|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 24, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Cohen, David:
Cohen, David:
Archive through November 24, 2000
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 12:33 am |        | Dear Martin,
I was reluctant to do this, but as you have no e-mail address listed, I am forced to address you in an public forum: What do you think about the possibility of there being an alternate "Kosminski" (other than Aaron or Nathan Kaminsky), one who would fit the supposed facts of the Polish Jewish suspect as related by both Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson? I refer to two essays I wrote on the dissertations board of this site. As I am awaiting the publication of the 1901 London Census, I am feeling quite vulnerabale towards my stated hypothesis at this point. Essentially it is a name mix-up hypothesis similar to yours, albeit much simpler in that the forename of Kosminski was confused, Isaac vs, Aaron and the source of this mix-up was initial police confusion over name of the daughter, Besty, the daughter of a 76 Goulston St household, and in the other of the sister Betsy, of Aaron, who was possibly threatened by a knife at Sion Square. ERGO: the suspect was Isaac. If you have a chance to comment on these essays, I would be very much interested in your opinion, even though I can pretty much guess what you're going to say and am reluctant to hear so in a public forum. But I'll take the chance. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 11:10 am | | Scott - by all means keep discussion public. I
prefer it.
Your biggest drawback to postulating another
Kosminsky is the fact that both our sources giving
the name (Swanson and Macnghten) and the anonymous
Polish Jew citation from Anderson, all agree that
he went into an asylum after the murders. My great
trawl through all the K-anything-skys on the death
registers between 1888 and 1960 naturally produced
Aaron. I didn't connect him with the man I was
looking for because he'd transferred to Leavesden
Asylum and died in 1919 which seemed to make him
remote in both time and place. (Leavesden was an
asylum for imbeciles, and whatever anyone thought
of the Ripper's madness, it didn't seem likely
that it could be described as imbecility! And
there was no evidence on the registers that he'd
been incarcerated since 1891)
But the 'other Kosminskys' line is one that
has interested several of us at various times, and
where there may well be more to find out. Paul
Begg once did a good deal of work pursuing Martin
Kosminsky the furrier who cropped up on the boards
recently. Daniel Kosminsky, a hairdresser who
moved from Stepney to Houndsditch just before the
murders, disappeared from the directories
immediately after them, and resurfaced in
Marylebone a few years later has excited many of
us in our time, and somebody - I think it may be
Ray Luff of Guildford is, I think, still
uncovering more interesting data about him.
There are, however, no other Kosminskys in the
asylums between 1888 and 1894 (at least!): that
can be taken as a near certainty, and I think
probably dooms any direct replacement of Aaron as
the guy whose name the Yard knew (especially as
Swanson incudes the accurate detail of his
BROTHER's house in Whitechapel). But there's
always the chance of your uncovering some further
confusion. And it's worth trying, as this really
is the area where we can guarantee SOME truth of
some kind lies. No amount of scepticism can get
away from the fact that two men who saw all the
documents at the time including the notebooks from
the house-to-house, and a third who knew both of
them intimately (though not cordially) all
concurred that a major suspect was a local Jew who
went into an asylum; two of them said his name was
Kosminsky; the other gave a reason for his being
suspected (the ID), and as Phil Sugden pointed
out, this is the ONLY suspect of whom we can say
there is any such actual evidence cited to explain
his coming under suspicion. There is NO suspect
coming in with such a weight of historical backing
as the 'poor Polish Jew', though, maddenningly,
there can be no doubt that Swanson and
Macnaghten's accounts of what they knew include
errors which may be the result of misrecollection,
under-information or garbling. or even of
confusion with yet another Kosminsky. Good luck!
Martin Fido |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 02:53 pm | | Thank you Martin, I'll need it. BTW, Aaron may have been Russian, not Polish, as his sister was born in Russia.
Have the Colney Hatch Male Patient Casebook notes been checked beyond 1891, that being the latest date recorded by Sugden in his book? The reason I ask is because isn't there a 100-year moratorium on the release of case files on criminal lunatics? (not talking about police files here). These private case files are different from the public Admission and Discharge Registers to Workhouses and (apparently) asylums, which can be and have been reviewed for a longer time interval. Is it possible for JtR as a prime suspect to have been: 1) detained in the Workhouse under an alias, and 2) listed on the asylum admissions register under an alias upon his incarceration? You suggested this about Kaminsky/Cohen as being quite accidental. Maybe if someone else was involved, it was deliberate on the part of the police (?) |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 04:33 pm | | Scott - yes asylum records are closed for 100
years, criminal or not (probably to stop people
vexatiously trying to break probated wills). I got
special permission to see the 1888-90 records
before they were opened. In most cases I hadn't
time/money to travel out to the hospital achives,
and archivists read the entries to me over the
telephone. But I saw the Colney Hatch records
which are held at the Greater London Archives in
Clerkenwell, including casebooks and punishment
books (if that's what they were called). Missing
was one book I'd dearly have loved to see: the
men's side Visitors' book for the relevant years.
