Archive through April 9, 1999

** 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 **

Archive through April 9, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Kosminski, Aaron: Archive through April 9, 1999

Author: Paul Begg Monday, 22 March 1999 - 01:38 pm
Hi Peter As we say in the "A to Z", Piser isn't listed in either the 1871 or the 1881 Census. The former lists Israel Pizer (head)58 Augusta (wife)50 Samuel (son)10 Leah Cohen (mother-in-law) 76 The latter Augusta (widow) 61 Jeanette (daug) 27 Gabriel (son) 25 Barnett (son) 36 Joseph Jacob (lodger)30 ? Leahman (lodger)21 Gabriel is mentioned as the brother of John Pizer in "The Daily Telegraph" 11 September 1888. The report states that Augusta (who it does not mention by name) was John Pizer's step-mother. John, it says, did not live at the house but at common lodging houses. He died on 5 July 1897 at the London Hospital aged 47. I hope this helps Paul
Author: Peter Birchwood Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 12:32 pm
Thanks Paul: Itinerants are notoriously difficult to trace in records but I did hope that as Pizer does occasionally get used as a first name, Jack, as well as the family might have been enumerated under something quite different. Regards, Peter.
Author: James Doig Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 07:22 pm
Hello all! I'm new to the Casebook, though I've been something of a Ripper "fan" since I read about him as a kid in a battered edition of Colin Wilson's Casebook of Murder. I try to keep up with the literature, though I haven't yet read the A-Z or Sugden's book. For me Paul Begg's and Martin Fido's books are the most compelling, certainly the most thoroughly researched. I think any consideration of likely suspects cannot ignore the views of the officials involved (Anderson, Swanson and so on), and Kosminski at this stage seems the most likely candidate. I would say that, potentially, one of the most important pieces of evidence is Levy's sponsoring of a Martin Kosminski. Kosminski, as Paul points out (and my wife, who is Polish, confirms), is not a common Polish name, and the coincidence is remarkable. I just wonder if there would be any value in following this up from the Polish side. Martin came from Kalisz (or Kalisch as Paul has it), actually not far from my wife's home town. If Aaron was a relative, he may have hailed from the same town. Problem is , I imagine that Polish public records are very patchy, perhaps even non-existent, for that period - the world wars amongst other things probably destroyed or displaced such things. James Canberra
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 09:43 pm
I would recommend that you update yourself James and try to obtain copies of the latest edition of the 'A-Z' and Phil Sugden's book, things have moved on quite a bit since 1988. Regarding your comment above on Levy's sponsoring of a Martin Kosminski, this has since been found to have absolutely nothing to do with Aaron Kosminski and has no relevance to the story. Kosminski was not as uncommon a name in the East End as may have been imagined in the early days. However, I can tell you that Martin still espouses his Cohen theory whilst Paul still favours Kosminski as the prime suspect, their theories being totally different albeit based on the same foundation of Anderson. Hope this helps.
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 09:57 pm
Stewart, How do do mean your statement that Levy's sponsoring of Martin K. has been proven to have nothing to do with Aaron K.? Is this something new? Can you let us know something about the work that has been done, please? Do you mean to say something like (1) Martin's entry has been proven to have been separate from Aaron's entry, or rather (2) that Martin has been proven to not have been related to Aaron? Thank you. David
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 10:09 pm
David, I will try and get chapter and verse for you, but I do know that it is totally unrelated to the suspect and was a false lead. Unfortunately Paul is out of commission at the moment but will, hopefully, soon be a lot better and able to respond. This is not new and was something that was common knowledge over here some few years ago. I think that the Martin Kosminski found was totally unrelated to Aaron, but I will check and let you know. Stewart
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 10:35 pm
As Levy's name has arisen here I thought that it may be of interest to readers to see his evidence as given at the time. Joseph Hyam Levy, 1 Hutchinson Street, Aldgate, butcher, being sworn, saith - "I was with the last witness [Lawende] and Harris at the Imperial Club in Duke Street. We got up to go home at half past one. We came out about 3 or 4 minutes after the half hour. I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church Passage. I passed on taking no further notice of them. The man I should say was about 3 inches taller than the woman. I cannot give any description of either of them. We went down Duke Street into Aldgate leaving the man and woman still talking behind. I fix the time by the Club clock. I said when I came out to Mr. Harris, 'Look there, I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about.'" By Mr. Crawford - [Levy replied] "There was nothing that I saw about the man and woman which caused me to fear them." Reference - Coroner's inquest (L), 1888, No. 135, Catherine Eddowes inquest, 1888.
