|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Kosminski, Aaron
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Kosminski, Aaron
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 06:03 am |        | Jeff -
Not as far as I know. It's a good question. But as Wynne Baxter referred to 'a monograph', if I remember rightly, it might turn out to be a very fugitive privately printed pamphlet if you did find it. The parallel suggestion, pursued on another board, that Tumblety might actually have been the American doctor in question, has to take into account that one of the medical journals - (I can't remember whether it was the Lancet or the BMJ) - said the editorial 'we' knew the American doctor researching the womb, and he had left England long before the murders. Also we should bear in mind that Tumblety was such a notorious quack that he would be unlikely to get help from the great teaching hospitals. (His inclusion in the topical poem which also covers people like Lincoln and Davis and Frederick Douglass and John Wilkes Booth and Seward and other radical Republicans and abolitionists proves that in the 1860s he managed widespread, if short-lived, notoriety in the USA. I found that poem fascinating).
Finally, board-trawling suddenly showed me that just before starting the trawl I posted a lamentably underinformed piece on this board referring confidently to Kosminski's brother Wolf, when a lot of far better researched work in th archives has gone into investigating whether this wasn't a clerical error for Kosminski's brother-in-law, Wolf Abrams. Sorry, all.
Martin F |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 12:53 pm | | Hi, Jeff:
Because I work for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists I am probably in the perfect position to find out if, as you ask, there was "Any medical work of importance or great popularity, published between 1891 and 1901, about diseases of the vagina or the study of gynecology, that had an author of either United States or Canadian background?"
I will check this out. I am sure without even looking there will be such works in this time period. However, whether any of them might relate to the request by the foreign (American?) doctor for the uteri from different London hospitals might be questionable. As Martin rightly points out the publication may have been a monograph or pamphlet not a full textbook. On the other hand, what the individual told the institution might not correspond to the truth, that is, if the man who made the enquiry was the killer, the talked-about publication may have been a blind: he may have used reference to a fictitious publication as a way of making his request for uteri seem more legitimate.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 10:03 pm | | Dear Martin and Chris,
In thinking it over, I thought (if the story had
some truth to it) that the doctor might have
wanted uteri that showed the ravages of venereal
diseases. But the points both of you brought
up are quite valid. I can't say when I will have
time for any researching again (my calendar has
recently been thrown off by various social
obligations and a crazy situation at a job that
didn't work out). I hope to get back into the
swing of things shortly. Maybe, like Chris, I
can dig into the matter.
But I just wish to bring up a crazy tangential
point. If you look into the old Dictionary of
National Biography entry for Dr. Edward William
Pritchard, the bibliography mentions that the
notorious poisoner was a frequent writer in the
Lancet! I discussed this with a friend (a well
known criminologist)and he suggested that Pritchard may have been writing about the then
popular "water cure" (he did write a pamphlet about a watering spa). I have often wanted to
go through the Lancet for the 1850s and 1860s to
see what Pritchard wrote. But my point is, you
may find that somebody wrote a piece of work that
can be junk or worthwhile, and it may be somebody
notorious (like Tumblety) or proper but recently
considered as a suspect (like, say, Sir William
Gull). It may also be somebody that nobody ever
heard of...again.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 04:58 am | | Martin -
Many thanks for your reply to my ancient(!) post. I had to go scurrying back through the archives to find out what I'd said in the first place!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 02:13 pm | | Some follow up info on possible Kosminski relatives: An occasional poster, Ron Taylor, found a Phillip Kosminski living on St. Georges St. with his wife, Dinah and two children, in the 1881 census. (RG11/0461/f 102/p.28)
I found this same family in the 1891 census, with the addition of two more children:
Old Artillary Grounds
21 Gun Street
Phillip Kosminski (head) 33, boot and shoe maker, born Poland
Dinah (wife) 34, born Poland
Morris (son) 13, born London
Leah (daughter) 11, born London
Becky (daughter) 8, born London
Harry (son) 5, born London
source: RG12/235/f116/p.35
Phillip and his wife had been in London since at least 1878.
