|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 26, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Anti-semitic prejudice in the Seaside Home "identification"?:
Archive through April 26, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 12:45 pm |        | Thanks Paul!
I didn't know how close I was when I used that line - the only one I could immediately conjure up from Will Hay's films - and coincidentally, rather an appropriate one at that point in the conversation, I thought.
So neither a Moffat, nor bearded Marriott was he, then, but an O'Toole - and Rex Harrison was a Red Herring. A push-me pull-you? I've never seen anything like it... 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 08:39 pm | | Dear Paul,
All I would have said was that Kay Kendall,
"Oh Mr. Porter", and Jack the Ripper all
were to be found in England!
Now if you asked what Percy Lefroy and "Oh Mr.
Porter" had in common, I could have said both
dealt with railroads in England.
As for Napoleon Solo, Ilya Kuriakin would have
been more at home in War and Peace. He was from
Russia, after all, even if the actor came from
Scotland.
And speaking about riddles, let us not forget
what Chicolini asked the Dictator of Freedonia
in Duck Soup: "That has a big mustache, smokes
a big cigar, and is a big pain in the neck?"
Hail, Hail Freedonia!!
Jeff |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 05:08 am | | Paul mentions Marie Lloyd, which brings the wheel back full circle to the unusually non-pedagogic performance of Will Hay, since the film's title was lifted from her
Oh, Mr Porter, Whatever shall I do?
I wanted the train to Birmingham - and here I am at Crewe!
Get me back to London as quickly as you can!
Oh, Mr Porter, what a silly girl I am!
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 08:05 am | | The East End has many, many links with Marie lloyd, who drank in several of the local pubs, including one in Hanbury Street. The lines Martin quotes are the most famous from a song that included a reference to a "Mary Ann" and went as follows:
Oh! Mr Porter
Marie Lloyd
Lately I just spent a week with my old Aunt Brown,
Came up to see wond'rous sights of famous London Town.
Just a week I had of it, all round the place we'd roam
Wasn't I sorry on the day I had to go back home?
Worried about with packing, I arrived late at the station,
Dropped my hatbox in the mud, the things all fell about,
Got my ticket, said 'good - bye' "Right away." the guard did cry,
But I found the train was wrong and shouted out:
CHORUS
The porter would not stop the train, But I laughed and said "You must
Keep your hair on, Mary Ann, and mind that you don't bust'."
Some old gentleman inside declared that it was hard,
Said "Look out of the window, Miss, and try and call the guard."
Didn't I, too, with all my might I nearly balanced over,
But my old friend grasp'd my leg, and pulled me back again,
Nearly fainting with the fright, I sank into his arms a sight,
Went into hysterics but I cried in vain:
CHORUS
On his clean old shirt-front then I laid my trembling head,
"Do take it easy, rest awhile" the dear old chappie said.
If you make a fuss of me and on me do not frown,
You shall have my mansion, dear, away in London Town.
Wouldn't you think me silly if I said I could not like him?
Really he seemed a nice old boy, so I replied this way;
I will be your own for life, Your imay doodle um little wife,
If you'll never tease me any more I say.
CHORUS
Oh! Mr. Porter, what shall I do?
I want to go to Birmingham
And they're taking me on to Crewe,
Send me back to London as quickly as you can,
Oh! Mr. Porter, what a silly girl I am! |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 02:26 pm | | Hello Chris T,
Some interesting information about Willie Fagin a player, I must admit, way before my time. However he certainly was a trailblazer as many players, most notably Kenny Dalglish, followed his lead from Celtic to Liverpool. Unfortunately King Kenny came back and spoiled what was an otherwise unimpeachable reputation.
On a JTR note, connections ahoy on this board, the great Glasgow Celtic, first British team to win the European Cup, were actually formed in 1888!
Jeff, I recognise your question but I just can't remember the answer. Is it something to do with an elephant?
Well must go. Duck Soup for dinner.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 12:33 am | | Dear Paul, Martin, and Jim
Actually Marie Lloyd does have a type of connection to a famous murder, but not the
Ripper. She was one of the leaders of a music
hall artistes strike in the first decade of the
last century, and she was told that a member of
the union was turning scab. "Let her", Marie
said, "The way Belle sings she'll empty out
the theatre in no time!" She was referring to
Cora Crippen, who was known as Belle Elmore in
her dismal singing career (before her even more
dismal end).
Jeff |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:27 am | | Cor blimey - strike a light! Where's mi washboard etc...
