Archive through November 04, 2000

** 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 04, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Cohen, David: Why the Polish Jew is a very shaky theory: Archive through November 04, 2000

Author: Jim Kay Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 02:41 pm
Having read much about the murders and suspects, I have always been fascinated by Robert Anderson's and Donald Swanson's theory that they knew who the killer was and that it was a Polish Jew named Kosminiski (or Cohen or Kaminiski). If the Police, as the above two gentleman claim, had positively identified the killer, is it really realistic to believe that they were prevented from prosecuting by a poor Jewish immigrant witness who refused to testify? Immigrants have been bullied and intimidated by the Police throughout history for far less than a set of Serial Murders, the kind which had led to major public scandal, hysteria and high level resignations! From our knowledge of the case, George Hutchinson had given the most detailed account of the killer and had the best view of him, if the police were certain they had got their man, why was he not put in a line up with Hutchinson present? and why not announce to the public (who were in the grip of fear and hysteria) that everything is OK and the killer has been found and locked up in a lunatic asylum? The whole Polish Jew theory sounds to me like wishful thinking recounted during retirement several years later. Maybe the Police did believe they had "a strong suspect" but nothing at all to back it up with. Just a thought.
Author: stephen stanley Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 06:12 pm
Just a thought... Is'nt Hutchinson's description too good to be true?..bit like a caricature of a 'foreign' music hall villain....and I don't think anybody associates that description with the poor polish jew..whoever he was.... Steve S.
Author: Jesse Flowers Friday, 08 September 2000 - 12:28 am
Hello all I have to agree with you,Jim,I always felt that the "Polish Jew" theory was nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of certain police officials.I have always thought that it was significant that Anderson says that the killer was identified and, in almost the same breath,denounces the Ripper letters as frauds.No doubt it galled him to no end that,in the public's mind,not only did the Ripper elude the police completely,but taunted them in the press about it. AAA88
Author: Jim Kay Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 07:22 am
Dear All Yes, Hutchinson's descriptions are somewhat fanciful and unlikely to fit a poor Polish Jew and that is exactly my point. It appears that Anderson and Swanson are prepared to IGNORE the fact that there were other eye witnesses who potentially saw the killer (however reliable they may appear be) because they do not fit their theories. Look at Anderson's assertions that "the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer, at once identified him". Does this suggest that Anderson was actually ignorant of other eye witnesses?, if so he would have been remarkably ill informed about this case. No - I believe he knew about other witnesses (such as George Hutchinson and Elizabeth Long) but they did not fit his theory (or even did not identify his suspect) and therefore they are simply not acknowledged. I am not trying to denigrate the Polish Jew theory, which I believe holds much merit, but I am very cautious of relying on the memoirs of Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson in trying to solve this case, because they are all to inconsistent and are asking the readers to take a massive leap of faith.
Author: David M. Radka Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 01:19 pm
I just scored a copy of Mr. Fido's out-of-print book on the Polish Jew! I got it through Amazon.com, out-of-print section. Amazon uses its contacts to search the web and private information, apparently, for these items. It cost me about $20.00, postage included. I'll let everyone know what i think as soon as I've read it. David
Author: Feebles Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 04:32 pm
Amazon doesn't have any "contacts," they just go to Advanced Book Exchange and order it, then mark it up and charge you for the "service." I have always believed the Polish Jew theory to be one of the best of an admittedly shaky bunch of theories. I don't think you can just dismiss the observations of higher-ups of the time as just "wishful thinking," you have to give them substantial weight relative to other sources. It will be impossible to get through the mess of records left to us by looking for someone who is absolutely right while everyone else is absolutely wrong. This is certainly a "fuzzy logic" situation. Incidentally, another one of those "rules" that serial killers supposedly follow is that they don't kill outside of their race. Would that mean that a Jewish Ripper would only kill Jews? Keep in mind the shifting definition of "race."
Author: Jim Kay Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 09:07 am
Dear Feebles I do not think killing within your own race rules apply in most cases. Peter Sutcliffe did not observe it nor did the Son of Sam, David Berkowitz and certianly not Charles Manson. These "rules" tend to be invented by non-serial killers. I do believe some claims can be dismissed as wishful thinking when they are simply, unfeasible, illogical, incredible and highly unlikely. However, I am not an expert on race or ethnicity. All the best.