The casebook including Kosminski ran on through
the 1890s, and I looked right on through it,
noting with interest that figures we know about
like Charles Ludwig the hairdresser who threatened
Elizabeth Burns, and the mad pork butcher whose
name I forget, but who was said to have gone to a
private asylum in Bow, made their way in and out
of Colney Hatch during the decade. I also noted
with great surprise a man called Smith who apeared
in the first register with mandatory photographs
in c.1892, and who was a dead ringer for Ostrog.
There was sufficient detail about him, and a wife
to identif himy, however, so this must be
coincidence.
Could anyone have gone in to the workhouse
and/or asylum under an erroneous name? - you bet
your life! The mandatory photographs picked up one
notable figure whose name/s I forget who turned
out to have been in and out of asylums for years
under about half a dozen different names. And I
tend to bang on about Nathan Karnsky (whom I
investigated fairly rigorously as a
'K-something-sky'). His mother and sister turned
up and made statements after he'd been inside for
some time, and revealed that his and their name
was really Arginsky. Nobody seemed to take a blind
bit of notice. He went on as Karnsky, and the name
went onto his death certificate. Nor did they take
from these ladies the definite statement of his
age they could have had: the quarterly dockets of
returns of pauper lunatics unddr the care of their
parishes kept changong their guesstimates of his
age, which went up and down alarmingly for about
ten years!
But have I ever seen a trace of the police
deliberately putting a false name on somebody? Not
a hint of it.
Martin Fid |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 08:33 pm | | It may be interesting to note at this point that our rather paranoiacally irreverent term for mental institutions, "booby hatch," may have arisen from "Colney Hatch."
David |
Author: NickDanger
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 05:54 pm | | Hi all,
I'm posting this here in the hope that Martin Fido will be able to answer a question for me. I have been intrigued by the Cohen/Kaminsky/Kosminski theory ever since I first read Martin's book about ten years ago, but one thing has always perplexed me. On page 223 of my 1987 edition of 'The Crimes, Detection and Death.....' it states that David Cohen 'spoke little but German'. From what we know of JTR's MO from the testimony of Mrs. Durrell/Darrell/Long, Israel Schwartz and Joseph Lawende, he was engaged in conversation with his intended victims. Wouldn't this militate against him as being a prime suspect? I'd very much like to hear Martin's (and anyone else's) views on this.
And in view of Dave Radka's taste for Glenlivet and Martin's preference for Talisker, I feel I must once again unashamedly state my appreciation for (horror of horrors, a blend!) Johnnie Walker Black, loutish Philistine that I am.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 10:39 am | | A good point, Nick, and one that hadn't
occurred to me. I'll mentally file it alongside
the observation that most accounts of Leather
Apron, and Mrs Darrell/Long's sighting, describe a
man aged around 40: these are contra-Cohen details
to be born in mind.
You may feel that it's a cop-out that for the
following reasons I don't let them weigh with me
enough to deviate from my interpretation of the
broad pattern. First, I think Cohen spoke a little
English. The hardback original edition of my book
said, 'He spoke little but Yiddish'. A shocking
instance of my presenting my own argumentative
conclusion - (that in saying German the
authorities were probably describing Yiddish) - as
if it were a fact. This is corrected in the
paperback. But both wordings suggest that he also
spoke something else: presumably English, and
presumably enough to manage the words Mrs Darrel
heard: "Will you?" (I haven't my files with me to
check exactly what the records say about Cohen
and, alas, the eagerly awaited Evans/Skinner
source book won't tell us as it only uses Sotland
Yard and Home Office sources).
I note that the tendency to rest large cases
on tiny details is one of the reasons why the
leading crime Historian Jonathan Goodman dislikes
most work on serial murder mysteries in general
and Jack the Ripper in particular. And that the
pioneer forensic psychological profiler and former
head of the relevant FBI units, John Douglas, has
said, "When you can't resolve conflicting witness
statements - and it happens with great regularity
- you try to put them all in the back of your mind
and move on with other evidence, forensic or
behavioral, that seems more solid and reliable.
Then, if any other lead opens up, you can go back
to what the witnesses thought they saw and see if
any of it fits in."