One day, I will get round to re-reading this thread to try and understand how we got from Anti-semitism to music hall turns from God-knows-when, but in the meantime...
Given that people like Issenschmidt and Ludwig were hauled in on flimsy precepts such as having access to knives and a reputation for violence, I don't think it is an entirely sound supposition that the Police must have had good evidence in order to try and get an identification. Pretty much anyone who displayed aberrant behaviour was liable to become a suspect at the time.
We know that lunatics in general were suspected because the state of knowledge at the time suggested to many that such murders could only be committed by someone of unsound mind. Our latter-day experience suggests otherwise - that serial killers are often quite capable of functioning unsuspected in public. Therefore, the avenues of investigation that followed this line of logic were, to a greater or lesser extent, liable to be flawed. 'Evidence' in today's terminology is a matter of forensics. At the time of the Ripper slayings, evidence was going to be a cast-iron identification of a suspect coupled with a lack of alibi, maybe some low-grade forensic such as possession of a knife or bloody shirtsleeves, and possibly a history of mental illness of some kind.
Cohen/Kosminski/Whoever fits the bill, only because he was 'insane', and because some witnesses mentioned that the suspect was a 'foreigner' in appearance. Therefore, the identification could very easily simply have come about because an insane Jew had been identified - and this was exactly what some members of the force had been seeking. There is no need to assume that there was a stack of evidence against him that we no longer possess. If this evidence ever existed, then why wasn't the identification carried out and the case closed much earlier?
But I think perhaps I was bandying the term 'anti-semitism' around a little too easily, and overheated my point. If I can take up a further portion of your time, I would like to refine my postition slightly, in light of what has been said...
Anti-semitism manifests itself in many strains - from deliberate racial and religious antagonism, to simple ignorance and misunderstanding.
Whilst there may be no public examples of outright Anti-semitism on the part of the police officers involved, it seems that Anderson at least held some idiosyncratic views of the Jewish faith, and the practices of its adherents. This mightn't make him a Nazi, but it certainly shows that he was likely to be prone to misreading events where Jews were involved.
In the final analysis, we have one source that says that the witness didn't want a hanging on their conscience. However, another says that the witness wouldn't testify because the suspect was also a Jew. There is a distinct and crucial difference between the two readings of this event. One suggests that religious relationship of the suspect to the witness was a factor, the other that the witness simply wasn't sure of their identification.
I contend that the first viewpoint is a misreading of the refusal of the witness to testify, and one that is grounded in the popular belief that Jews would not give one of their number up to Gentile justice. It seems to me to be far more reasonable to assume that the witness wasn't sure of his identification (and two years down the line from his fleeting glimpse of the suspect, this is hardly surprising) and wouldn't testify against him on those grounds. Saying that the witness wouldn't testify because the suspect shared his religion seems to me to be an example of misunderstanding and mild prejudice acting to colour the perception of the 'identification' in some officers' minds.
Anyway, back to that music hall discussion...
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:56 am | | Dear Carps,
Your caveat about the police arresting and therefore suspecting anybody and everybody is well taken, and something those of us who nevertheless still place considerable confidence in Anderson's and Swanson's testimony should always bear in mind.
But a small correction. Swanson explicitly restates Anderson's claim that being a fellow Jew was part of the witness's reason for refusing to testify or swear to his identification. So that little point does not rest exclusively on 'cranky' Dr Anderson's view of Jews (which I don't myself think were anti-Semitic).
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Mark List
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 12:31 pm | | If I may add something to the conversation, I found something interesting about the ALL the suspects- modern and contemporary.
It seems that any Englishman was either a wealthy, noted or royal person, where as anyone else - Jew or American - is either some "lowlife" or "mad" person.
I just seems to me that there has always been a desire to place blame on someone who just couldn't be the killer-a normal person. An everyday fellow who just snapped or was from a poorly raised background, and yes, an Englishman.
I think that a good example that is similar, or possibly similar, to the Ripper case is the prostitute killer, Arthur Shawcross.
Shawcross was a regular looking guy - not threatening, and not out of the ordinary -this is one of the reasons the girls would get into his not-so-special basic car.
Then he'd kill them and throw their bodies in the river.
After getting ahold of him, the police found out that he was "acting out" his hatred toward his abusive mother.
-So I don't know if that puts a different spin on the Ripper case or not, but I thought I'd throw that in there.
I'm always worried that the small things about this case can overshadow larger concerns.
Then again, I had always thought that the Jewish thing was a way of distancing English people from the killer with Anti-Semitism.
