|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 3:20 pm: |       |
All:
This discussion is too important and far too entertaining to let die on the vine. In looking over the last 5 months' worth of posts, I'm amazed at the amount of quality research, questions, answers and websites given. And I had no idea, when I started this thread last April, that none other than Martin Fido himself would contribute so generously. RJP, Chris Scott, Saddam (AR) and all the other contributors are to be thanked and toasted (over MJK's fireplace j/k) for their worthy contributions. That said, let's kick this puppy up another notch.
A man named "Aaron Davis Cohen" was arrested on Dec. 6, 1888 (on unrelated charges) and brought before a magistrate the following morning. His case was minuted with (on the same docket as) a known brothel-keeper and two of her girls. Now, since an unknown brothel-keeper had earlier warned police about a male resident of her house as a possible suspect in the Whitechapel killings, could it be that the madam in court on Dec. 7th, 1888 and the earlier unnamed brothel-keeper were one and the same? If so, couldn't this point to "Mr. Cohen" as the man she had warned police about? To quote Martin Fido in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper:
"When they took him to the magistrates' court in the morning as a wandering lunatic...they called him Aaron Davis Cohen. But they handed him over to the parish (sic, to be sent to the infirmary) in the evening as plain David Cohen, which he remained.
And, more to the point:
"My own re-examinstion of the magistrates' court records traced by Paul (Begg) showed that Cohen's case was minuted with a madam and two of her girls who had been arrested in a raid on a brothel. For all four to have their cases listed in the same minute indicated that Cohen had been arrested at the same time. There is the tiniest suggestion of support on the Home Office files for a suspect living in a brothel. HO/144/220/A49301.C/8 includes a memo that "a brothel keeper who will not give her address or name writes to say that a man living in her house was seen with blood on him on the morning of the murder..."
Any takers? Martin, have you found anything else about this brothel-keeper or her unnamed suspect since the Mammoth Book?
Let's keep this discussion going.
All best,
JRF
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 213
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 4:30 pm: | |
Hi John,
I agree with you; the Kaminsky/Cohen trail is in my view one of the most interseting developments in the Ripper case, and therefore it would be a drag to let this dicussion die a sloe death.
"Martin, have you found anything else about this brothel-keeper or her unnamed suspect since the Mammoth Book?"
That's what I'd like to know as well. Martin Fido is appearently caught up with teaching at an American university at the moment, so unfortunately we can't expect him to join or contribute to the discussions for some time, at least not at the same generous extent as he did earlier.
I myself haven't read the Mammoth, but I have read Fifo's "The Life, Crimes and detection...", and I find his theories quite interesting. At least I think the Cohen character fits the JtR profile quite on the money.
That part about the brothel and the sinister male resident (Cohen?) seems extremely intriguing. I would like to know more as well. Unfortunately I myself have no possibility to access the London files in person.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sadam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
I suspect many people don't post on this general topic because it is too hard on them. The Ripperologist is looking squarely into the barrel of a gun here. If Anderson is to be trusted, then the whole deal goes right out the window. Or like Ripperology is your dying friend, and you must go visit him in the hospital one last time. You know he's never going to get up from that bed. This is a duty we all must face up to sooner or later in our lives, but few are up to it here. Nobody wants to accompany the sad old padre to walk that last mile.
Saddam
|
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 11:16 pm: | |
Glenn:
Many thanks for your input. Like you, I do not have access to the files at Kew, the London Museum, etc., only that which I can find here or elsewhere online. When I was in Whitechapel eight years ago, I foolishly avoided all the records archives and instead spent my time prowling around alleys, backstreets, the surviving murder sites, etc., snapping photos and reveling in the atmosphere. I'd never even heard of David Cohen or Nathan Kaminsky at the time, though one of my tour guides did explain the Aaron Kosminski theory (which he believed wholeheartedly).
I still think research into Cohen/Kaminsky is one of the most promising avenues left to us. I do not buy Aaron Kosminski for one minute, and think Anderson and Swanson were way off the mark. Remember that Inspector Littlechild later wrote (in his now-famous Dr. Tumblety letter) that Dr. Anderson "only thought he knew..."
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 11:28 pm: | |
Saddam:
ROFLMAO! Your post made me laugh so hard, I nearly had a hernia. (In fact, I think I did.) Your image of Ripperology as a sad old padre taking that last long walk is simply hilarious. (And mercilessly accurate...)
Yes, I agree: if Anderson really did know what he was on about, re Kosminski (as named by DSS), then Ripperology is indeed dead. He's that old friend on his deathbed, whom we don't wish to visit any longer. But, as stated above, I don't think Anderson was right. Not saying he was lying, mind you, only that he was somewhat biased in his views and perhaps even clutching at straws all those years later. Swanson, though a capable cop, was an ardent Anderson admirer and seemed to have parroted much of his patron's beliefs.