Interestingly enough, several doors away from Phillip lived a "Jacob Cohen" and his family at no. 16. There is a remote possibility that he could have been the "Jacob Cohen" who witnessed Aaron Kosminski's entry into the Colney Hatch Asylum. However, there were well over a thousand men surnamed "Cohen" in the East End at the time, and a good many of these Cohens were first-named "Jacob." But this Jacob was aged 31, a bootmaker and like Phillip and Aaron, born in Poland. The possibility also exists that the 51 Carter Lane, EC., address he gave asylum authorities was a temporary workplace, not his residence. |
Author: chris scott
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 05:15 pm | | KAMINSKI/KOSMINSKI
According to the A-Z, Nathan Kaminky was born 1865, Aaron Kosminki was born 1864 or 1865 and the Met Police may have identified the two as one and the same.
the polish records site i mentioned in connection with earlier post on Issenschmidt was searched and threw up only one possible candidate:
From Polish birth/marriage/death records:
Register for Przedborz town Province: Kielce
Born 1865
ARON LEWEK KAMINSKI
For any really interested this town can be found at
Location of Przedborz: 51:05:05N 19:54:41E
Hope this may interest some!!!
Chris S |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 11:45 am | | Hello,
The question concerning us, here at the Casebook, is what role did Kosminski play in the story of the goat that escapes? Or, should that be the 'goat that was removed'? (Azazel) It's interesting to note that Sion (as in Sion Square) denotes Mount Hermon. And, as for the other goat...just WATCH(ers)!
Rob |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 04:58 pm | | Robert--I see that you have a great understanding of the upcoming theory. The lots were cast & Kosminski was the Azazel; the sins of the community were dumped on his head and he was sent off into the wilderness of Colney Hatch. Anderson only thought he knew.
I would argue, though, that writing history ought not be an act of the will. It's not a creative act, but more like archeology. The truth is altogether elsewhere. Cheers, RJP |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 09:36 pm | | Hi, RJ:
In your opinion, then, is this case BIG or small? How can our cast of thousands be simply reduced to one man? Thanks.
Rob |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:54 am | | Robert--I prefer the terms 'sprawling' and 'banal.'
Personally, I don't think the answer is banal--not in the way the profilers mean it--ie., a local non-descript twenty-somthing sexual deviant. The case is strange and the answer is likely to be strange, too...
But whereas I think the solution is 'strange', I'm also keen on avoiding what I call the aesthetic fallacy. It's the pitfall that many historians fall into--the urge to be brilliant. Certain theorists on these boards are clever-- far cleverer than I will ever be. But they seem hung-up on trying to make all the pieces fit into the most brilliant pattern, in finding the 'clever' connection between all the chess pieces. Lipski, Lusk, everything needs to 'fit.' In truth, probably nearly all the pieces need to be swept off the board. 'Reality' is what we attend to; the 'case evidence' changes with one's focus. Personally, I don't think Anderson's identification means much. This is just an opinion. By 'Azazel' I was referring to another's theory. Feel free to mitigate my opinions by remebering David Radka's suggestion that my misunderstanding of 'what the identification meant' is due to boredom, laziness, or fear. But personally, I'm dead certain that the Jewish inhabitants of Whitechapel had no real connection to the murders, nor do I share the A-Z authors optimism that following Anderson will likely lead to the solution of the case.
I'm more of a uterus man. But by all means follow your own thinking.
Cheers. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 12:10 pm | | Hi again, RJ:
Maybe that's my problem - I'm too much of a breast man, myself :-)
I think you're right in that the solution will be 'strange'. But I would like to ask you a question regarding Anderson and the identification. Isn't it possible that the use of the word 'fact' by Anderson indicates that he believed or knew the identification was made by an accomplice? Is there something that I'm not aware of that will rule this theory out? Thanks again.