Mark |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 04:56 am | | Hi Martin,
I think you are right about Anderson. Misunderstanding the Jewish faith is not necessarily in accordance with an anti-semitic viewpoint. And if my recollections about who said what about who are at variance with the facts, then we'll quietly lay the blame at the feet of the disinterested (and possibly antagonistic) people who pay my salary, and don't expect me to spend all day perusing the Casebook!
Miserable bastards.
Mark,
That is one of the aspects that has troubled me, and indeed was the impetus behind my this thread. It is difficult to not overplay the card (as Martin has belatedly made me realise) but against what seems to be a common level of casual anti-semitism (or uninformed presumption) I still feel curious to know to what part, if any, prejudice played in the investigation. The immediate connection between the well-known Jewish bogeyman figure of "Leather Apron" and the killings was made very quickly - despite the huge difference between extortion and serial murder. However, as I myself said, the Police had to follow up every lead they had so it is perhaps best if not too much is read into this.
As you may have gathered from the discussion between Martin and me, Anderson at least held unusual views about the Jews. This does not in itself make him an anti-semite, but it does perhaps suggest that some of those investigating the case were coloured in their impressions. As they are today.
You may also want to note that some officials at the time took the line that the Goulston Street graffito was a deliberate act on the part of the murderer to falsely implicate the jews. Therefore, the accusation that the entire hunt for the Ripper was made on a basis of anti-semitic feeling is probably an overstatement.
Indeed, it is certainly true that the Police (if not the press) made every effort to make no public pronouncement as to the race of the killer - which is why the Goulston street message was obliterated as quickly as it was. Some sections of the press, however, were certainly keen to pander to the notion that the 'phlegmatic' nature of your English gentleman meant that the killer must have originated abroad. As papers today still make the connection between immigration and crime (more subtly) this does seem to be part of the tendancy of the press to flatter its core audience by absolving it of blame in certain matters. Its possible that there is a thread somewhere else that covers this in more detail...
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:48 am | | Carps,
You are obviously right to urge us all to keep in mind always the undercurrent of antiSemitism in pre-1945 English society. And it will always be a matter of personal opinion whether Anderson's beliefs about the Jews were untainted as (say) his opinions of the Dutch or Swiss might be assumed to be.
I personally note that both Warren and Smith (Met and City) were at some pains to investigate and discount the popular belief (apparently shared by several officers under Warren) that the Ripper was Jewish. Again, it will be a matter for personal decision whether their anxiety was in any way paradoxically tainted by the antiSemitism they consciously opposed. It may be worth noting that there was no apparent similar police effort to ensure that the supposed 'Americanisms' in the 'Dear Boss' letter didn't lead to antiAmerican demonstrations.
I wouldn't really want to push anybody in any direction in their thinking about this. we can all hold different opinions, and if we squabble noisily about them we shan't learn much from each other. The only fact I brought in to your analysis was the fact that both and not just one of our police sources claiming that a witness refused to swear to or give evidence about his identification of the Ripper - both say the witness did so on learning that the suspect was a fellow-Jew. And, incidentally, Swanson does this without knowing Anderson had also said it, since it is apparent that he knew nothing about the differing information in the Blackwood's serialization of Anderson's memoirs. So this point is very effectively corroborated.
Wish the same were true about the far more interesting question WHICH Jew was identified!!!
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:00 pm | | | Hi Martin, Looking at the evidence I can only place the 'sea side home' story to one site.The murder site in Berner St. The ID took place about 18 months after the murder took place.That is a hell of a long time to ID somebody.It was a dark and wet night which would not help matters. Such witness evidence if produced in a court today would be thrown out.Also it is stated that the one Jew would not ID the other because he would not want to be the cause of his death.The accused Jew was a madman and as such he would not be hanged. He would be placed in a mental home. If Kosminski was the killer he would not be hanged for this very reason.The police would have known this and would have surely explained to the witness that he would not be the cause of the suspects death because the latter was mad so therefore would not be executed.Do you agree. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:06 pm | | Very briefly, Ivor, no. I imagine you assume that Anderson's witness must have been Scwartz and the Seaside Home must have been the Hove home. I think the witness was probably Lawende,and the Seaside Home ID either took place in one of the ad hoc homes used by the Convalescent Fund from 1887 onward, or was a completely different ID which Swanson had somehow got confused. (The internal contradictions in his notes make it absolutely certain that there is confusion somewhere in what he says, so it is not mere ilegitimate support of a prior thesis to make this postulation. But, of course, it is only a postulation, and my disagreement with your reading of the evidence doesn't make me right and you wrong. Keep going. Disregard me. And leave it to the judgement of history!)
