|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 336
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 2:17 pm: |       |
RJ --
Part of the difficulty we are having here is that I don't pin the Kaminsky theory entirely upon his being one and the same as Cohen. Even if Cohen is not Kaminsky the theory is not destroyed. Even if they are not the same man, there is the possibilty that the names Kosminski and Kaminsky became confused. For that matter, I'd even consider admitting the name Klosowski to the scenario although his background is quite dissimilar.
I do stand corrected in stating that Kaminsky was very violent. You are correct, I believe, in pointing out that this description refers to Cohen. So it is only true for certain if Kaminsky and Cohen are the same man. Of course it may be that both Kaminsky and Cohen were violent, if they were different men. In other words, to say that it was Cohen who was violent doesn't prove that Kaminsky wasn't. But what does seem certain is that Kosminski was not violent.
What Martin Fido has shown is that there was a Kaminsky fellow floating around at the right time and place to be confused with Kosminski, or vice versa. The key question is how far up the pyramid of communication does this confusion go? If the very first person who noted Kaminsky's name understood it to be Kosminski and recorded it as such in memory and on paper, it is understandable how others following him would have been using the name Kosminski to describe the man Kaminski and even how details of their distinct lives could have been conflated.
I'm very open to other theories, but this one does appeal to me.
Andy S.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Andy--Well, I can certainly appreciate the appeal. I do think we are hovering very near the nucleus of the case. It's just my belief that we are slightly to the left of the actual 'solution.' --Best wishes. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 178
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Hi RJ,Andy,all,
I have written on another thread about Kosminski
and briefly I do not think it was necessary for Kosminski to have been violent at the time of his incarceration.If had schizophrenia and this took a paranoid form[as is indicated by his believing
himself to be guided by a mysterious instinct]he
could have had schizophrenic "burn out" which as I understand it renders the person more or less harmless-and what could have resulted in him appearing "imbecile like" which is not a term used any longer.The Kosminski of 1888 could have been very different in appearance and manner but far more dangerous depending on what he thought he was being guided by.Natalie. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 179
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
Again-Hi all,I mostly agree with RJ on this but a constant caution is the belief by Machnaghten that it was Druitt rather than Kosminski.It makes me wonder what it was that Druitt"s friends or family had as evidence-if anything.Maybe Druitt was convinced he was JtR-as a number of people who have certain type of illness do-the only thing here is that the police and doctors usually see right through it-and discount such people.
Certainly for me quite a number of clues lead me to Kosminski whereas with Druitt there is very little.
Natalie. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 945
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
Without claiming to be a psychology wiz, Natalie, I don't see that as a probable reaction. I would rather see an increasing violence, like similar to that we see in Cohen. I could be wrong, but it is indeed my belief that the Ripper would have been quite a violent character at the time of capture or release -- IF he was captured.
Mr. Palmer may have his reservations against profiling, that is understandable, but one can't disregard psychology in criminal cases. To do that is to turn investigation methods back two hundred years. Furthermore, it is unfair to say that Fido's conclusion was built on criminal psychology and not facts. Regardless of how one feels about the complicated theory, I think it is one of those that are indeed best researched. That doesen't mean that he necessarily must be right, though.
Kosminski is on several points not similar to the character "Kosminski" described by the police officials. They are most certainly referring to a person with stronger violent tendensies. That is where psychology comes in. One can of course disregard from this, but I think that is a mistake.
Regarding the "facts" in the Kosminski case, the time discrepancy remains a problem -- for those who favour Kosminski, I still haven't seen a plausible explanation to why the officials are giving dates for the suspect's incarceration, that doesne't really fit anyone, and certainly not the real Kosminski.
The whole theory is based upon that the murders stopped because the killer in question was put away in an asylum or possibly died. As we know, this is not the case with Kosminski.
Now, be that as it may, the Cohen theory's weakest link is in my view the Kaminsky connection. As have been mentioned here, he is just a name in hospital records, and who then suddenly disappears. A few months later the canonical Ripper murders begins. That's all. Unfortunately these circumstancial details and lack of further information about Kaminsky makes the whole thing somewhat hard to swallow.