Thus, we'll accompany the sad old padre on that last long walk one more time. Oi fink 'ere's loife in ve aul blighter yet....
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 729
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 8:59 am: | |
Hi John
The trouble with the brothel connection, as far as I can see, is that in CDD Martin says the police said they "found him wandering at large and unable to take care of himself" (police's words). Martin then says "This was official Lunacy Act wording, meaning only that he seemed mad and they had not taken him from friends or a known address." So it seems to me that he was picked up in the street. In which case, why should there be any connection with the brothel women?
I suppose he could have been picked up off the streets and then gave the police the brothel as his address, the police then raiding the brothel, but it sounds a bit odd.
Robert |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 146
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:52 am: | |
A brief look-in, taking time off from data-basing my new semester's students' details.
Having been out of England for the best part of three years, I haven't been able to do any more work on the Cohen front. The only approach to the brothel madam, I think, would be to try the census records for addresses for Gertrude Smith, Mary Jones and Ellen Hickey (the three charged on the same docket with Cohen). If they all showed up at one address it would be a hopeful start in suggesting a brothel location in 1891 - but, of course, with no evidence that this was where they had been working in 1888. The other possible approach would be death registers for Mary Jones, the madam. But it's all a bit of a fishing expedition with no certain conclusion to it.
The "wandering lunatic" wording doesn't really mean anything more than "out without his keeper" or "in need of care and protection". It's long caused a problem with people who imagine it's a precise description of what Cohen was actually doing when arrested.
The urgent research in this area I'd really like to see done would be an examination of the Poor Homeless Jews' Refuge records which are extant, somewhere in Brentford, I believe. Only they are, I think, in Yiddish, and I suspect some guile would be required, as I don't think Jewish learned authorities are at all happy with the suggestion that the Ripper was a Jew: it has, after all, provoked some upleasant cemetery vandalism, and at least one very serious and nasty victimization of a researcher by hoax letters and advertisements. Although this made at least one person drop research, I remain firmly convinced that pursuing the truth, even in the most unacceptable areas, causes far less harm in the long term than trying to push it under the carpet. If it turned out that David Cohen was really in the Home ofr Homeless Jews, we might be able to establish when he arrived in England - and might actually prove that I've been dead wrong all along, and he couldn't have been the Ripper. (That home was only supposed to hold newly landed immigrants, and to give them just a fortnight's grace to find work and accommodation for themselves).
I'd also be interested to know whether the records might just tell us a little more about the elusive Nathan Kaminsky.
All the best,
Martin F |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 236
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 12:39 pm: | |
Hi Martin,
Thank you for the input and for taking the time to reveal your views on the matter. We thought we'd completely lost you "over there".
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
BAPearce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 11:48 am: | |
Hello I think that Cohen is the most intrigueing suspect yet much more plausable than poor old Eddy collars and cuffs.I have read John Douglas and Mark Olshakers Crimes That Haunt Us and am reading Martin Fidos( Hello Mr Fido)Crimes Detection and Death.This is so interesting I hope ther is more information out there and would a photograph be too much to hope for Evenin' all |
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:12 am: | |
Hi, Robert:
Please forgive the delay in responding to your post. I always return to the books for further research before answering any posts, and after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I conclude that Martin is right: the wording of Cohen's arrest merely indicates he was a loony-toon in need of care and keeping, NOT that he was necessarily homeless or a vagabond wandering the streets.
Martin: So good to see you here again, sir. I've long admired your work, ever since CDD was published. And your chapter in The Mammoth Book is absolutely riveting. Despite my qualms as to a Jewish suspect (given the Ripper's repeated attempts to implicate Jews on the night of the 'double event'), I find myself inexorably drawn to this line of enquiry.
What's inarguable is this: Cohen was arrested Dec. 6th (conveniently enough, just under 4 weeks after MJK) and his case minuted with the brothel-keeper and two of her girls. This is very strange jurisprudence, unless (as I suspect) he was picked up at the same time or place as the women. He eventually winds up in the hatch, where he dies in Oct. of '89. Now, Macnaghten says their suspect (Kosminski) died in asylum in '89 -- though we know poor Aaron lived until 1919. So, there's obviously a mix-up here with Cohen. The only piece of the puzzle still missing is conclusive evidence (though Bog alone knows where) that Kaminsky was indeed misnamed Cohen.
Like you, I believe further research into Nathan K is sorely needed. He sounds like just the ticket (with shades of Leather Apron, the proper address, age, etc., all neatly dovetailing with what we know from police reports and inquest statements of the day).