Author: Roger O'Donnell Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 10:58 am
Jim, I agree that the rule of ethnic commonality between the killer and his victim(s) is not rock solid. However, since most people socialise, marry with, and live within broadly ethnically common groups, it seems, using the hunter paradigm, that you will find the easiest and most prey in your own ethnic classification. However, there are certain communities where the 'easy' prey is not available. Can anyone comment on how women were treated within the Jewish community, were they ostensibly chaperoned? We they allowed on the street after dark etc... You don't find within traditionally closed communities suffering with SSKs (although they just could be very good) If there was no easy free access to the women with in the hypothetical Polish Jew's community, then his drives would move him out into a wider community. Having said that, I feel that the contemporary 'Polish Jew' theories were more to do with the then prevalent prejudices,rather than any real, solid suspects in that community. Regards Rog
Author: Michael Lyden Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 03:42 pm
Hello everyone, For a time after reading a condensed version of Martin Fido's polish jew theory,I considered it to be the most plausible one we have so far. However I now have serious doubts.The main problem being the time span between Lawende's sighting and identification of the man--a gap of over two years.Lawende had seen the man in question only briefly in a poorly lit street and even admitted,when questioned only two weeks after the sighting,that he would not be able to recognise him again!Another point that concerns me about this and a lot of other theories is the notion that the ripper had to be a "foaming at the mouth" lunatic or at least end up this way.If we look at people like Gacy or Sutcliffe they are nothing of the kind, quite the opposite infact. At the time, I don't think the police considered the possibility that they were looking for an intelligent,polite ordinary looking sort of person. Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Jon Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 04:10 pm
In considering suspects we should stick to what is applicable: - witness descriptions. - 'suspects' motive. - 'suspects' opportunity. - 'suspects' ability. (if knife skill's or knowledge of anatomy are required). Add more to the above, if you think it necessary, but dont include 'being in the area', this is a pre-requisite. All the suspects have to have been in the area, but not all the above points have to be necessary in order to have a good suspect. Reading Fido's "Crimes, Detection & Death", how many of the above considerations can you fill in? None ! You might as well compile a list of crazy East end Jew's and label them all as suspects. And working with a knife mending shoe's does not qualify you to be able to kill & remove organs. Regards, Jon
Author: Michael Lyden Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 05:13 pm
Hello Jon, When you use the word "motive" when you are talking about the Whitechapel murderer,do you believe that Jack was killing women as an act of revenge and that he had some sort of plan such as that put forward in the royal conspiracy theory,Or do you believe,as I do that jack killed impulsively,needing to satisfy his blood lust and he had just built up a deep seated hatred for all women for what ever reason be it rejection or social inadequecy etc.. Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Jon Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 07:54 pm
Hi Mick You wont find motive in the crime scene evidence, motive may only become apparent when you have a suspect, who is found to have a motive. So, rather than speculate as to what the motive may have been I would sooner wait for a suspect to appear that is found to have a reasonable motive. If I try to guess what kind of motive makes sense, I will cloud my judgement as to the make-up of who Jack was. Having said that, I am aware that Jack may have killed these women for revenge, for ritual clensing, for sexual release, for conspiratorial reasons, for the organs....the list goes on and on. But if you asked me to put these, and other reasons on a scale of likelyhoods then I think I would decline, for the reason stated above. I have no favourite motive for the murders, I have no suspect for the murders. I try to collect as much documentation as I can in order to assess what was happening in the East end in 1888. One of the few committments I may make is that I get the feeling from the evidence that Jack has killed before, he was no beginner. He also had a rudimentary knowledge of anatomy. I see no reason to talk of conspiracy. I think he was a local man, I see no reason to think he hated prostitutes specifically. He may have hated women in general. I dont want to get into speculating, I prefer to think along the lines of what the evidence indicates, and leave it at that. Regards, Jon
Author: David M. Radka Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 10:33 pm
Feebles, Talking sharp doesn't get you respected here; signing your real name to your posts does. David
Author: Jim Kay Monday, 11 September 2000 - 08:03 am
To: Roger O'Donnell Roger, I tend to agree with you. I have felt that much of the "Polish Jew" theory was borne out (and clouded by)prejudice at that time. Remember the newspaper quote "no Englishman would commit murders like these" all the best Jim
Author: Jim Leen Monday, 11 September 2000 - 02:44 pm