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:11 pm | | Dear Robert,
In a nut-shell, everyone is right and everyone is wrong...simple.
Rosey :-)
PS. As you see, I am well and looking forward to another millenium on the Casebook. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:06 pm | | Robert---If you were to say 'an accomplice after the fact', then Anderson might have indeed meant this, because it was his belief that certain Jews wouldn't turn fellow Jews over to Gentile Justice. But what I think you mean is accomplice before the fact (?)
Let me go at it from another angle. PC Barrett checked a man in George Yard [or Wentworth Street] the night of Tabram's murder, but had trouble making a positive I.D. the next day. Why wouldn't he? It was a brief encounter in a darkened street, and there was no particular reason for the event to be burned into his memory.
The fellow you saw outside the grocery store last night...could you pick him out of a line-up two years from now?
But Anderson tells us the witness recognized the man 'at once.'
One attempt at explaining this remarkable success is to suggest that the witness knew the suspect. But I find this difficult to accept. If he at once identified the suspect when they met in the asylum [as Anderson claimed] why wouldn't he have identified him in Oct 1888? If we are to take Anderson at face value, the man had no initial qualms about identifying the suspect, so it's rather difficult to accept this possibility. You might argue that he knew the suspect--but by sight only. Yet, I would counter that the witness made no remarks to this effect when questioned by police [that is, if the witness was Lawende or Schwartz].
Problem #2. Anderson clearly states that the witness identified the suspect before he realized that he was a fellow Jew. It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that he didn't know the suspect---or at least not overly well.
Of course you might be tempted to read something into the curious word "confront". Anderson said that the witness was "confronted" with the suspect; perhaps, though, Anderson didn't mean anything particularly ominous by this choice of words. But if he did mean something dark and covert, then you might argue that the witness was somehow fooled into identifying the witness, or that he was somehow pulling the wool over Anderson's eyes. Or, it could simply be that a rather weak identification took place, the witness was unsure, and thus hesitated to testify, and Anderson interpretted this hesitation in the worst possible light.
But I'm blathering. If you haven't seen them already, there's several good dissertations that go into these curiosities at great length.
Rosey---You cynic, you. As the manic street preacher once said "prepare yourself. The end is near."
Cheers. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:33 pm | | Dear RJ,
Nice to hear from you again. But to quote Nostradamus..."It never ends". A clue?
Rosey :-)) |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:04 pm | | Anybody who says things don't fit together isn't looking. I know how to make everything fit together. The graffito, the double event, the Lusk letter, the Lusk kidney, the cessation, the identification, the disavowal, the cry "Lipski," the marginalia, the memoranda, the Miller's Court affair, the lack of mutilations on Stride, and numerous other key items of evidence the cognoscenti have for more than a century not troubled themselves to analyze. Why am I so clever? Why can I do what nobody else can do? Why do I make such good posts to these boards?
David (still working on the cachous) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:04 pm | | Thanks RJ - good points.
Sorry Rosemary, it was my wife's idea - you know how women are about those things.
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 03:34 pm | | And I don't doubt David Radka for one minute.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 06:57 pm | | | Dave.....I could use a decent buzz,over here. Whats the name of that dope you take? You see colors and stuff on it? Or do you stay up for three days watching test patterns on t.v. ? Does it give you a rush at unexpected intervals? Do you snort it ? Do you boot it ? Wanna share your stash ? If so,e-mail me and I'll hook up with you. For real,dude...Haight Ashbury Brown |
Author: Tom Miller
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 01:39 pm | | I was having lunch with a good friend of mine last week, and we were discussing family geneologies and immigration. The conversation eventually turned to black sheep. She said that her husband's family (most of whom now live in Israel) had changed their name earlier in the century because a close relative was a serial killer. I asked "what was the original family name"? She said, "Kosminski".