But that doesn't detract from your correctly
identifying one of the real, and not merely
tendentious caveat points to be born in mind when
considering David Cohen.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 05:43 pm | | | I think if Cohen had lived in London for any time at all he would have had to pick up a little English just to survive. I work in a section of Houston where a lot of the people are migrants from Mexico and most of them have at least a smattering of English. (I have had to pick up a little Spanish too. I have had to do Parent-Teacher conferences partly or mostly in Spanish.) In order to do what he did Jack had to be to some degree obsessed. If he was driven by his obsession he would have taken the trouble to learn the one or two sentences necessary to carry it out. |
Author: stephen stanley
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 05:50 pm | | To: Martin Fido
Talking of awkward points....How do we reconcile Anderson's 'we have no clues ' statement with his later views? I believe the no clues statement was late October,well after Schwartz or Lawende made their statements
Steve s. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 07:32 pm | | I believe that Anderson, as a pedantic Victorian,
distinguished between a physical 'clue' and oral
'evidence'. A clue was a physical object linking
one thing (the crime/crime scene) to another (the
suspect) as Ariadne's clew of thread (which I
beieve is the origin of the word) linked Theseus
to the way out of the minotaur's labyrinth. So a
footprint that could be matched to a boot sole, or
a button that could be linked to the coat it fell
from would be clues. Statements that, 'We fink
it's that there Leavver Apron wot's been goin'
round frightenin' us ladies,' would be, in
Helson's words, 'only suspicion'. If the leather
apron in Hanbury Street had not been identified
immediately, that would have been a clue. After
all, we know the police were flooded with
information that they investigated - like Mr Cow
of the rubber company or General Sam Browne, to
restrict ourselves to two on the files whose names
have, one way or another, passed down to our own
day. The files don't suggest that there was a
momentary pause in October when the CID said,
"Well, we've followed out every possible line of
enquiry: traced every clue to it's end..." They
always had information that they were following
up.
But it seems, from Anderson's later annoyance
at the alleged throwing away of the clay pipe in
Mary Kelly's room (which one wouldn't have thought
could have told them much) that he set rather
great stock on physical clues (just as the
evidence of the Harriet Buswell case - the Great
Coram Street murder of 1872 - is that the
Victorian police placed huge and sometimes
excessive value on identification evidence).
I hope you find this reasonable.
Marti |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 03:26 am | | Stephen:- If I may add my own thoughts to those of Martin's, I think far more meaning has been attached to Anderson's words than they deserve.
Anderson wrote to the Home Secretary on 23 October 1888: 'That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.'
But the police did have clues in October 1888. They had both eye-witness testimony (Mrs, Long in Hanbury Street, Israel Schwartz and others in Berner Street, Lawende and Co., in Mitre Square) and physical evidence (the piece of apron which showed that the murderer appeared to be heading back into the East End after the murder of Eddowes and the Goulston Street graffito, which Anderson himself described (in the Daily Chronicle 1st September 1908) as a 'most valuable clue'.
So, whatever Anderson meant by 'clue' when he wrote those words in October 1888, he clearly didn't mean a description given by a witness or physical evidence such as handwriting that could be matched to that of a suspect. And if Anderson did not mean these things, then what did he mean by 'clue'? Well, the only sort of 'clue' they didn't have in October 1888 was a 'clue' which pointed at a specific individual. To try and make this distinction just a little clearer, Anderson seems to have meant a clue which indicated 'Joe Bloggs', not a clue which was valuable only once 'Joe Bloggs' was under suspicion (such as handwriting or an eye-witness description)
However, one must also take into consideration that a clue is only a clue when it is recognised as being one. In other words, the police could have possessed information in October 1888 that they didn't perceive as significant until much later. So, in writing that they had no clues, Anderson was only talking about what was recognised as a clue in October 1888 and his words should not be taken as meaning that information unimportant to the police at that time was not later recognised as valuable. |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 06:40 pm | | Thanks, chaps,
No problems with what either of you say,just wanted to know other's opinions...I believe Anderson referred at one point to clues left by the murderer, which of course an I.D. by a witness wouldn't be (if you get my meaning)
Steve s. |
Author: NickDanger
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 07:47 pm | | Hi all,
Thanks very much to Martin Fido for his reply to my question. Oddly enough, I thought Yiddish would be more likely than German as well. Depending on who was writing the case notes, they might easily have confused the two languages as Yiddish incorporates a great deal of German.