Hello Everybody, I think the Polish Jew theory as ascribed to Anderson and Swanson does not bear up to close scrutiny. If the theory, that one Jew would not turn another Jew over to Gentile justice, was bona fide surely the following arguments would hold true: A record of the witness' name would be held in the file. As it is we are left to speculate as to whether the witness was Lawende, Schwartz or A.N. Other. Similarly the suspect's details would be recorded. In a situation where a humble fruit merchant, Packer, who may have seen the killer is visited by Abberline and "induced" to go to an interview with a high ranking officer, whose name escapes me, surely a cast-iron eye witness would have endured untold coercion and pressure to testify. The police would visit the local Rabbi, perhaps approach Chief Rabbi Adler, and ask for intervention. One of these people would then have been able to tell the supposed witness that the theory was an urban myth. Incidentally, around this time a anti-semitic misinformation program was being operated. Stories purporting to come from Eastern Europe were being printed in notable broadsheets like The Times. One example being that, after completing the carnal act, a Jew killed a Christian girl because he realised that it was sinful and murder would atone for his sin. Pure rubbish of course but blindingly accepted by the "quality" press and printed anyway. The police would also try to target the suspect with circumstantial evidence. They would try to link him to the crimes through motive, through being in the area, through possible skills, inclinations etc. This strategy would also have been recorded and held on file. To my mind the fact that no official records exist to support the theory, the fact that George Lusk was told by the police that the killer was fished out of the Thames, the fact that other police officials have different and contradictary pet suspects, means that Anderson's Polish Jew is a suspicion only and never an "ascertained fact". However, on balance, as the killer was never found, it does not mean that a Polish Jew was not the perpetrator. But then again, everyone in London of a certain physique and age is also a suspect. Finally, I feel that "suspect's ability" is the key to the crime. Medical opinion, outwith Dr. Bond, held views ranging from lukewarm to almost certainty that the killer had some skill. Next to this must come motive and inclination. The fact that he was never apprehended surely demonstrates an element of premeditation in the crimes. I don't believe, other than Mary Kelly, that the crimes were impulsive. Thanking you for your consideration Jim Leen
Author: stephen stanley Monday, 11 September 2000 - 04:48 pm
Evenin'All, Packer was interviewed by Warren,who took down his story personally....The strange thing is,(if I remember correctly) he was taken to Scotland Yard by two Private Detectives....makes one wonder how they got to see Warren when the Police were swamped with theories from all and sundry.... Steve S.
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 11 September 2000 - 05:46 pm
Hello. Since Matthews & Co. had few if any qualms about the arrest, trial, and execution of Israel Lipski in 1887 (despite considerable public opposition), it is difficult for me to believe that there would have been any qualms about a strenuous pursuit of a 'Polish Jew' had any strong evidence existed--particularly when the police and the Home Office suffered such a lambasting in the press.
Author: Jim Kay Tuesday, 12 September 2000 - 07:48 am
Dear All I think Warren was so desperate, that anyone being presented with info on a "likely suspect" by the investigating offciers, would have drawn the attention of senior men at that time. Though I must admit, it is very unusual all the best Jim
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 12 September 2000 - 09:01 am
My question is not so much of who he was, but what he was. If some quiet footed constable could have approached JtR from behind to within touching distance whilst he was in the process of butchering say, Kate Eddowes-- caught with both hands in the till so to speak, what do you think his reaction would have been?-- attack,run or give himself up?. It's a question I've pondered on during my interest in the JtR mystery quite often. What do other board readers think?. Rick
Author: stephen stanley Tuesday, 12 September 2000 - 04:58 pm
It's a very good question Rick,but as we don,t know his motives or precise mental state,not one I would like to hazard an answer to. Steve S.
Author: Jim Kay Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 08:17 am
Dear All I think that if a constable had interupted JTR in the midst of a killing frenzy, he would of turned the knife on the PC. Most modern serial killers have killed to avoid detection as well as for pleasure. However, I still do not believe any such incident happened despite the claims of PC's such as Steven White Jim Kay
Author: Jim Kay Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 08:24 am
Dear All I think that if a constable had interupted JTR in the midst of a killing frenzy, he would of turned the knife on the PC. Most modern serial killers have killed to avoid detection as well as for pleasure. However, I still do not believe any such incident happened despite the claims of PC's such as Steven White Jim Kay
Author: David M. Radka Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 03:44 pm
I believe he would have been astonished. David
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 03:35 am
Astonished like David says, and run.