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:15 pm | | | Martin, I note you made the statement,Iv'e never heard of a sexual serial killer whose last victim was his last by his own choice. Cannot this indicate that JTR was not a sexual serial killer.What is the evidence which shows beyond doubt that JTR was a sexual serial killer.By that I mean hard evidence rather than opinions.I know he attacked the sexual parts but I know of other murders where the sexual parts were attacked and the motives were not of a sexual nature.Best wishes. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:27 pm | | | Martin Lawende said he did not think he would recognise the man if he saw him again.I am interested in your views on this subject.The whole case was confusion. In fact it got so confused I would have been suprised if the case had been solved from what I have read. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 07:31 pm | | Ivor - gosh, I've just been talking about you on another board, where you were accused of being Mr Question!
Obviously, if you have evidence or reason to suggest that the murder of MJK was non-sexual, or not the Ripper's last, your point is valid. (And I accept that if you are going to argue that the murders completed a magic ritual you will be postulating that the last was last for a 'good' reason).
I don't think there is any hard evidence to prove that the murders were sexual. As I said to Mark List on another board, my personal view is that I'm wisest to follow those who know most about sexual serial killers: the FBI Behavioral Science Unit. But I accept that this is only my view, and others may disagree.
Your Lawende point struck me very forcefully when I first came across it in the newspapers. Later, looking at Major Smith's account of his 'hybrid German' (or whateve his euphemism was) witness, it seemed clear that this was Lawende, and Smith seemed to me to be making the good point that his diffidence made him an excellent witness if he ever did make an ID. Of course this is quite irrelevant if you (like Paul Begg at times) think Schwartz more likely to have been Anderson's witness.
In the matter of Lawende, I devoted some time to looking for his death certificate (under the possible gentilisation Lavender also) in the hope of tracing descendants for some family tadition. I was only able to get as far as 1915 before the horrible busy-ness of life and need to earn a living intervened.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 09:38 pm | | | Martin,I have just seen that contemptuous remark which has been made againest me. I feel it was done with malice to provoke me into name calling.However I took into concideration the new rules which limit a desired reaction.I left a message there thanking you for your comments.At least you understand me.In the last week or so many people (Tom include!!!) have been accused of such things and even worse.Does Radka really think that I would use another name but still include Ivor in it!!!! Some sleuth he is. I intend to e-mail S Ryder about this. He has placed rules about name calling but does nothing about the more serious aspects of the situation.Thanks for your answers to the questions I put foward. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 09:43 pm | | Right on schedule, Ivor.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:25 pm | | | TO STEPHEN RYDER, Until you do something about people like Radka who make false accusations about people then I will react in a manner as I see fit.Recently many people have been accused of various wrong doings and yet they have no recourse. Yet you make rules for those who retaliate when accused by stating they cannot be rude etc. This is not good enough by far. If someone makes such remarks about me and you make rules up stating that I cant act accordingly in defence then you can kick me off this site. Either put your house in order or leave the scumbags to me. |
Author: Dave Yost
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:12 am | | Hmm...
As an outside observer, I would only say that if you have a point to make regarding the subject of Jack the Ripper - merely stick to your facts, realizing that others will invariably disagree (and often do). Don't reach for your gun and come out blazing, because people don't embrace your views - you only lose credibility, since you are only correct within your realm of this study.
There are no winners in this case - by default. Yet, there can be losers, and they seem to set themselves up to be such by claiming ultimate superiority for their views over anyone else's.
Not to mention that life is too short to be absorbed into the name calling and insults. Nothing is gained, and everyone suffers. The same goes with the attempts at public humiliation and intentional discord - Being the biggest "blow-hard" on the block only makes people want to stay away from you, instead of wanting to discuss the case with you.
I would also place threats in with the above - they resolve nothing. And while it is easy to post such over the internet (because of a certain amount of impunity and anonymity that the internet provides along with the charming lack of physical contact), there is no point to making them - again it only causes the person doing the threatening to lose credibility, at best.
As for Stephen's willingness to help ensure that everyone who posts on these boards is treated as fairly as possible - follow the guidelines that have been set down - period. There should not have to be a "message board police." Nor does returning insult for insult aid the situation - it only makes it worse. And no one but Stephen is qualified to "police" his message boards. Wanting to clean up Dodge City is all well and good, unless it is clouded by a hidden agenda.