It is quite reasonable to suppose that David Cohen, or any other recent immigrant, would have picked up enough English words and phrases to manage 'Will you?' or 'How much?', but I have always thought that one of the many remarkable traits of JTR was his apparent ability to put his victims at ease at a time of widespread hysteria over the murders. This would necessarily have involved considerably more conversation than a two word question about availability or price. If we are to believe George Hutchinson's story, he was able to disarm Mary Kelly enough to make her laugh. I suggest that this ability would be highly questionable in someone who can only speak isolated English words and phrases. But Martin's point about the caveats surrounding David Cohen's candidacy (or any other suspect's for that matter) are well taken and I thank him for his response.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 07:30 am | | In the matter of East End streetwalkers being
suspicious of strangers, it has always seemed to
me that the most suspicious of all approaches
would come from an obviously middle- or
upper-class punter. Apart from the quite
extraordinary 'Walter' of 'My Secret Life' I don't
know of any middle-class Victorian who used the
dirty, down-at-heel sixpenny East Enders in
preference to the masses of clean and presentable
Haymarket streetwalkers. (And Walter didn't use
them in preference: he fitted that national
characterisation I was once surprised to hear from
an American, 'An Englishman would f- a hoop if it
rolled past him.') Going slumming in the Ratcliff
Highway meant visiting the downmarket music hall,
not risking disease and vermin by using the local
prostitutes. Even the 'doctor' found with 'Rosy'
by PC Spicer during the Ripper scare had given her
a florin (four times the price of Mary Jane Kelly)
suggesting that she was pretty up-market by local
standards. And we have oral tradition from a
guided walk customer claiming to desend from the
'doctor's' family that he was in fact a medical
student at the time, which makes more sense.
Remember that Mary Jane knew Hutchinson and
greeted him by name, so she would certainly have
trusted him. And the man Hutchnson saw with her
was not well dressed, despite his apparent array
of clothing and jewelry: he was 'shabby genteel' -
a definite description of somebody facing hard
times. The 'clerkly' man with Elizabeth Stride,
with his cheeky-chappy remark, 'You would say
anything but your prayers' is lower-middle-class,
too: Lupin Pooter at the very best (though I can't
myself imagine Lupin abandoning Daisy Mutlar and
Lillie Girl for the likes of Long Liz).
Since the women were by every account,
including their own, often absolutely desperate
for a few pence, I don't think they'd have been
alarmed by any punter who was poor, ragged and
hardly able to communicate in English. Such men
were typical of the neighbourhood. I think a
top-hatted, caped figure with an educated musical
voice, saying, "Come with me, my pretty dear, and
you shall have this bright golden sovereign,'
would have scared the living daylights out of
them!
With all good wishes,
Marti |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 04:39 pm | | | There is a certain disarming charm when a person frankly displays a weakness, such as an inability to communicate. If accompanied by a helpless shrug and a smile our victims may have taken pity on him. However, I recall that the profilers say Jack was not very good with women. Remember all his customers were pretty desperate. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 03:34 am | | Hi Martin,
You wrote:
'I think a top-hatted, caped figure with an educated musical voice, saying, "Come with me, my pretty dear, and you shall have this bright golden sovereign,' would have scared the living daylights out of
them!'
Unless the figure happened to be Hugh Grant of course..... ;-)
Love,
Caz
(Did I really say that?) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 03:45 am | | | Yes you did, but I agree (...ooops!) |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 07:55 am | | Strange , when I saw ' Bitter Moon ' I thought Kristen Scott-Thomas was more fanciable than that French bird. Hugh did his standard floppy fringed performance as ever though.
A strange synchronicity : we're talking about Hugh here , and on the Diary board the originator of the David Cohen theory , Mr Martin Fido , is talking about ' Glu-bit '. Quelle coincidence ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 08:05 am | | Hello Martin ! ( first time we've chatted I think ! )
One of the problems I have with the Kosminski/Cohen theory is with the identification of the suspect at the Seaside home. The witness would not testify against the suspect because he was a fellow Jew ( am I right ? ) But if the suspect was Cohen , no action could have been taken against him anyway because he was insane. A trial would have been held and the suspect dragged back to the asylum. Similarly , I can only think that the Jewish community would have supported the identification of the suspect , in that it would help reduce some of the anti-semitism that was prevalent against them if the suspect was shown to have not been acting rationally. It would perhaps have been a case of getting rid of a bad apple which was tainting the rest of the basket.
What are your thoughts on the matter ?
Simon |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 08:08 am | | Caz , your post on the A.R. board reminded me of this objection. Thanks !
Don't forget Hugh is now free and single - make your move while you can ! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 09:04 am | | Hi Simon,
Hugh swapped his Liz for something which proved to be a bit of Divine retribution.