Author: James Doig Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 12:46 am
Hello again! This really is an excellent site! I never imagined that this particular subject could attract so much interest. Of course, Stewart is quite right - I really should bring myself up to date, and from the "virtual" advertisements I've seen, it appears there are new books on JTR coming out all the time. The Illustrated JTR looks particularly interesting: I wonder if it has a good copy of the Mary Kelly photograph - that must be the most astonishing and disturbing picture I've seen. Anyway, you seem to imply, Stewart, that the debunking of the Levy/Martin Kosminski link is made in the "A-Z" or the Sugden book. If that is right, it is a shame - it certainly appeared like a promising line of research. For one thing (and this is pure speculation of course), I understand that most Polish jewish immigrants were extremely poor - if Aaron could be linked to the reasonably successful Martin, it could help to explain how he appeared respectably dressed (for example, he could have worked for Martin, or been supported by him), and therefore a good "pick-up" for prostitutes who must have been especially careful during the Ripper scare. I must admit, this is one of the issues that has bothered me about the case for Kosminski and, indeed, Cohen - these men must have have enjoyed an income above the norm for Polish/Jewish immigrants to satisfy the apparent requirement (to judge from witnesses statements) that he was well dressed. James
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 01:22 am
Hi James, Pleased to be of assistance. If you are that interested in the subject then, yes, it certainly is worth obtaining copies of the subsequent books. It is noticeable for anyone following this case that their view is subtly influenced by the books they read, and the authors' opinion. There is no true purely objective treatment of the Whitechapel murders, and all secondary sources contain tendentious commentary. In an effort to redress this problem I have written a 188,000 word manuscript which contains ALL the known FACTS. Whether or not I get this published (and there is some interest) I do not know. However, it is a pure research tool, and contains no subjective commentary. I wish you luck with your further researches. Stewart
Author: Ashling Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 02:51 am
Hi y'all. Stewart - I'll buy a copy. Take care, Ashling
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 04:01 am
And me. Objectivity is the only way to go. Goodonya Stewart. Love, Caz
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 11:58 am
Thank you both, much appreciated. Stewart
Author: James Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 06:30 pm
Hi Stewart I doubt if I'll be doing any primary research myself - so much has already done, and it is a little difficult down here in Aus. I also imagine that it would be difficult at this late stage to discover a new "vein" of Ripper material, unless of course you stumble across a Ripper diary or something. Last night I flicked through the Kosminski chapter in Paul Begg's book and a few minor points bothered me. I note that Aaron Kosminski had a brother, Woolf. Paul doesn't footnote where he found this information (presumably from the Colney Hatch records?). He does, however, say that Woolf died in 1930 at the age of 86 - therefore he was born in 1844, a year before Martin Kosminski was born. If Martin and Woolf were related and brought up in Kalisz, why doesn't Woolf's immigration papers survive (are the records patchy?). If Martin and Woolf were related, but Woolf was born and raised in England, why didn't Martin use him as a sponsor? (of course, there may have been good reasons) Woolf would have been 33 when Martin immigrated in 1877. I'd better note here that Stewart believes there is no connection between Martin and the witness Levy, and, I guess, this line of reasoning supports that idea. Also, Aaron was 25 in 1890 - so born in 1865, 21 years after his brother - that seems an awfully time to me (though not impossible of course), especially at a time of high mortality. It would be interesting to know more about the document which links Aaron to Woolf. James
Author: Julian Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 10:28 pm
G'day. Go James.