Stephen has done and continues to do an excellent job with this web site and these message boards - especially considering the numerous posts that can be and usually are generated each day.
The biggest Fact that people seem to lose sight of is that these message boards (and web site) is a courtesy - generously offered by Stephen for those who have an interest in this case.
Visiting this web site and posting on these message boards is a privilege, not a guaranteed right.
I would suggest that the potential loss of these boards be considered, and of what value it is to anyone to post remarks that you truly wouldn't say in person, before using this web site as a way to let off steam.
If you're that hot under the collar, go jogging.
While I don't post very often, I trust Stephen to do what is best for this web site and for those who visit here.
As a final thought, while there is intelligence behind what is being viewed on the monitor, it is merely an organized collection of electronically generated photons, after all.
Dave Yost |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:20 am | | Hi, Dave:
Thanks for your well-considered post. Unfortunately, of late, for various reasons, acrimony has again crept into these boards and what should be a place of pleasant interchange of information and lively debate has turned into name-calling and worse. I agree with you, Dave, that Stephen is the best one to decide how to handle the situation.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:39 am | | | For some unknown reason various people are now being accused of various underhanded acts.Some of these acts are of a civil and criminal nature.These accusations all seem to be coming from a small click of people.It is all very well giving good advice but I wonder how certain people would react if they were accused of such things.From the admin posting Stephen is saying dont be rude or call anyone a name.Nothing there to warn those about the more serious comments which are being levelled at innocent people by a small group of trouble makers.You cannot expect people to turn the other cheek when they have to put up with this type of utter crap from total morons and idiots. I came here to discuss Jack the Ripper and not to take crap from total losers.They are destroying this site piece by piece.It is only going to take one person to open up another site like this who will not tolerate all this crap and people will flock to it.Many people who dont come onto this site because of the idiots on it would flock to such a site.It is about time the people on this site said enough is enough and lets deal with the idiots.Its in all your interests to clean up shop. Cant you see that this site is slowly sinking.For gods sake get up off your arses and do something about it otherwise you will lose out. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 04:56 am | | Axe-grinders,
What on earth have these last few postings to do with the amiable and intelligent discussion that was taking place further up the board? Take whatever personal squabbles you have somewhere else please. I wouldn't mind, but every one of these posts is a plea that this sort of posting be stopped. So stop it. It's that simple.
Those of You With Something Worthwhile to Contribute,
I have to say that my thoughts accord with those of Ivor on the safety on any identification that took place at such temporal distance from the incident. I can't remember the source (if I do, I'll post the link) but I was recently reading that the success rate of identifications dropped to around 10% a year after the sighting. I would imagine that a goodly portion of the 90% "unhesitatingly identified" their man, and the fact that they were actually wrong should be weighted in any judgement of the Seaside Home Identification as a piece of sound evidence. I imagine that you wouldn't secure a conviction today on the strength of an I.D. of this sort.
So what does the evidence against Kosminski/Cohen/Whoever add up to? It is dangerous to assume, as we agreed earlier, that there was a stack of evidence to connect him to the killings. His 'insanity' and alleged hatred of women (it would be interesting to know whether those charged with looking after him in the asylum were women) was enough for the Police of the day to elevate him to chief suspect. It is also likely that a man given to feeding himself from the gutters would not be able to offer much in the way of an alibi. However, modern day experience rather denigrates the idea that an outwardly insane person would be most likely to be the Ripper, so we might argue that the Police were mistaken in seeking such a person in the first place. In addition, there is the suspicion (admittedly unsupported by much in the way of evidence - Anderson's idiosyncracies aside) that the Police could have been swayed by popular prejudice, the Goulston Street graffito, and a selective pick of potential witness in favouring a Jewish suspect. A dodgy identification merely served to confirm what they already believed 'in every particular.'
I will just add that I have no axe to grind here, or a particular favoured suspect of my own. Indeed, of all the suspects, K/C/W seems a good deal more plausible than most...
Cheers
Carps |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:28 am | | Paul:
I agree - this thread should not have to endure what has been posted of late. But since it IS here, we will have to address the situation.
There is little I can add to Dave Yost's eloquent response above, other than to say that Ivor's ultimatum to Stephen Ryder may well be the most outrageous thing ever posted on these message boards.
Others have found some way to express themselves in here without crude profanity, personal insults, or hooligan behavior - why can Ivor not?