Don't forget, I'm neither free nor single, but even if I were, I could never go for someone guilty of such misjudgement that he attended the same school as my baby brother! Only the other week, my bruv bumped into an ex-master down the boozer who keeps in touch. ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeffrey
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 09:51 am | | Hello Simon, Mr. Fido & all,
I wonder Simon whether you may be underestimating the social condition in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. It is the social and political unrest (in my opinion) that gives a significant amount of weight to the Polish Jew theory and I too would welcome Mr. Fido's comments.
There was a situation of over-population and great unrest in East London, with anti-Jewish sentiment from the gentile population aimed toward the many immigrants. Many felt these Jews were robbing people of their livelihoods and straining an already delicate co-existence. This would be an excellent reason for the police to procede with great caution with this line of investigation. There were public demonstrations and a bloody Sunday a year or so earlier and the police were well aware that they had to be extremely cautious when considering the possiblity that the murderer was a (Polish) Jew.
There are many unsubstantiated comments referring to hot potatoes, definitely ascertained facts and so forth, that could indicate the police felt very stongly that the murderer was a member of the Jewish population. They were however sitting on an absolute powder keg that could ignite in an instant if it were made public that besides everything else, a Jew was responsible for this outrage against their local women-folk.
The Ghoulston Street graffiti, and Warrens subsequent actions would be another indication of the police mentality toward the possible Jewish connection. I would welcome comments as to whether the local unrest, possibility of rioting, property damage and more lives lost could have been a factor in keeping police suspicions of the murderers identity confidential. Especially if they knew that (because of insanity) they would never be able to bring the Ripper to English justice.
Jeff D |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 10:01 am | | Just an observation and musing about the way of the world,
I know it happens all the time, but I never can't find the logic in the fact that poor or even rich people blame poor immigrants of picking on another ones livelyhood. If the immigrants are poor, all logic implicates that they don't earn a living, thus are not picking on another ones. :-(
Greetings
Jill
PS I'm free!, I'm free! :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 11:20 am | | I have some sympathy with what Jeff says. Though if the murderer's identity were far more than even a good suspicion, it's a pity that it does not seem to have been recorded anywhere for posterity in easily interpreted form, for example held back until such time as the revelation would no longer cause political repercussions of the kind Jeff describes.
If there was no death penalty for insane killers, that WAS English justice, surely, whether one agrees with it or not?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 12:23 pm | | Dear Simon and Jeffrey,
I don't know whether there have been
substantial changes in the law since 1888, but the
current position would be that a certified lunatic
is ipso facto 'unfit to plead', and so cannot
appear before a high court. Whether the suspect
could have been taken before a magistrate to
confirm his fitness/unfitness, I don't know, but I
imagine then as now there would have been some
criticism about wasting public money if they made
a failed attempt to prosecute a hopeless case.
I don't think the Jewish community would have
been pleased to see the 'bad apple' weeded out.
Even today, there is a powerful body of Jewish
opinion which objects to the whole notion that the
Ripper was Jewish, often citing irrelevant Jewish
law as though anybody was suggesting that racial
descent implied religious practice or belief on
the part of a man who was demonstrably seriously
disturbed. And given that antiSemitic trash has
proceeded to use serious work on the Ripper as an
excuse for desecrating graveyards, I have some
sympathy with the Jewish objection, althugh in the
long term I have no doubt whatsoever that trying
to suppress the truth would havae far worse
consequences and would lead to serious and
unanswerable charges of culpable covering-up.
Back in 1888 the Chief Rabbi thanked Sir
Charles Warren for putting out the statement that
'Juwes' was not the word for 'Jews' in any known
language. Helpful in suppressing antiSemitic
feeling, perhaps. But what on earth did either man
think was intended by the word if not 'Jews'?
I've been saying since 1987 that the record
strongly suggests an attempt by senior police to
conceal the fact that they thought the Ripper was
Jewish. (Two exceptions: Warren, acording to one
of his notes, thought the murderer's actions
included the Goulston Street graffito, and were
intended to bring discredit on immigrant
socialists, many of whom were Jews. And Dr
Anderson, who had managed to make a friend of the
Chief Rabbi despite holding extraordinary opinions
which seemed antiSemitic at first sight, never
seems to have cared who he might offend, being
invariably certain that he was right.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 06:09 am | | I do not believe that the police held back information that seemingly pointed to a Jewish involvement.
One of the most published documents,the statement
of George Hutchinson which would have been widely circulated at the time,links a jewish person directly with a victim.