I blinked. I am only mildly informed about Jack the Ripper theories, but I knew that Aaron Kosminski is one of the most frequently cited suspects. I did some quick research on the Net, and evidently Kosminski's family history is not well-known, and there isn't any evidence that his family thought he was a serial killer. I plan on talking to my friend's husband soon to see what hard information he has on the subject.
Is this something that is potentially of interest to the Ripper-research community? |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 01:43 pm | | Tom,
Any info you could provide would be great!
This sounds very interesting - I don't know how many other living relatives of suspects there are out there, but this is a great lead.
B |
Author: Tom Miller
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 02:31 pm | | | I will make a point of posting any information I get to this site. It strikes me as probable that contemporary suspicion of Kosminski morphed over several generations into folklore that there was a serial killer in the family, but it could potentially resolve some questions about Kosminski's geneology that have been mentioned in some of the "dissertations" on this site. And who knows? Maybe the family has some inside information. |
Author: Philip Rayner
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 02:54 pm | | | As a genealogist I would be most interested Tom. |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 02:58 pm | | Tom,
Mr. Scott Nelson, who has posted these boards for many years, would be good to work with on this. He is interested in genealogical histories of suspects like Kosminski. You can locate his e-mail address by searching this site.
Good Luck!
David |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 03:17 pm | | "and there isn't any evidence that his family thought he was a serial killer"
Bearing in mind that few facts in this case are uncontested, it is a reasonable supposition that Kosminski's family would have known he was a serious suspect.
IF and it's a big IF Kosminski was the suspect I.D.ed at the Seaside Home, he was then released into the custody of his brother. And according to Swanson's marginalia, the house was watched by the City CID day and night. So it's not a big leap of faith to surmise that Kosminski's family would be aware of the intense interest in him by the police.
Sir Robert |
Author: Spryder
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 03:30 pm | | There does exist the "Crawford Letter", which was a letter of introduction sent from Lord Crawford to Sir Robert Anderson, introducing an unknown woman to the latter who believed the Whitechapel murderer was "nearly related" to her. I previously believed it possible that this woman was Emily Druitt, referring to Montague as her related suspect... my evidence being a link between Emily and Crawford via their close acquaintance, Bernard Quaritch. Just this week, however, I learned that the Emily Druitt who worked with Quaritch in 1886/1887 was NOT Montague's cousin, but another Emily Druitt altogether - thereby destroying that theory. Coincidentally enough both women were artists who lived in London at around the same time.
That said, the next likely suggestion would be that this woman may have been a relative of Kosminski's, who we know was Anderson's preferred suspect. The "Crawford letter" is the only letter in Anderson's surviving correspondence, held at Duke University, that mentions the Whitechapel murders, and one may take that to mean he deemed it to be important to the case; perhaps because it was his introduction to Kosminski as a suspect.
All speculation, of course. But I'd love to hear anything you find on the Kosminski line.
(I'm going to post images of the Crawford letter on another board, should anyone be interested in seeing it). |
Author: Chris Phillips
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 03:40 pm | | That's interesting about Emily.
But on the Kosminskis changing their name - is there any evidence that Aaron had any male blood relations in England? I thought that his "brother" Wolf had turned out actually to be a brother-in-law. |
Author: Tom Miller
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 04:03 pm | | "So it's not a big leap of faith to surmise that Kosminski's family would be aware of the intense interest in him by the police."
I was getting at whether the family would have thought he was guilty. The comment from my friend was that they had a serial killer in the family, not that they had a guy who was wrongly accused of being a killer.
I am not sure how significant this is, as rumors tend to become more salacious in the spreading, but I deemed it potentially interesting. That said, I admit to being a naif about Ripper issues, which is why I asked whether this would be something of interest. |
Author: Tom Miller
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 04:08 pm | | "But on the Kosminskis changing their name - is there any evidence that Aaron had any male blood relations in England? I thought that his "brother" Wolf had turned out actually to be a brother-in-law."