Stephen is actually auctioning off some personal possessions to keep this forum going, due to lack of contributions and banner advertisement revenue, and Ivor, whom I dare say has probably not given a dime in here, has the cheek to write him such a demanding message.
Before Ivor came along, we got by in here somehow; I suppose we had best prepare to do so again. I'm ready.
WTM |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 07:29 am | | Carps - While it is often useful to link Kosminsky/Cohen as 'the Polish Jew theory' when explaining the reasons for giving priority to Anderson as a historical source, subsequent examination of the ways the suspect/s fit the case need to discriminate between them more carefully.
Thus, if Cohen was the suspect and Lawende was the witness and the ID took place in an ad hoc 'Seaside Home' or as Anderson implies in the asylum,then there need be no more than six or seven weeks between the sighting and the identification. I am not, of course, disputing that this leaves plenty of margin for witness error.
Equally, the medical case notes on the two create huge divergences. Kosminsky was on the streets for two years after the murders stopped, picking up food from the gutters, hallucinating that he knew what everyone was thinking. Cohen was incarcerated in a state of raving mania within a month of the last murder. Kosminsky had a family who proved close and caring at the time of his death, who themselves took him to the infirmary for treatment and oversaw his committal to the asylum, even (we may infer from the negative evidence of his absence from the pauper lunatic documents) paying for all or part of his treatment. Cohen was a loner with no known relatives or, as far as we can deduce from his records, associates. Cohen died shortly after his transfer to Colney Hatch: the only Jewish inmate to died prematurely over the next three or four years. Kosminsky was still alive 19 years later at the time when Swanson named him and claimed he had died in the asylum shortly after being transferred there.
As for Kosminsky or Cohen's 'elevation to chief suspect' by 'the Police', I think the case always needs to be considered under the restrictive limits that:
(i) There is no evidence that the Polish Jew became the chief suspect in anybody's mind until after the identification. So the evidence against him leading to the ID might be anything from a routine order to take the witness to look at any nutter brought in from the East End, to - (and now I invent wildly, of course) - being seen throwing a bloodstained knife into a quicksand on Hackney marshes, and raving in Yiddish 'I'll rip ever whore in London' while being arrested.
(ii) Perhaps most seriously, there is no evidence that anyone but Anderson ever thought of the Polish Jew as the chief suspect. Even Swanson's notes on Anderson's comments don't appear to endorse his old chief's confident assertion that this was definitely the Ripper.
(Despite the above caveats, I still believe Cohen is more likely to have been the Ripper than anyone else who has ever been named. And, Jewish or not, I think the Ripper would certainly have been somebody very like David Cohen)
All the best
Martin F |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:44 pm | | Dear Martin,
The truth was stranger than your fiction.
Regards,
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 02:02 pm | | | Walter,I note that you and others like you make no mention of the true trouble makers who make libelous and erroneous accusations.When I insult such people they deserve insulting.You moan about people who react when accused.Moan about the accusers, if you dare.You stated that my post was one of the most outrageous ever posted.My post was not libelous or criminal in content.Open your eyes and you will see such posts which have been sent by YOUR friends to accuse others. You have double standards so don't bother acting holier than thou. Complaints have been made against the chat room by posters. One girl in particular e-mailed me because she felt she had been hounded off by a clique of people. If I term someone as a hypocrite then I don't see that as an insult I see it as the truth. You protect the guilty while condemming the innocent. That is contemptible.You are not the only one with double standards on this site. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 02:35 pm | | | Martin,If I could bring into touch a point which I feel very important. Cohen and Kosminski were both raving madmen that point is agreed on.In a 40 day period Jack the ripper committed a series of murders that left the police and everyone else none the wiser.For the case was never solved. Suspects yes evidence no.Could a man such as Cohen or Kosminski have committed these murders when when takes into concideration all the efforts that were put in place to catch him. Look at the timing and thought that must have gone into the Mitre Square murder. I cant see that it was just done on sheer speculation and that the killer was protected by sheer luck when one takes all the facts into account.Could a madman such as Cohen or Kosminski have baffled all the brains that were set againest him. As you know I have surveyed the area and have pinpointed the exact spots on which the victims were found on an 1880 O/S map of the period, scale 1/2500.I found that the first four murders were placed, East, North, South ,West, in that order.Distance from victim one to victim two was 930yds. Distance from victim 2 to victim 4 was also 930yds. Victim 3 to victim 4 was 950yds. Victim 3 to victim 5 was also 950yds. Victims 3,4,and 5 can be found on the line of a 500yd radius.When I presented these findings to Professor C Henry he informed me that the murders must have been committed with great care etc.In other words they were planned on a map in advance. I would like to know your comments in relation to the measurements I have given above.Do you feel that the measurements are coincidence of evidence of pre-planning. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 02:39 pm | | | Martin, that should be, coincidence or evidence of pre-planning. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 03:39 pm | | Mr. Edwards,
What is your position? It seems to me that you are taking two opposite positions at the same time.