The butchery of Kelly would probably have inflamed the passions of the people more than any other singular incident,yet the police on this occasion did not hold back the possibility of a jewish killer.
The part of Hutchinson's statement I refer to is in his description of a man who supposedly met Kelly,and whom he describes as 'Of jewish appearance'. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 08:51 am | | Harry - You're pointing to one of the key
indicators that the police did indeed hold back
potentially inflammatory evidence inculpating a
Jew. That word 'Jewish-looking' occurs in
Hutchinson's original signed statement to the
police, now in the files held at the Public Record
Office. As released to the press, however, the
term is changed to 'foreign-looking'.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 05:15 am | | Martin,
I accept your correction,I was under the impression that the statement was given out as set down.
Regards H.M. |
Author: Jeffrey
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 07:04 am | | Hello All !
I have just obtained a copy of the Mammoth Book and scanned Mr. Fido's dissertation which I had found very interesting. I do apologise but unfortunately I have not yet been able to locate and read Mr. Fido's book, which I shall certainly endeavour to do so in the near future.
Looking for a lunatic, who was incarcerated shortly after Nov. 9th., with characteristics as indicated in the FBI psychological profile makes a great deal of sense. There is a good chance that the Ripper died, or was confined after Millers Court and this line of enquiry would have to be a valid one. Thank-You, and well done Mr. Fido, I hope your research into Cohen continues.
Actually, I have been a (sort-of) Barnettite for some considerable time now, but have always tried to keep an open mind. His discription matches closely other witness statements, he could very well fit the SK profile, he lived in Ripper Central and as a partner, he would be the first suspect if the murder happened in today's day and age. The fact that SK's don't ever say "Well, that's it, I've had enough, I've done F-I-V-E and I'm going to hang up my knife now" does weaken any argument for Barnett as the Ripper. In my mind it virtually confirms his non-involvement in the crimes, but, you never know huh?.
In the dissertation, Mr. Fido mentions his discovery of the second policeman on beat in Mitre Square. Would this be PC Harvey ? I just cannot get it out of my head that had Harvey walked to the end of Church passage at approximately 1:41 as he says he did that he didn't see something, or someone suspicious. I know it was dark in the square, but he would have been looking directly at the murder site, just 3-minutes before PC Watkins discovered the body and I think there is more to this than we know. Reports of Harvey's movements on the night are sketchy to say the least and I wonder if Mr. Fido knew anything more of PC Harvey.
Lawende (et al) saw the killer at 1:35, Watkins found the body at 1:44. Harvey was not just in the vicinity, he was right there in Church passage 6 minutes after Lawende saw the couple together and 3-minutes before PC Watkins found her incredibly mutilated remains. When you really do consider the time-scale, you have to wonder whether PC Harvey was an absolute fool or it was not much short of bloody amazing, that he never actually saw the killer.
I appreciate that the City PC who was the only person to have seen the murderer was more than likely a mistake and means a City Police witness, though City PC is mentioned not once but twice in this report and I just can't dismiss this as a simple mistake so easily. I would be happy if someone could shoot my comments full of holes, and would really appreciate any comments, if possible, from Martin (please excuse my familiarity).
Jeff D |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 11:52 am | | Be as familiar as you like, Jeff: I won't take
umbrage.
First, thank you for your kind remarks, and
without wishing to stir anyone up, let me say in
return that I've always maintained that apart from
suspects indicated by contemporary police
evidence, Barnett and Kidney (the latter for
Stride's murder only) are the only suspects so far
named whom a historian need take seriously. They
rest on something better than armchair
theory-spinning or suspect sources.
Next, the 2nd city PC. Yes, I refer to Harvey
(and when I say I 'discovered' him, I mean I was
the first person to describe him in a book or
article on the case. The relevant pages of the
1888 newspapers in Colindale were so well thumbed
when I came to them that countless people must
have known or read everything I saw, choosing for
their own good reasons - probably lack of space -
to leave some things out of their narratives, as I
and every one else since has had to leave some
things we know out of ours. Paul Begg and I used
to tease each other with 'Diddles' and 'Laura
Sickings', the two very peripheral names we had
included in our respective books).
Church Passage was demolished in the 1980s,
and a wide space left in its place which makes it
hard to envisage today what a dark, narrow brick
tunnel it was. If you ever saw it when it stood,
you would have understood easily how Harvey could
have gone into it, shone his torch around, and
unless he went right to the end and deliberately
looked into the square (which was Watkins' beat,
not his) failed to see a still body in the
opposite corner.