It is also true, as I have pointed out a number of times, that Cohen is too much a raving lunatic to be a credible Jack the Ripper, unless his mind didn't "cave way all together in Miller's Court".
That being said, I absolutely agree on most of Mr. Palmer's objections to the Cohen theory; they can't be dismissed. And it is indeed true that there are signs on that the Ripper investigation continued and that the officials therefore hardly considered the case as solved in 1888 or 1889. If we look at the documents describing the murders on Alice MacKenzie and Frances Coles, one gets the impression that the Ripper hasn't been captured at all. That can't be disregarded either.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 7:20 pm: | |
Glenn--Hi. One can tell when someone is slightly disgusted in this forum--they refer to you by your last name. Pleeze--where exactly was I being "unfair"? Where did I state that Martin's theory wasn't based on "facts"?? If you re-read my post, I said Martin's theory was "somewhat" based on the "gooey waters of psychological profiling." This is hardly unfair. You can't be expected to know the entire content of the archives, but I have stated on more than one occasion that Martin's theory is one of the very few serious attempts at a solution of the case. Anyway, Martin states specifically that he is working along the lines of the psychological study of the Ripper offered by Professor Luigi Cancrini (p 226) and that this profile agrees with David Cohen and not with Aaron Kosminski--clearly a major reason why he stuck with Cohen after discovering Kosminski's asylum records. (I quote) "Nor was he (Aaron Kosminski) the Ripper...his case notes --the hardest evidence about him--revealed an apathetic imbecile encumbered with delusions, totally lacking the intelligence and presence of mind which enable sexual serial murderers to lead double lives and escape suspicion." (Fido, p. 226).
In other words, the profile IS a major reason why he identifies Cohen with the Ripper and dismisses Kosminski. Now to the heart of the question. This comment of yours: "One can't disregard psychology in criminal cases. To do that is to turn investigation methods back two hundred years". Is it a wee bit ironic? How about turning back the investigation methods 116 years? Question: do you think Sir Robert Anderson shared your notions of psychology? Or is it just possible that he would have preferred Kosminski to Cohen? No offense, I assure you, but it seems to me (again) that you are dismissing the identification of Anderson's suspect as Aaron Kosminski based on your own "take" on the modern methods of psychology and/or on the belief that Anderson would have shared your opinions. See my point? Cheers, RP
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 338
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:02 pm: | |
Glenn,
You've made a rather good case for agreement with me on the plausibility (I didn't say likelihood) for Kaminsky. Granted, we don't know much about him. But that also means he can't be ruled out! He is in the right place at the right time and bears a name similar to Kosminski. Of course, other K-anything-ski's in Whitechapel at the time would also be potential suspects (hence my comment about Klosowski). But other K-anything-ski's are speculative. Kaminsky is a real person.
The Cohen link would make the case much, much stronger but it is not dead without such a link.
Andy S.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 948
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 3:20 am: | |
Mr. Palmer,
I must confess I am a bit puzzled here. I YOU re-read my post you'll see that I agree with most of your objections to the theory (in spite of the fact that I neverthless find it appealing). But then I suddenly make the mistake to mention the word unfair and you completely loose it, while you totally disregard the points where I agree with you.
You wrote:
"My main disagreement with the appeal to the Cohen theory is that it is somewhat based on the gooey waters of psychological profiling rather than accepting the historical record and proceeding from there."
Your meaning here is absolutely clear and it can't be misunderstood. Now, Mr Palmer -- why should Fido "accept the historical records", if they don't add up? It is of course obvious that Fido is influenced by criminal profiling to a certain degree, and I for my part think that is one of the more rewarding features in his investigation, since noone else had bothered to do that to such an extent. But the point is, that he did study the facts and decided to check it with the available original medical records in his study to form a possible conclusion, instead of taking the police official's rather confused words for it.
Once again, the facts does NOT correspond with Kosminski -- and I don't just refer to his personality. The officials refer to a person that was put away at the time when the murders stopped or some moths later (Macnaughten says March 1889).
