuser at the ID was his own sister and a witness to the attack perpetrated on her... Not on one of the ripper victims. Unless Matilda presented Anderson with complete proof her brother was Jack (A kidney?) then surely it wouldn't have been enough for either Anderson or Swanson? I'm afraid my preference is still with Schwartz.

                        Yours Jeff

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                          I recently found a short article in a Welsh paper from about Dec. 22, 1888, saying authorities were going through private asylums looking for a potential JtR committed by family or friends
                          Hello Anna,

                          Was it similar to that?

                          December 1888

                          “The Dublin Express London correspondent on Thursday gave as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer, that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who to avert a terribly family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm's way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this story, detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted.”

                          Crawford letter:

                          “2 CAVENDISH SQUARE
                          W.

                          My dear Anderson,

                          I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.

                          I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate."

                          Very sincerely yours,
                          Crawford“

                          I guess that Isaac/Bertha, Morris/Matilda, Woolf/ Betsy and, maybe, Jacob Cohen were able to raise enough money to support Aaron when he was sick.

                          Sims:

                          "He was known to be a lunatic at the time of the murders, and some-time afterwards he betrayed such undoubted signs of homicidal mania that he was sent to a lunatic asylum."

                          Sounds like that someone betrayed, after Kelly, such undoubted signs of homicidal mania that he was sent to a lunatic asylum... and at the time of the murders he was a lunatic wandering at large... "such undoubted signs of homicidal mania" and we know that on 21/22 November 1888 there was a woman, "known as Annie, or Matilda, Farmer. She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age.”

                          Aaron Kozminski´s sister Matilda Lubnowski was a married woman of good appearance (it exists a photograph) and about 34 years of age in 1888.

                          That is strange...

                          Karsten.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                            Hi Karsten

                            I think your thinking has a lot of merit. But this aint gonna go down well with those people who might believe Kozminski was JtR.

                            What we're saying here is that Aaron accuser at the ID was his own sister and a witness to the attack perpetrated on her... Not on one of the ripper victims. Unless Matilda presented Anderson with complete proof her brother was Jack (A kidney?) then surely it wouldn't have been enough for either Anderson or Swanson? I'm afraid my preference is still with Schwartz.

                            Yours Jeff
                            Hi Jeff,

                            Jacob Cohen: "He took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister".

                            If Aaron Kozminski had been Jack the Ripper or a suspect in this case at any time he took a knife and threatened the life of one of his "sisters".

                            But when? More than once?

                            When you watched the Kelly crime scene you will see that Jack the Ripper was done with the day. But also it was his "masterpiece". Maybe, he reached a state where he began to speak about his doings, hidden, and not direct visible. Maybe, Matilda got it right... this knowledge only the preparator could have...

                            Once I have witnessed an attack on a woman. It was similar to what Schwartz had experienced. I am afraid I would not have recognised the attacker after a couple of days.

                            Yours Karsten.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                              I think your thinking has a lot of merit. But this aint gonna go down well with those people who might believe Kozminski was JtR.
                              I concede that my hypothesis is more a kind of story than a theory in Ripperology. I wish that you would find Aaron Kozminski in a private asylum in Surrey and we could say, yes, this man is "Kosminski". But I would not be surprised if we should determine that names and addresses are very familiar to us in case of the Brick Lane incident and in the case of N.Cohen/ Aaron Cohen.

                              Yours Karsten.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X