The reason for wondering whether there just
might have been a third City PC who saw something
is to be found in Major Smith's claim that if his
men had followed his orders in spirit and not just
to the letter, the Ripper would have been traced
to Mitre Square and caught. It is discussed in the
hard-to-find final chapter to the original
Weidenfeld hardback edition of my 'Crimes,
Detecion and Death of Jack the Ripper' (completely
replaced in the subsequent paperback and Barnes &
Noble editions). Although Smith's remark is hard
to fathom and might just cast some light on
Macnaghten's reference to 'the City PC at Mitre
Court' I have long preferred the simpler
explanation that Macnaghten garbled something he
heard about a 'City police witness' (i.e. Lawende)
into 'a City PC' witness. But we're all guessing
about that.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:36 pm | | Hi Jeff
(long time, huh?)
Back in '72 I visited Mitre Square with a friend and we both walked down Church Passage side by side, it was about 6-8ft wide, unchanged from the few photo's that are printed in various books, from the 60's.
My friend & I also visited the square at 1.00am on a sunday morning to get a feel for atmosphere.
The whole square was like a cavern, so dark and when we walked our steps echoed throughout the whole square.
I asked my friend to walk down the passage from Duke St. while I crouched at the murder spot across the square.
As he walked down the passage it became apparent to me that if Jack was crouched over the body then he heard PC Harvey's footsteps. I heard my friends footsteps quite distinctly.
What was also apparent was my friend could not see me as he shouted "where are you?" he thought I'd gone, but I was stood on the very murder spot only about 70ft away through the darkness.
Not only that, but from my position I could see directly up Church Passage, ...Jack could also have seen the approach of PC Harvey.
I would suggest that the lantern that hung at the corner, at the end of the passage, was hindering PC Harvey's sight. Another reason he could not see across the square.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 11:54 pm | | Very nice observations, Mishter Shmythe.
A dram of the Glenamin to you.
David |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 17 June 2000 - 09:19 am | | Thanks David, cheers
For those who are not aware of what Church Passage looked like looking into the square from the Duke St. end.
courtesy of Stewart Evans
There was some suggestion quite some time ago that Church Passage was covered. As you can see windows down one side tend to suggest that this passage was open to natural light. Unlike the passage to St. James Place, which certainly was covered. This confusion may have come about from the 'nightwatchman in Orange market' story.
Regards, Jon |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 04:27 pm | | Hi all!
Enjoying your comments greatly!
Couple of points I'd like to throw in for kicking around...
1) Is it reasonable to assume that the witness who identified the suspect would not swear against the suspect for another reason... that is knowing that Anderson was searching for JtR, the witness, being Jewish, did not want to "bear false witness" because he wasn't absolutely positive the suspect was JtR even though the suspect WAS the man he'd SEEN?
2) Being a Barnettite (top of my favorite suspects list) I favor the idea that JtR knew the murdered victims (as Barnett would have; being involved with a woman of that occupation) and could have said "Good evening, Catherine, have you seen Mary Jane (or Marie Jeanette)?" to put the woman at ease before striking. I realize that some of the witness descriptions could pose a problem, but a lot of it depends upon the accuracy of the timeline (e.g. when the victim died as opposed to when a witness described seeing a suspect with the victim).
Of course, anything is possible. Just looking for some thoughts pro or con.
Gladly joining the fray,
Mr. Pizer ;-) |
Author: NickDanger
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 10:23 pm | | Hi Jack,
Having met you in the chatroom, I'm glad you decided to enter combat on the message boards. It's a fascinating place peopled with some very interesting and intelligent folks. I'm sure you'll be contributing to many interesting discussions. By the way, don't forget your helmet and flak jacket.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 12:07 am | | Martin,
I your trawl for a K-something-ski suspect, did you ever review the (Bromley) St. Andrews Hospital Files? |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 07:25 am | | Dear Scott,
No, not that I can recall - (it was 14 years ago). I did the death registers to 1960, the Workhouse and Workhouse Infirmary records that were in Greater London Archives under those headings to about 1894. I think that when collaborating with Keith for A-Z a few years later, I found that his files included some infirmaries in the Bow/Bromley region that I had missed. But I didn't trawl them at that point. P.285 of the original hardback edn of A-Z, or p.442 of the latest paperback edition,include summarised material on Bromley sick asylum that ame to me from Keith and was unfamilar to me. (I didn't bother to do much work on the victims anad their backgrounds). And of course I checked all the actual lunatic asylums - Colney Hatch, Leavesden, Stone, etc, that the London boroughs sent patients in their care to. And perhaps most important, I went through all the dockets of pauper lunatics in care recorded by all the London boroughs either annually or quarterly, I forget which. And carried that down to about 1900 or 1910. But I don't recall St Andresw, Bromley at all.