Author: Jim Kay Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 08:22 am
Dear All Maybe he would have run, but I have been in the unfortunate position of seeing people(during war) in the midst of a violent frenzy and any interuption would have been (and was met)with violence. But I do appreciate this is a very different scenario. all the best Jim
Author: Jim Kay Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 08:22 am
Dear All Maybe he would have run, but I have been in the unfortunate position of seeing people(during war) in the midst of a violent frenzy and any interuption would have been (and was met)with violence. But I do appreciate this is a very different scenario. all the best Jim
Author: Keith Rogan Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 06:26 pm
Does anyone here know if Kosminksi/Cohen lived, worked or frequented the area around Miller Court/Dorset Street/Flower & Dean Street??? This is the heart of the Ripper "Comfort Zone" - not all of the victims died here, but they all lived within this VERY limited area - literally a stones throw from each other. They seem also, to have frequented the Britannia Public House in the heart of this area. I think we can assume this geographic center is not coincidental. I think we can also assume that the Ripper lived or worked here or at least frequented the Britannia Pub and was known to the victims. If Kosminski, Cohen or Cohen/Kosminski had ties to that specific area he is likely the man. If he lived elsewhere in the East End he should be disregarded. Joe Barnett fits the bill - he lived right there. I think though, given the fact that he lived out his life without killing anyone else, we can eliminate him. I know of no others except (perhaps)Kosminski/Cohen - IF he lived right there or frequented the Britannia. Our focus is lost because of the (relatively) wide area where the murders were committed. If you focus on where the victims lived and spent their time - within a block of each other around the Britannia Pub - you begin to see a link. This is where the Ripper lived. He knew the victims and was trusted by them. Looking elsewhere is a waste of time.
Author: Jon Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 08:51 pm
The Cohen/Kosminski theatre of operations is unknown. And many theorists believe that whoever Jack was, he must have lived alone. Which negates living in Dorset St. I would think. Any miscreant trying to smuggle a pocketfull of inerds back to his lair is very likely to be seen & subsequently torn to pieces by his neighbours. The locals had no liking for Jack, they wanted him dead as much as anyone. All the victims connections to this street are tenuous at best. Knowning how often these people moved around it is not unlikely that half the prostitutes in Whitechapel didnt live in/near Dorset St, at some point in their lives. Regards, Jon
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 11:07 pm
Keith-If you really wanted to prove your "comfort zone" theory you should have argued that the murder sites of the five canonical victims describe a rough circle,at the center of which is Sion Square,where Kosminski lived with brother Wolf.Oh,well... Incidentally,I have been following with some interest the new "popularity poll" in the Casebook.It seems that a lot of respect is still accorded to the opinions of Anderson and Swanson, despite the obvious problems with the somewhat garbled tale of Kosminski/Kaminsky/Cohen.Not least of these is the fact that Aaron Kosminski seems like just the sort of unwashed,twitchy loon that would set even the drunkest Whitechapel slattern screaming,"Leather Apron!!" AAA88
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 11:32 am
Jon, Whilst we are on the subject of localities, your comment that "And many theorists believe that whoever Jack was, he must have lived alone. Which negates living in Dorset St. I would think" isn’t strictly so. Yes, Dorset Street was crowded. I’d agree with the meat of your argument that it was extremely risky to walk into a packed common lodging-house carrying a murder trophy and probably spattered with blood. It was even quite risky entering a house shared with six or seven families to gain access a specific room. It always amazes me on this score that the knee-jerk reaction of the police to the murders seems to have been to search the common lodging-houses. However, on your specific point there is a perception that Dorset Street consisted almost wholly of common lodging-houses, charging their customers by the night for their beds. This impression has been spread, quite wrongly, by some Ripper books. In reality, the majority of Dorset Street consisted of old houses rented privately to tenants by the room. Additionally, the 1881-91 Census returns tell us that an entire floor was rented by families in some houses and in a few instances there were even whole properties containing just one family. This is never mentioned in the books. Whilst there were several common lodging-houses in the street, they tended to be high capacity places like Crossingham’s. In actual fact, Flower & Dean St. fits the picture of a road full of common lodging-houses much better. There were many more of them than in Dorset Street, but they were generally far smaller units. For instance, the 1881 Census shows that twenty-five persons spent the night at 32 'Flowery'. This looks pretty standard. Contrast that to the 167 people in Crossingham's complex at 17 Dorset Street or the 89 lodgers at no. 30 where Annie Chapman once lived. Regards, V.
Author: Jon Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 07:43 pm
Good point Viper. Assuming he may have made it to a private room....consider all the people he may have had to pass by, or aknowledge on the way there. Knowing that this general area of town was still quite busy at night, would by quite risky if you have blood on you. We all know how nosey people become when they see someone they know under suspicious circumstances. I just think it less likely than many other locations.
Author: Scott Nelson Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 12:06 am
What about a house out of the way of the crowded Spitafields, say a private hovel on the west part of Stepney, only shared with a brother?