1. In your 4/24/01 post of 10:25, you state that it should be considered acceptable for an individual poster to take action against someone he considers to have been rude to him, e.g., by giving his rudeness back to him.
2. In your 4/25/01 post of 1:39, you state that the solution is to "clean up shop," e.g., that Mr. Ryder should take action against people who are rude, so that those who don't appreciate rudeness won't leave his site.
Your 2 contradicts your 1, sir. In 1 you advocate personal rudeness, and in 2 you advocate administrative action against those who practice personal rudeness. You give yourself away as a man who cares only to win.
A lesson for those who believe in legislation against rudeness.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:16 pm | | | In my post of 4/25/01 1.39 I do not state, Mr Ryder should take action againest people who are rude.I wrote, Stephen is saying dont be rude.Any one can view those posts and see the truth of the matter.The post of 4/25/01 is about people like you who make false accusations againest others.You have shown no good reason to make a false accusation againest me so stop trying to pass the buck.I am not relating to those who are rude in my post of 4/25/01 I relate to more serious matters I thought that was obvious.You cant get a simple thing like that right. Who is pulling your strings I wonder.Stop wasting my time with such rubbish. It is seen for what it is.A most feeble attempt on your part. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:18 pm | | Ivor - I'm hoping that your last posting means that what I'd said to Carps addresses your question satisfactorily. For what it's worth, I don't think Kosminsky's mental state would ever have impelled him to violence or been consistent with his planning anything competently. In Cohen's case, I'm simply not competent to speculate what his mental state might have been before he deteriorated into raving mania: a condition so visibly dangerous to himself and others that he would be unlikely to remain at large with it for more than matter of hours. I usually point to Jeffrey Dahmer's case in support of the hypothesis that Cohen declined to the raving state under pressure of being unable to continue getting the mental tension release of murder. (Dahmer seems to have gone into a manic fit when he was arrested, and of course would then have been tranquillised: chemotherapy means that we hardly ever see raving mania today). In this case, I suppose I could point to the possibility that Cohen might have been as capable as Dahmer - who, after all, talked his way out of arrest and proceeded to kill his victim when the police had been called to rescue a fourteen-year-old he was brutalizing. But I am not an expert on mental illness, and shouldn't be cited as authoritative. (I.e., Go ahead! Contradict me all you like!)
Ivor and David - it's saddening to see two people I've enjoyed debating on the boards at daggers drawn like this. Is it possible for you to invoke the Yaz amendment and plead silence to each other's aggro for a month?
Martin |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:49 pm | | Martin,
I agree with your thoughts with pointing a psychological "connection" (for a lack of a better word) from Cohen to Dahmer. I've found many psychological similarities between serial killers. Their motivations, mental states...etc.
However I'm curious, about what Ivor had stated earlier.
Ivor, you might lend me a hand in this one.
I know that some psychopaths will return to their stalking grounds to kind of "regain" their fantasies. (I.e. David Berkowitz) and the idea of east, north, south, west, in the placement of the murders is Whitechapel is quite compelling. So what do you think was behind this?
I know that there was a killer that attacked a woman at random and placed her earring exactly 18" from her head.He was an escapee from a mental institution, and attacked the woman, apparently because she just happened to live in the same building as his father.
What ever goes through their minds I don't know, but do you think with the ripper, he actually planned his attacks or just waited around in hopes for a victim?
(Some killers stalk, and some pick at random.)
Jon, If you'd be so kind, could you share with me you thoughts the ripper?
You and I have discussed the psychological aspect of it before, so I'm curious about where you see things.
Sorry to all if I seem a bit scattered; it's been a long day,
Mark
p.s.
With Dahmer, after the 14 yr old boy ran to the police, Dahmer was so persuasive that the police let he take the boy back home.
I wonder, in light of the theory that Joe Barnett was the Ripper, if he--Barnett--could have been as persuasive.