I am exchanging e-mails with my friends about this. I found out that my friend was wrong about the reason for the name change. Her husband told her that it was changed from the Slavic "Kusminski" in 1960, to a Hebrew name, which was evidently a big trend in Israel at the time.
My friends were unaware that there was any Ripper connection with the name. The husband is e-mail his father in Israel to get more information. They think this is all very interesting. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 10:26 pm | | Hey Tom,
Actually, this is a REAL interesting development.
My personal hunch has always been that a break in the case would come if and when the decendents of an original suspect provided new insights. Otherwise, we kinda keep pushing the same old pieces of paper around in new configurations.
Regards,
Sir Robert
P.S. I might add that I got a minor relative shocker of my own today. My family has never been a close knit bunch, and I know very little of the family history, except that my father's parents, who died whilst he was young, hailed from Dublin. Today, in speaking to a cousin, I learned that my paternal grandparents were indeed from Dublin, but with the wrinkle that they were Presbyterian. ( I was raised Episcopalian.) So when you start to narrow the field to Andersons from Dublin that were Presbyterian, things start to get interesting from a Casebook perspective. The funny thing of it is that I simply chose this screen name as a joke, as my real name is indeed Robert Anderson. |
Author: Tom Miller
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 09:46 am | | I talked to my friend whose father was born a "Kuzminski". It looks like this is mostly a dead end, but there might be some modest geneological interest in the eastern european origins of the name, and possible derivations for those looking for relatives. This is what his reply was:
"First of all, our name was Kuzminski, not Kosminski. But correct spelling of the name is not very important because it was most probably invented on the spot by various immigration officials who heard it pronounced.
As to my possible family connection: Nothing is known. My father once heard on the radio, probably 20 or 30 years ago that a Jewish immigrant called Kuzminski, from eastern Europe, was found to have committed famous murders
in London... From that, and since the name Kuzminski (and its derivatives)is very rare, he concluded that the murderer is probably related to us. And I bet he's right. There are probably only a few hundred Kusminskis around the world, and they're surely all related.
Back to hard facts -- My grandfather was born in Ukraine. His father was also a native of Ukraine (he had told me so). But the name Kuzminski does
sound very Polish. Everybody knows that (or at least every eastern European knows that). So you'd have to assume that there was one Kuzminski, who at some point in time, immigrated from Poland to Ukraine. But that guy must have been at least my grandfather's grandfather or his great grandfather. So the Ripper guy was either a very far removed relative, or he was from Ukraine but thought to have been from Poland because of his name.
And to continue a little with speculation -- I'd say that the old Kuzminski immigrant was not more than three generations away from my grandfather. Why? Because genealogy pages of Kuzminskis have some stories about an old
grandfather who immigrated from Poland (Warsaw area) to Ukraine (Odessa area) at the end of the 19th century. And because people usually tend to
immigrate to places where they have relatives. And you don't know of relatives who are more than three generations removed." |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:27 am | | Tom:
It's a bit of a myth to say that Immigration officials may have a changed an immigrant's name because that is how it sounded to them when it was pronounced. Ship lists were composed at the Port of embarkation and when the ship arrived at, for example, Ellis Island, the immigrants record was taken initially from this written evidence.
Equally, due to massive border changes in Eastern Europe over the past 200 years, a family could be living in Poland one year and the next year in the Ukraine without having to move which makes Polish missing heir research such a joy to undertake! |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:35 am | | Hi, all:
If only the Kosminski family could publish a family newsletter like the Crippen family have!!!
http://www.familytrail.com/crippen/backissues.html
All the best
Chris |
Author: Tom Miller
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:03 am | | "It's a bit of a myth to say that Immigration officials may have a changed an immigrant's name because that is how it sounded to them when it was pronounced. Ship lists were composed at the Port of embarkation and when the ship arrived at, for example, Ellis Island, the immigrants record was taken initially from this written evidence."