I have a Jewish friend in his 80s, who speaks some Yiddish. Perhaps I can cajole him into writing a letter to the keepers of the Poor Homeless Jews Refuge records office, inquiring about a genealogical connection to one Nathan Kaminsky....? It just might dredge up something.
All best to you, Martin. And thanks again for posting! Hope all is going well for you at the university.
Cheers,
John
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:52 am: | |
Now, Macnaghten says their suspect (Kosminski) died in asylum in '89 -- though we know poor Aaron lived until 1919. So, there's obviously a mix-up here with Cohen.
Isn't this a rather large leap?
Obviously Macnaghten was wrong about Kosminski dying about March 1889, but I don't think it follows he was thinking of Cohen, who died in October 1889. Maybe he was confusing him with someone else, or maybe he was just plain confused (as he was about Druitt's age and occupation).
Chris Phillips
|
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 12:08 pm: | |
Chris:
Actually, no, because Macnaghten was referring specifically to Kosminski, yet confusing the details with those of Cohen/Kaminsky (extremely violent, homicidal, etc., which Aaron Kosminski certainly wasn't). Also, I believe Aaron K was finally committed in MARCH of 1891, thus Macnaghten's confusing March with the year of their K-something-sky's death in 1889 (Oct.)
But I do agree with you that Macnaghten was indeed just plain confused.
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 12:18 pm: | |
Gory--
Now, Macnaghten says their suspect (Kosminski) died in asylum in '89 -- though we know poor Aaron lived until 1919. So, there's obviously a mix-up here with Cohen. The only piece of the puzzle still missing is conclusive evidence (though Bog alone knows where) that Kaminsky was indeed misnamed Cohen.
Not an objection, as such, but an invitation to further inquiry. If k-something-ski is to be dismissed as a mere muddle in Macnaghten's mind, and the whole grand drama is over in 1889---where does the necessary element of Kosminski come into play? Do you see what I mean? This has been my knee-jerk objection for some time now. For there to be a name confusion, there has to be at least two names. Aaron still needs to make a curtain call, or, it seems to me, you have a slight problem. Or are you considering the possibility that the Spy-Master is keeping his minions in the dark, and, by sheer coincidence, they happened upon Kosminski in 1891? But how does this agree with Mcnaghten being 'in the know' in your above analysis?
Sometime ago, I posted, rather casually and with no particular motive, the name ML Kaminsky from the Poor Jews Shelter books of 1898. Polish, shoemaker, age the same as Nathan. Messrs. Fido & Birchwood immediately made the sensible objection that such shelters were for those 'right off the boat.' Point taken. My idea wasn't really, that this was Nathan, but perhaps a cousin or brother; he being the same age, nationality, and occupation of said Kaminsky.
The 'off the boat' objection, however, is interesting. Doesn't this pose a difficulty with Cohen/Kaminsky theory? If 86 Leman is a flub for the Temporary Shelter (which seems very reasonable) how does Kaminsky find himself in such a surrounding if he already has an established address in Black Lion's Yard? If you read closely, the 'K-something-sky' flub becomes a deliberate alias in the 1st edition of the A-Z, a heck of an interesting theory, but (to my mind) a suggestion that is inconsistent with the inner working of Macnaghten's mind. Further, if by Kosminski MM meant Cohen, his 'hatred...specially of the prostitute class' would make the ladies of the bordello particularly unpleasant room-mates for him, no?
RP Invention? I mean Invitation. My mind is slipping.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 744
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 12:32 pm: | |
Hi John
Don't worry about the delay. Every time this thread comes up, I have to get the books out and re-familiarise myself with it.
The mass arrest idea might lead somewhere, but unless Cohen had only very recently moved to the brothel address, the idea of him living in a brothel doesn't seem to sit very well with Anderson's hints that Jack may have been protected by his people.
I hope your friend can be persuaded to approach the record keepers.
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 1:12 pm: | |
The amazing thing about Macnaghten's memo in regards to the statement that "[the suspect] was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889" is that Macnaghten was at Scotland Yard during the whole of Aaron Kosminski's appearance in the historical record. Very weird. If this is not a 'flub' by a senile (I mean senior, of course) police official, then I have to wonder if anyone has ever really given the proper explanation. |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 150
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 1:15 pm: | |
Sorry, there are no known pix of Cohen or Kaminsky.
The vital points to bear in mind that indicate confusion of Kosminski with Cohen come from Swanson, rather than Macnaghten. They are:
Suspect was sent to his brother's home in Whitechapel (= Kosminsky)
Suspect was Kosminsky (= Kosminsky).
Suspect was taken to the infirmary with his hands tied behind his back. (= Cohen, admitted to the asylum "Under Restraint).