Cheers |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 07:34 pm | | | Martin,I am not out to contradict you so please dont think I am. Also do not think that I am out to question your theory or your suspect.I am simply asking questions.That is as far as it is going to go.Your comments have answered my questions in relation to what I wanted to know.While I am interested in your opinions and comments I have no wish to debate or question them.I intend to treat you in the same manner as you have treated me.In respect to the measurements and compass bearings that I posted for your opinion can you make any comments on them if possible ? Also I am prepared to take your advice and plead silence in respect to the situation you mentioned. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 08:08 pm | | | Hi Mark, many criminals return back to the scene of the crime not just serial killers.I intend to give you a full reply later. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 08:22 pm | | | Hi Mark, Sorry about the delay. The Yorkshire ripper went back to the scene of one murder because it had not been reported. I believe he attacked the corpse on returning.One murder case I know of, a policeman on the case went back to the scene every year ( to the day ) hoping that the killer would do the same.Many various types of criminals go back to the scene of a crime days or even years after the event to relive or regain something.You can get breaks-ins where the culprit, or culprits will go back time and time again.With four murders being placed East,North,South,West, one must ask why? In occult ritual murder victims can be killed at various given locations. They can also be killed at the four points of the compass.My evidence shows that the Whitechapel murders were in fact occult ritual killings.Best wishes. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 08:35 pm | | | Hi Mark, Forget to answer one of your questions.I believe that the planning that went into the murders was very detailed.He certainly planned his attacks with care.Look at Mitre Square and the timing involved there.He was a detail freak.He was under-estimated.I dont believe the man who attacked Stride was Jack.That was not Jacks M.O. But she was killed by Jack.This is just my opinion based on my research. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 09:10 pm | | Can't you express yourself without including billingsgate, Mr. Edwards? I've reread your two and my above posts carefully, and can't find any reason to change my evaluation of them. As far as I'm concerned, you've simply ducked out the back door, and not explained to us the difference between advocating rudeness as a response to rudeness perceived, and censorship of rudeness by the administration, both at the same time and only when either would serve your own ends.
If you want to profit from a bit of logically clean wisdom on these matters, please offer your comments to the topic "The Business of These Boards is Free Speech" above.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 10:48 pm | | | How I express myself when dealing with the likes of you is my affair.If I wish to dislike you because I see you for what you really are then again that is my affair.Read them again until you get it right.I certainly dont need to duck out the back door when dealing with you HA.I find your comments tiresome and of no value to anyone.Whatever it is you are trying to prove you have failed in a most dismal manner.You fail to answer my question on what evidence have you that I was posting under another name. Yet you expect me to reply to your questions.Well not any more.I do not like you, so do not bother posting to me anymore. I shall treat you with the contemp you deserve.Why dont you take Martins advice and go away I find you boring. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 12:40 am | | Since you asked me...
When you were posting under "anon," many were abused, Caroline Morris a number of times as I remember (you once described her as "daft"), and you singled me out for particular and repeated bullying. There are a number of cadence and textual similarities among the posts you made under various names, but you have to be rather literary-minded to be sensitive to trademarks like this--most people aren't set up that way. If you've read a lot of novels, you get the sense of how a given kind of personality handles senses and wordings in a particular way. It's difficult to describe, and very difficult to hide. All you've got to do is get the individual to speak or write expansively a bit, and you generally know who you're talking to. The general personality pattern seems to be that of the toadying, dependent type who compensates by reflexive defensiveness and vituperation. In your earlier posts (a year or so ago, under "anon", "Chas. Gilbert," "Ivor Q.U. Estion" and a few others archived here) you basically appeared whenever Melvin Harris seemed to need some help, agreeing with him stridently and then ambushing those disagreeing with him in other contexts on the boards. Many wondered at your motivations as "anon," but I could see how you just wanted Melvin to appreciate you. For awhile I thought perhaps you were he--and if you are Harris, then I congratulate you in your pseudonimical posts on how well you've been able to obscure the intelligence shown in the "True Face" book. In your posts of the last week, you've desperately sought to toady Martin Fido and Stephen Ryder--Fido by playing up your paying his posting etiquette advice a good deal of respect, Ryder by playing up to his sense of appropriateness and judgement, asking him for protection from someone you play up to him as hurting his web site, and so on. What you say is self-centered, sycophantic and defensive, again and again in very much the same ways, no matter how you sign your posts. None of what you've done is illegal, of course, but it's done under a different set of moral codes than mine. Certainly I'm not perfect myself, in any event.
But that's how I know when it's you again, Ivor.
David |
|
|
|
|