Well, according to my friend, "Kuzminski" would have been spelled by the Kuzminskis in Yiddish, which is based on the Hebrew alphabet. So it isn't just a matter of how they would have spelled it at immigration. Who transliterated it into Latin characters? A non-Yiddish speaking Pole at the debarkation point, or an immigration official in England?
Such transliteration problems are extremely common when dealing with names spelled in non-Latin alphabets. Even linguists disagree on proper transliteration rules, and if the name is being transliterated by a non-linguist, all orthographic bets are off.
I think anyone looking for relatives would not only have to look for Kosminskis, but Kosminskys, Kozminskis, Kozminskys, Kuzminskis, Kuzminskys, Kasminskis, Kazminskis, etc.
"Equally, due to massive border changes in Eastern Europe over the past 200 years, a family could be living in Poland one year and the next year in the Ukraine without having to move which makes Polish missing heir research such a joy to undertake!"
This is an excellent point. I did read one of the disserations on Kosminski, which pointed out possible discrepancies between others with the same last name who were cited in census records as being of Russian birth, rather than Polish. As most of Poland and all of Ukraine were controlled by Russia at the time, this is an extremely minor distinction. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:12 am | | Hi, Tom:
You state:
"Well, according to my friend, "Kuzminski" would have been spelled by the Kuzminskis in Yiddish, which is based on the Hebrew alphabet. So it isn't just a matter of how they would have spelled it at immigration. Who transliterated it into Latin characters? A non-Yiddish speaking Pole at the debarkation point, or an immigration official in England?"
Tom, don't forget that at the time we are talking about, the late nineteenth century in Poland, these people would have had to have identity papers capable of being read in Latin characters by Polish officials, so there is a good possibility that the name was the same in Poland as it was in England. I have done some work on Martin Kosminski, the furrier, and his brother Samuel and their surname was the same in Poland as in London. It still has to be determined, of course, what relationship Martin and Samuel Kosminski had to Aaron Kosminski... possibly uncles.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Tom Miller
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:43 am | | 1) I am no expert in Polish history. Even though Poland was controlled by Russia, were identification papers necessarily in Polish rather than Russian?
2) Keep in mind that Kosminski may have been a Pole living elsewhere in Eastern Europe, such as Ukraine, like my friend's relatives, or Byelorus. Ukrainians and Byelorussians don't use a Latin alphabet like Poles do.
3) Even if Kosminski did choose the Latin spelling of his name, his other relatives may have chosen different spelling variants, or had those variants chosen for them.
I think there is an awful lot of speculation going on here about what specific spelling Kosminski's name would have been prior to immigration, given that no one really knows how and when or from where he emigrated, or where he lived in Eastern Europe. As Poland wasn't a political entity at the time, "Polish" almost certainly referred to the language he spoke, or the ethnicity of the name. In the late 19th century, Poles were living in the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian empires.
My point is just that a broad net should be cast if you are looking for relatives, and you should consider possible transliteration variants from non-Latin alphabets like Cyrillic and Yiddish. I didn't think this would be controversial. |
Author: Philip Rayner
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:49 am | | Any genealogist could tell you that shifts in a name's spelling are the bane of their lives. Of the two meanings attributed to my name one is an old German word 'Reghinari' Over the years this has mutated into Rayner.
I agree that Kosminski may have been mis spelled at the point of entry. You have a handwritten record, maybe written by someone not familiar with Kosminski's own language, writing the record, an English official who couldn't read yiddish or polish reading it. This leaves out the fact that the name would have been handwritten with all the possibilities for error inherent in reading the Polish officials writing. Only a couple of letters were changed and they could easily have been mistaken for the correct ones. I believe that Kosminski was illiterate, and almost certainly wouldn't understand his name written in English. Then you have families who anglicised their surnames (George Chapman for instance.).
Taking all this into account the family could still be connected with the case.