Suspect died shortly after transfer to Colney Hatch. (= Cohen - uniquely among all Jewish patients there from 1888-1892).
Macnaghten places him in the asylum 3 or 4 months after the murders stopped, which doesn't actually fit anybody. He says he was ID'd by a City PC at Mitre Square, which doesn't fit anybody, but could be a confusion with the City Police Force's witness Lawende. Macnaghten allegedly said in a draft whose present whereabouts (if it has survived) is unknown, that Kosminsky, the Polish Jewish suspect, suspect WAS Leather Apron. Macnaghten was indeed confused - though in calling this man a very strong suspect, he shows that we are looking at an area that needs investigation.
On another tack, however - check with Phil Sugden's notes. He hasn't proved there were no farthings under Annie Chapman: he's only asserted it. Even in the absence of the original newspaper report seen by Richard Whittinton-Egan, but subsequently traced by no one else, we can certainly say that the pile of coins and rings is a myth, but given Reid's appearance at Clay Pipe Alice's inquest (backed up by the more unreliable Major Smith's recollection of the farthings), we certainly can NOT assert with any confidence that there were no farthings under Annie Chapman.
And finally, I doubt whether the Poor Jews' Refuge would provide any positive evidence of the Ripper's identity, but it might prove a negative for Cohen and kick me and my theories finally out of play. Which would be useful and necessary if it can be done.
All the best,
Martin F |
Martin Fido
Inspector
Username: Fido
Post Number: 151
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 1:20 pm: | |
PS I think the confusion between Kosminsky and Cohen may have come about because the Met followed Cohen and the City Kosminsky, neither knowing what the other had done until after Kosminsky's incarceration. (Nor did that many people at the Met know about it). I suspect that the Met were unsure what their man was called, and so on learning that the City had followed the poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel to his brother's home, they accepted that the City had got the name right, and never realized that these were two different men, despite their similarity in age, race, and parish of residence.
This speculation has seemed very persuasive to American police officers, who are accustomed to the confusions that result from different forces' pursuing the same case which trails through two jurisdictions.
All the best,
Martin F |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 745
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 1:34 pm: | |
Hi all
Just leaving aside the Kaminsky connection and the brothel connection for a moment, and concentrating just on Cohen : is it really vital that the "86" should have meant "84" and not some other number in Leman Street?
For example, the Anglo-Jewish Miscellanies website records an M Cohen living at 80 Leman St in 1886, and making a charitable donation. If, 115 years ago, Cohen's address was written down and copied a couple of times, couldn't a badly written zero have appeared to be a six?
PS Levy is mentioned a couple of times on the AJM site.
Robert |
Martin Fido
Inspector
Username: Fido
Post Number: 152
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 5:33 pm: | |
It isn't vital, of course. The essential point is it couldn't, apparently, have been 86.
All the best,
Martin F |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 486
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi all
Very interesting thread. I was looking up something else in the death registers for 1889 (last quarter) and came across the entry for David Cohen - thought it might be worth posting.
Regards
Chris
 |
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 5:45 pm: | |
Chris:
Many thanks for posting the above excerpt. Any whiff of a Nathan Kaminsky in those death registers?
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 487
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
In the light of Martins's comment:
The only approach to the brothel madam, I think, would be to try the census records for addresses for Gertrude Smith, Mary Jones and Ellen Hickey (the three charged on the same docket with Cohen). If they all showed up at one address it would be a hopeful start in suggesting a brothel location in 1891 - but, of course, with no evidence that this was where they had been working in 1888
I have had a look at the 1891 census under the least freqent ofthe names, Ellen Hickey. This produced the following results:
1891 Census (London)
Ellen Hickey:
13 entries for London
1) Aged 45 / Wife / Camberwell
2) Aged 58 / Mother in Law / Hackney
3) Aged 58 / Head / Hammersmith
4) Aged 48 / Head / Kensington
5) Aged 20 / Daughter / Kensington
6) Aged 34 / Daughter / Plumstead
7) Aged 17 / Daughter / Poplar
8) Aged 37 / Member / Putney (St Mary's Orphanage)
9) Aged 43 / Pauper Inmate / St George's Workhouse
10) Aged 37 / Lodger / St Marylebone
11) Aged 25 / Visitor / Marylebone
12) Aged 20 / Boarder / Wandsworth
13) Aged 2 / Daughter / Stoke Newington
If anyone wants details of any particular entry let me know
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 748
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 6:08 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Could you explain number eight please?
Robert |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 488
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hi robert
The details I gave were as the index- I looked at original shhet and the entry is proper to St Mary's Convent, not the Orphanage. This EH was a member of the order, a nun.
Regards
chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 749
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 6:35 pm: | |
Thanks, Chris. I guess this rules her out!!!
Robert |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