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 11:52 pm
Dear Locale Questioners Comfort zoning should be related to the earliest murders (either Martha Tabram or Polly Nichols first; Annie Chapman 2nd or 3rd; Elizabeth Stride & Katherine Eddowes either 3rd & 4th or 4th & 5th). However you deal victims in or out, this moves the zone rather to south and probably the east of Dorset Street and the Flowery Dean. Nathan Kaminsky lived in Black Lion Yard; within the comfort zone, and more central to the canonical five than Sion Square; also a perfect fit for avoiding the known beat police around Buck's Row, and for dropping the apron in Goulston Street on the way home from Mitre Square. Dear Doubters of Anderson's ID, I agree that it is sheer folly to think an ID in the asylum of Kosminsky, 2 years after the event, is worth a fig. But note that David Cohen went into the asylum just 9 days after the last murder. Dear Jon, MMO is an excellent way to assess suspects in an onging current case (always bearing in mind that Motive is usually the least of the three). But in approaching a historical problem like this, the first questions are Who/what is your source? Is it the earliest version? Is it in a position to know? Is it reliable? This brings you back to Anderson. Motive, as I think you half recognize, is irrelevant (or self-defining) in a sexual serial killer. Means and Opportunity apply to virtully anyone who lived in the district, wouldn't have been off-putting to the poorest class of streetwalkers, and owned a knife and the nerve to use it firmly enough to cut a throat. Happy to be back, Martin Fido
Author: NickDanger Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 01:12 am
Hi all, And I for one am happy to have Martin Fido back posting on the boards. Welcome back, Martin. Best regards, Nick
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 12:52 pm
Hello Martin, very glad to see you back and trust that you are well. Wolf.
Author: Jon Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 01:05 pm
Pleasure to see you back, Martin. Jon
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 05:19 pm
WELCOME BACK, MR. F, WELCOME BACK! David
Author: Keith Rogan Friday, 03 November 2000 - 02:02 pm
Mr. Fido, My argument is that the "zone" should be described around where the victims lived rather than where they died. I just find the coincidence quite striking that they lived so close together. I've done enough research to satisfy myself that there were a number of small neighborhoods both north and south of Whitechapel Street where the type of Doss house' these women frequented were available. Yet, without fail, all of the likely victims lived within a block or so of each other. It's not much of a theory really, but it strikes me that as the killings progressed these women might have become quite suspicious and that a familiar face would have been a welcome sight for custom. That doesn't necessarily rule out your suspect - perhaps he worked in that area or frequented one of several pubs there. I don't know enough about him to speculate - perhaps you could enlighten us? By the way, I saw you on the History Channel special last night. A rather nice little piece (considering the time restraints), touching on the highlights of the case. Somebody should do a mini-series and go into depth on the various aspects of the case. I think there's quite enough interest to make it pay. Keith
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 03 November 2000 - 04:06 pm
Many thanks to all for the kind words. Keith - h'mmm! You're introducing a really new definition of 'comfort zone' by relating it to the victims! I guess you might want to bear in mind that (a) the road circling St Botolph's, Aldgate was 'acceptable' pavement whereon the police would not arrest cruising streetwalkers who walked slowly, (b) the Flowery Dean to Dorset Street stretch of Commercial Street was called 'the wicked quarter mile' by Canon Barnett (then vicar of St Judes, where Toynbee Hall is now) because it contained so many of the doss-houses the women used, and (c) the evidence in the Rose Mylett case - (I'm sorry I've forgotten her real name which Bill Beadle recently estabished) - shows the women's tendency to move in and out of the area irregularly. None of the above three points are disagreement with you: just useful details to bear in mind. Martin Fido
Author: Scott Nelson Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 06:52 pm
Hi Martin, I have a couple of questions for you: Is there current research into Kosminski (or an equivalent suspect) having been incarcerated at Broadmoor Asylum? When researching the Polish Jew Suspect, you say you checked the Workhouse records of Bethnal Green, Mile End, Poplar, Stepney, Whitechapel "as variously available" from 1888-1900. You have said that there was no such thing as the Stepney Workhouse (in the 1880s), but that the term was used colloquially for (the Workhouses?) in St Georges-in-the-East, or east of the Aldgate Pump. Do you still think this is true? I note two potential "Stepney" locations, the Stepney Union Workhouse, St Leonards St, Bromley, and the Bromley Workhouse on Love Lane, both existent in 1888. In addition, Stepney Union had an adjoining Sick Asylum. Were these records, assuming they still exist, looked at, particularly the Sick Asylum files? And weren't there at least two consolidations of one or more East End Boroughs by the Stepney Board of Guardians, one in 1901, another in 1925, and possible others? What affects could these have on the distribution (and availability) of patient records? I can't seem to get any response from the person at the Tower Hamlet's Local History Library and Archives.