Kosminski wasn't.
They also say that he died shortly afterwards.
Kosminski didn't.
That is what the facts say, according to those who have studied the records, and as far as I can tell from studying The Ultimate Companion. The incarceration date of March 1889 doesen't really fit anyone, and certainly not Kosminski.
And note that this doesen't have to mean that the suspect was David Cohen or Kaminsky, but I think it raises enough question marks regarding Kosminski. Because the officials were certainly wrong about the facts, if they referred to the Kosminski that is described in the records. Why or how they got it wrong, we can't know. But they did.
"Is it a wee bit ironic? How about turning back the investigation methods 116 years? Question: do you think Sir Robert Anderson shared your notions of psychology? Or is it just possible that he would have preferred Kosminski to Cohen?"
I naturally just picked two hundred years out of the blue, it could of course just as well be 50, 100 or 116 years, since this approach is a rather new one. But my intent wasn't to be ironic, but dead serious. I do believe that dismissing psychology in connection with murder cases are not merely putting back criminal investigations to a neanderthal state, but is also utterly stupid, especially today when an increasing number of criminals are suffering from severe mental problems.
I disagree with one of your points from an earlier post of yours, namely where you say that Cohen doesen't fit the description of the man referred to. I believe he do. The officials clearly describes a man that is more aggressive and violent than the poor sod Kosminski. You can choose to disregard that fact, on the basis that it touches "psychology". I prefer not to, because I think that point is uninteresting. It is enough to read the records to see that it doesen't add up. Psychology or not.
Now, let me once again add -- and please note it this time!!!! -- that apart from that detail, I do agree with your objections to the Cohen theory. I think it is quite obvious that the Ripper investigation DID continue after 1889, and there are also signs pointing at that the case wasn't solved at all in 1889 and that the police didn't know his real identity but only had theories. The only circumstance suggesting the opposite could be that the police was withdrawing a large number of men from Whitechapel during this time, and Fido argues -- quite logically -- that they must have done so for a reason.
However, I think that the Ripper stopped or died shortly after the Kelly murder, since we after this don't have another murder similar to that of Eddowes or Kelly. He could even have been caught for other reasons, without them knowing he was Jack the Ripper! Or else he just simply died.
Be that as it may, I think Fido's work is founded on an extremely good research, BUT Iam NOT that much a defender of the Cohen theory. There are too many IFS and too many circumstacial features to it and I also think it feels too constructed. We have no "evidence" saying that Cohen/Kamisnky WAS Jack the Ripper -- it is all circumstancial. But I can't completely disregard it either. However, it is my belief that Fido partly -- but just partly -- was on the right track as far as the Ripper's character is concerned -- I see him as a schizofrenic (although maybe necessarily not that unintelligent as are described in Fido's book) and I think it is quite possible that he suffered from religious mania.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 09, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 949
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 3:39 am: | |
OBS!!!
To be noted, Mr Palmer -- sorry RJ!:
I think "disgusted" is a rather harsh word in this context, I can't say I have ever felt that against anyone here.
Furthermore, I simply prefer to call people by their last name, when I only have initials for the first ones. There is nothing personal or emotional about it.
If you prefer "RJ" to "Mr Palmer", I naturally have to respect that, although I think it feels awkward (I admit i am slightly old-fashioned about this), I just though I was being polite. But as I said, I am really born in the wrong century.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 950
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi Andy,
I agree, those points you mention are those who are in favour of Kaminsky. And they could point at the correct suspect, of course. And I would really like to believe that.
But I must admit I am having a lot of problems with Mr. Kaminsky. All we know is that he was syphilitic and put in for treatment. Then he disappears from the face of the Earth. That is not enough. I wish we knew more about him, because as it is we really have nothing conclusive to indicate that he and Cohen are one and the same, merely interesting coincidences (the name, his home location, his disappearence from all records and absensce from the death records etc.). But nothing to indicate that he was violent or that he in any way was Jack the Ripper. Indeed, since he was syphilitic and was released prior to the canonical murders started, he is provided with a good motive (revenge). However, Fido unfortunately gives us too little to go on and leaves us in the dark here -- Kaminsky seems like a suitable pick (on some accounts), nothing more.