Of course the fact that Kosminski's 'uncles' had the same name in both countries is a good point against it. I don't come down in either camp but it would be a shame if it was proved that there was no connection. The old adage 'Theres no smoke without fire' may apply here.
If there is any doubt that mis spellings and other mistakes can be made in official documents, try to sort out discrepancies in the Census returns. People are only human after all. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:04 pm | | Hi, Tom:
This isn't controversial and I am really not trying to argue with you. It's just a matter as you say of looking at all possibilities, including the political conditions of the time. Martin and Samuel Kosminski were definitely from Kalisz, Poland. Known in Poland by the names Mosiek and Szmul Kosminski, they anglicized their names in England as Martin and Samuel Kosminski. I do agree 100% that in doing genealogical research that you have to look at all variants of the name.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Chris Phillips
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 01:10 pm | | This seems a rather basic question, but - in Scott Nelson's dissertation on Kosminski's Relatives, he mentions that one of Kosminski's brothers-in-law, Morris Lubnowski, had lived in Greenfield Street since 1885, and that Aaron was readmitted to Mile End Old Town Workhouse from 16 Greenfield Street on February 4, 1891. But by the time of the census that year, the Lubnowskis/Cohens had moved to 63 New Street, New Road.
He also said that Aaron's other brother-in-law, Woolf Abrahams, was at 3 Sion Square in May 1890 and later.
But is it known where the Abrahams family lived at the time of the murders? |
Author: Chris Phillips
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 01:21 pm | | One other thought. Stephen P. Ryder's dissertation, Emily and the Bibliophile: A Possible Source for Macnaghten's Private Information, suggested that a letter written to Robert Anderson by the Earl of Crawford, as an introduction to an unnamed woman, to whom the murderer "is supposed to be nearly related", and who "is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril".
Stephen Ryder suggested that this woman might be Emily Druitt, Montague's cousin, who was an associate of the antiquarian bookseller Bernard Quaritch, who also knew the Earl of Crawford well.
However, he recently posted that he had discovered that Quaritch's associate was a different Emily Druitt.
That seems to open the way for the woman to be related instead to Anderson's suspect (as one might expect, as Druitt was favoured by Macnaghten, not Anderson). I do think that the woman's fears that her family might be in peril fit more naturally if the family was living in the East End, than if it was an upper-class one in the West End.
Unfortunately the letter gives little more in the way of clues, but it might be worthwhile investigating from this fresh viewpoint. |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 04:06 pm | | "He also said that Aaron's other brother-in-law, Woolf Abrahams, was at 3 Sion Square in May 1890 and later."
Chris,
Check the frontispiece of the "A-Z." The map there shows "axial routes used by the Ripper" in dotted lines. One of these lines leads to 3 Sion Square, indicating Aaron's presence there during the Terror.
David |
Author: Chris Phillips
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 06:29 pm | | The reason I asked the question about where the Abrahams family lived in 1888, is that in the 1901 census it included a 14 year-old girl Millie.
If her birth was registered this would give the address of the Abrahams family in 1886 or 1887, which would shed some light on whether they were at Sion Square in 1888 or could have been elsewhere.
I presume there was roughly a 50-50 chance of Aaron Kosminski living with the Abrahamses (assuming he was incapable of living alone), so I thought it might be a useful bit of information, if it wasn't already known?
But perhaps Aaron isn't taken seriously enough as a suspect for anyone to care? |
Author: Robert Maloney
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 07:17 pm | | Hello,
Of Kosminski, it was said that 'He declares that he was guided and his movements altogether controlled by an instinct that informs his mind, he says that he knows the movements of all mankind, he refuses food from others because he is told to do so, and he eats out of the gutter for the same reason.'
Was Kosminski THE FOOL and the ALL KNOWING GOD? The FOOL...whose value is NOTHING? After all, isn't this case really about BLACKNESS? The Revenge of the Alchemists? You can't tell me there was no Fairy Fay ;-)
Rob |
|
|
|
|