Hope this is of use to you,
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Grailfinder
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 03:04 pm | | Hi all
Sorry if this post is not in keeping with the board topic but I wasn't sure where else to post it.
All the talk of St. Andrews Hospital has made me remember a thought of mine from a few years back concerning a St. Andrews Hospital, not in Bromley, but in Northampton.
This St. Andrews Hospital was where J,K,Stephen was sent to when he became ill.
My question to all is this, I recall a mention from one of the many Ripper books I have read over the years, of a "Mr Bradlaugh MP", not that I can recall from which book I read his name, or for that matter why his name was mentioned, but I was wondering if the "Mr Bradlaugh MP" from the book was the same "Mr Charles Bradlaugh MP" who was the member of Parliament for Northampton in the 1880s?
If anyone has any info on this man or can recall from which book I read his name and what he had to do with the case, I would be most grateful.
cheers. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 04:56 am | | Dear Grailfinder - (may call you Parsifal?)
I presume you aren't asking for information about Chas Bradlaugh, freethinker and MP for Northampton 1880-1891, repeatedly ejected from Parliament for refusing to take the oath until 1886 and, to the best of my knowledge only connected extremely remotely to the Ripper because he joined Annie Besant in the attempt to spread contraceptive education to the working classes and she was the radical candidate who had been prominent in the East End publicizing the match girls' strike, and then took the LCC seat in the first elections for that body which almost coincided with the Ripper scare, and encouraged The Star and the Pall Mall Gazette to play up the East End murders as a way to highlight local social conditions? Details about him can easily be found in Dictionary of National Biography (an invaluable resource which I've been surprised to find overlooked by scholars in quite heavyweight subjects who should know better).
But I think you're thinking about a reported rumour that some west country MP - (either named or for Bridgewater, it could be) - supposedly had information that was from the horse's mouth. I think it was guessed or suspected that this might have to do with the Druitt family, and I also think that, as is usually the case when some fascinating factual question comes up needing sourcing, Keith Skinner is the person who knows about it. (Though it's not in Howells and Skinner as far as I recall: it was noted later).
Sorry not to be more helpful.
Martin Fido |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 07:55 am | | Hi Martin
Cheers for the info on Charles Bradlaugh/Annie Besant, I think this may be the correct account of Bradlaugh and his involvement in the case, that I had previously read about, but had forgotten.
You are correct in thinking that my interest with him are to do with the rumor of an MP having Knowledge of the murders from the horses mouth. My line of thought was linked to J.K Stephen and his being sent to the ST Andrews mental home in Northampton, and as to whether J.K.S could have been the horse?
Bradlaugh, was a remarkable man, who stuck to his guns and caused quite a rumpus in Parliament due to his religious beliefs.
Just out of town on Abington Square is a statue of Charles Bradlaugh,  a Radical Liberal who was voted in by the people of Northampton to represent them at Westminster in the last century. Charles refused to take the oath of allegiance due to being an atheist, and was arrested in the Chamber, locked in the tower and removed from office. He decided to stand again, and again, each time the towns people voted him back to Parliament.
Bradlaugh finally won the right for MPs to affirm, rather than swear their allegiance.
He was also a lifelong atheist and teetotaller, ironic then , that one of Northampton's newest public drinking holes has adopted his name.
Charles was no stranger to the power of advertisement and during his 1868 election campaign, hypocritically and in contrast to his personal believes, allowed the sale of pint beer glasses to boost his campaign coffers.
The life of Charles Bradlaugh holds many tales and I have only scratched the surface of what was a remarkable life.
There is a local rumor concerning the placement of his statue. Apparently, town councilors at the time of its erection could not decide on its placement. The original proposed site was to have been in front of the towns main church, All Saints. However, this would have meant that his accusing pointing finger would be directed at the church, (see pic above) So the site in Abington St was chosen instead, where he still stands today in his white suit, although just what he is pointing at now, nobody knows?
Northamptons MPs seem to have been an unfortunate bunch of fellows, Spencer Percival MP, has been the only Prime Minister to come from the Town, and is also unfortunate enough to be the only British Prime Minister to have been assassinated.
However, I seem to have drifted from my original question as to Bradlaugh's involvement in the case,
So should any other members have any info on this man, ("with regards to the case") please post.
Martin.
Thank you again for your info about Bradlaugh/Besant, all info, "no matter how small" is a progression towards our goal.
"The quest continues" or "Percy's progress" eh Martin? |
|
|
|
|