But I agree, I wouldn't rule him out either.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 9:23 am: | |
The book I am reading, Monster says that Thomas Luther was meek and self effacing around men. He saved his rages and violence for defenseless women. I would assume that the orderlies at Colney Hatch were male so maybe that is why they never saw Kosminski's other side. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Dear Glenn---A bit of a problem, my friend, for while it's true that Macnaghten states that Kosminski has "a great hatred of women & strong homicidal tendencies" --you don't know that this wasnt true, or at least that it is precisely what Macnaghten believed about Aaron Kosminski. All you can really say is that when you see the apathetic soul that Martin Fido also sees in Colney Hatch, you refuse the connection. But do you remember something? Macnaghten (in the same report) also states that Michael Ostrog was a "homocidal maniac." We see no indication of this in his records, either. So is it your contention that Macnaghten isn't referring to the Michael Ostrog that has been identified by historians of the case? No, I can't imagine that you do.
And by the way, it's a bit sweeping to say that the police stated that the suspect died short afterwards. Only ONE made that claim: Swanson. Macnaghten specifically stated that he believed Kosminski was still alive and in Colney Hatch. (the marginalia is supposedly written at least 16+ years after Macnaghten's memo). Anderson also refers to fear of a libel suit (which might indicate that he knew the suspect was still alive). If you accept the Swanson marginalia, you have to admit that it cannot possibly refer to David Cohen, though it can refer to Aaron Kosminski (he had a brother in Whitechapel).
And finally, please, let's not bandy around even the slightest hint that this debate is somehow ad hominem. We are above such considerations, Glenn. If you reject Aaron Kosminski as being Anderson's suspect, I don't suggest that this is somehow a slur on Paul Begg, Phil Sugden, or the many historians that accept him as the suspect, do I? Carry on.
All the best---Mr. P (Glenn, by the way, it was a joke--I don't care what anyone calls me)
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
P.S. A very worthy point by Diana. I also wonder: is it really safe to associate Cohen's frothing mania with "homocidial tendencies" or even "hatred of women"? It seems to me that Cohen is suffering from some sort of organic disorder or disease. A person with rabies might rave, but this doesn't mean that in healthy circumstances they would be violent or criminal.. Dahmer raved for a while on being captured, but he didn't fall into a fever and expire a few months later. I wonder if the behavior Cohen exhibits in the asylum (which I imagine is the outcome of a horrible disease of some sort) makes him any more capable of serial murder than Kosminski's lethargic behavior makes him incapable?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 951
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
All good points indeed, Mr. P.
It could very well be that Macnaughten made this interpretation of Kosminski's character. So what does that mean? That he was an extremely bad judge of character or had a vivid imagination? Or even was badly informed? Fact remains, that although the person in question very well could be Kosminski, I find it a bit hard to swallow that the apathic and harmless individual that we meet in Kosminski's medical records -- a demented sod that eat bread from the gutter -- would attract any interest from the police in connection with the Ripper case. It doesen't add up. I am sure Kosminski was brought in by the police, but I find it difficult to see why they would have connected him with the Ripper in the first place. Why would a person like that be brought in under restraint?
I agree that it was a bit sweeping -- I would even say sloppy -- to say that the police officials stated that the suspect died shortly afterwards. I stand corrected. You are of course right that this was a statement made by Swanson. However, that still doesen't solve the problem with the time for the incarceration. Macnaughten says this was done in March 1889, while Kosminski wasn't admitted until February 1891. This I believe is the root to the whole Kosminski controversy and I still haven't seen a good explanation to it besides Martin Fido's. Or are we to believe that Macnaughten suffered from a bad memory and Freudian slip regarding this detail?