Author: Stewart P Evans Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 12:15 am
Hi James, You are correct when you say that so much has been done that it would be difficult to find a new "vein" of 'Ripper' material in Australia. Yet it has been recently done. One of your countrymen, S. Gouriet Ryan, found a report in The Sunday Observer of 18 November, 1888, indicating that Mary Kelly's heart was missing from the room at 13 Miller's Court, and followed that with the discovery, in an Australian library, of an American medico-legal book of 1893 which contained references from Dr. Hebbert (Bond's assistant) that the heart was indeed taken away by the killer. So it can be seen that despite all the research that has gone before, new published items can be found. Indeed, the point was proved when I found the Littlechild letter which led to all those U.S. newspaper reports on the arrest of Tumblety and his status as a 'Ripper' suspect. Despite their prominence, these reports had been missed by all researchers, yet there they were, all along, in The New York Times and The New York World. The trouble with 'Ripper' authors, me included, is that if you read their books you will be led to certain conclusions that the author believes. Now, I work hard to avoid this tendentiousness, and the section in my book on the murders is purely objective and contains much new information. However, taken as a whole the book is intended to propose Tumblety (a genuine contemporary suspect) as the 'Ripper.' Similarly, you will find that Paul Begg's book proposes Kosminski as the 'Ripper,' Martin Fido's proposes Cohen (Kosminski-based), Don Rumbelow favoured Druitt, Jim Tully proposed James Kelly, and so on. Therefore it is difficult to read these books without finishing them with a certain bias as to who the 'Ripper' might have been. Both Paul and Martin know that my main criticism of the A-Z is that, despite being ostensibly a reference work, the bias of its two writers, Paul and Martin (Keith does the excellent research), in favour of anything Anderson/Kosminski is obvious. So instead of being totally objective, the A-Z will leave the casual reader favouring an Anderson/Kosminski based theory. For a reference work it contains too much supposition and personal interpretation, or opinion if you like. Likewise with Phil Sugden's book. Phil is a very good friend of mine and his work is the most accurate of the published 'Ripper' reference works. However, it is again tainted by personal interpretation and bias, and, quite wrongly in my opinion, contains a chapter establishing Chapman as a viable 'Ripper' suspect. Now, I know that Phil does not for one minute believe that Chapman was the 'Ripper,' merely that he was the best of an unlikely bunch. You may or may not agree with this. But the book still contains too much of a tendentious nature to be a pure research tool. Similarly Melvin Harris, another good friend of mine, proposes Robert Stephenson as his suspect, and his three books propose this. In Melvin's books, like Phil's, you will find some excellent de-bunking of old myths and canards. I do not, as you see, leave myself out of this, and it is the reason why, as I have before stated, the subject needs a totally unbiased, research-tool, book which will give the academic, and casual reader, an untainted source of information. I do not hesitate, when asked, to recommend the A-Z and Phil's book as the best reference works for the student of the case. It has to be left to the individual to 'read between the lines' and ascertain just what the authors are saying in certain instances. The A-Z contains an excellent guide to the official material available, and some valuable verbatim reports. Both books are a must for all students of the case. Take heart James, it was only the fact that so many others, Cullen, Odell, Farson, Rumbelow, Knight etc., were doing so much research that put me off contemplating the writing of a 'Ripper' book for many years. How could I, I asked myself, come up with anything new? Don't forget the identity of the murderer(s) has not been proved. Back to Kosminski (I did get a little off-topic didn't I?) as I understand it Paul's information on Wolf did come from the asylum records, but they contained an error, Wolf was Kosminski's brother-in-law (husband of Kosminski's sister) and not his brother. As to Martin Kosminski, no connection could be established with Aaron, and, as you will see from Levy's evidence, there is no reason to believe that Levy recognised the man in Duke Street at all. Stewart
Author: adam Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 03:47 am
I asked Paul about Martin Kosminski's mysterious disappearance over a pint one evening and he said that Martin had simply emigrated to Germany; he had nothing to do with Aaron or Wolf. Adam
Author: Rotter Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 05:02 am
I'm a little confused now; Aaron and Woolf were brothers-in-law with the same name, Kosminski? Woolf's wife was the sister Aaron threatened, I assume?
Author: Stewart P Evans Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 11:57 am
I think anyone who gets involved in the ramifications of Kosminski ends up confused, you are not alone. As I understand it the surname of Wolf was not Kosminski, this was a mistake in the asylum records, but I am checking and will let you know.
Author: adam Friday, 09 April 1999 - 03:43 am
Stewart, am I right in saying that Wolf's surname was not actually stated - Swanson simply said Kosminski was discharged into the care of his brother, and although we know Wolf lived at Sion Square his surname wasn't given. Adam ps Will we see you on Saturday?
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 09 April 1999 - 04:56 pm
Adam, Yes, I'll see you tomorrow. Stewart