I am not sure if I accept the Swanson marginalia right up front or not -- I am not sure of anything regarding this, in contrast to you (I think my doubts about several factors in both ways should have been obvious by now). How do we know that Swanson remembered correctly and didn't mix Kosminski up with another suspect? I can agree on that the part about his brother, surely must refer to Kosminski, but must necessarily the rest do that? Although, I must admit, I can't understand why such an important case like the Ripper would be subject to such errors and faulting memory... Fact remains, though, that some of them is or are guilty of factual errors. Once again, the incarceration date of March 1889 doesen't really fit any inmate, and that can't be brushed off that easily, if we are to believe that Kosminski is the suspect.
"And finally, please, let's not bandy around even the slightest hint that this debate is somehow ad hominem. We are above such considerations, Glenn."
What in Earth do you mean, Palmer?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 952
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
"Dahmer raved for a while on being captured, but he didn't fall into a fever and expire a few months later. I wonder if the behavior Cohen exhibits in the asylum (which I imagine is the outcome of a horrible disease of some sort) makes him any more capable of serial murder than Kosminski's lethargic behavior makes him incapable?"
I have actually with my own eyes seen paranoid schizofrenics act exactly like David Cohen, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he belonged to that medical category. That doesen't have to exclude, though, that he died by a weak heart or something similar. If he suffered from rabies or any other physical disease I believe that would have been stated as such in his medical records.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
I am not saying he suffered from rabies, Glenn. What I am saying is that his 'raving mania' is a medical condition, not a criminal condition. If you wish to make the diagnosis of schizophrenia, that's fine with me. Sounds reasonable. But its only a matter of semantics that we call such admittedly frightening behavior "violent" and then associate this type of "violence" with the "violence" associated with the criminal act of murdering women. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
1. "How can we know the dancer from the dance?"
>>Non sequitor. You are the one who witnesses the dance. Ask yourself what you know. Everybody knows something.
2. I agree that Fido produces a satisfying theory concerning Cohen, but unfortunately it is thin satisfaction. On the one hand we get a satisfying analysis of the evidence, but on the other we just can't place him at a crime scene or otherwise home in on him as the perpetrator. I agree Cohen is among the best or the best in terms of suspects. On the other hand, why should Ripperology be suspect-driven? Once Cohen becomes a suspect, then Fido's case falls down. As long as Fido is in the act of determining a suspect, Cohen can fly.
Now, I fully understand that the great majority of people posting these boards simply are not going to be able to comprehend what I just wrote above. That's okay.
Bullwinkle
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
I believe Martin Anderson and Glenn L. Andersson either are one and the same or else they have cooked up some kind of a "bogey" deal between themselves. I'm certainly not against this kind of thing, provided that we know about it. In fact, I'm quite pleased by it. Sometimes Martin is the tortoise and Glenn the hare, and other times vice versa. Fine with me.
Love,
Bullwinkle
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
R and D behind the tree--
K-I-S-S-I-N-G!
Really, how closely embraced, methodologically, could any two people be? Hand in hand they walk into oblivion. Blackness of blackness, and nothing beyond; the case nothing anymore, utterly beyond resolution. Oh! The humanity!
Bullwinkle
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
John wrote:
"Finally, Kosminski is (by all extant accounts) far too disassociated, distracted, and tame to be the feral maniac who disemboweled Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly "
Yeah, because all the people we know of who have been caught for disembowling victims were all feral maniacs. 
Sometimes I think people forget that we are looking for a human being and not a werewolf.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
si tacuisses philosophus mansisses |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 106
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Quo usque tandem abutere, philosophus, patentia nostra? |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
RE: Kosminski's death. Anderson was reported by his son Arthur to have said as a fact, that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe and believed that he had died in an asylum.
From Anderson's biography by Arthur Anderson. Available on this site. |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Point of illumination to above: Anderson died in 1918; Aaron Kosminski in 1919. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1801
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Swanson's words "which he did not wish to be left on his mind" almost conjure up images of a troubled deathbed conscience. I wonder if the witness, whoever he was, might have been a sick man. The police might have allowed him to stay at their Home, in the hope that he would identify the suspect.
If the witness was very ill, it might explain why the police didn't lean on him to "swear to" the suspect.
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.
|
|
|
|
