|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Aaron Kosminski and Judaism
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Aaron Kosminski and Judaism
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 12:35 pm |        | Here's a little question the group may find interesting. What kind of a Jew was Aaron? There are various branches of Judaism--of which kind were the Kosminski clan and their familiars? Were they perhaps Orthodox Jews? The Orthodox sometimes cite religious reasons for not working, preferring instead to pray most of the time. It will be remembered that Aaron refused to work, even when in the asylum; could this have arisen from his religious convictions? Or were they Reform Jews? Conservative Jews? There are several types, I believe.
Point to ponder, food for thought. All responses appreciated. Let's see who makes the best contribution to this line of reasoning.
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 07:26 pm | | Dear David,
There appears to be two Jewish camps. The first hold to the Mosaic Covenant while the second hold to the Christian Covenant. Within these two camps are many persuasions...all the while it seems, they await Godot.
The Rabbi tells it thus: we are the People of The Book. The Priest tells it thus:we are the People of the Last Chapter.
Godot is Jack the Ripper! Not for Nothing did he author the Goulston St. graffito...he is calling in his royalties!
Since I am the only entrant...do I win a prize? And if so, what? (Please, not the first edition of "Jack the Ripper:A.R.").
Rosey :-( |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 08:59 pm | | Davidoz,
What makes you think I won't solve the case in A.R.? Wouldn't you like to know the identity of the Whitechapel murderer?
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 06:33 am | | Dear David,
Ah, pity him. The last I saw of him was leading a
great procession to Nowhere-in-Particular.Holding high his staff he bellowed,"Onward...at the pace of the slowest!". There was an imperceptible movement backward. Eyeless under a merciless sun,
they all await the arrival of "A.R" with new supplies of white rice.
Rosey Cheeks:-) |
Author: Paula Wolff
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 12:56 pm | | Hi there,
I am new to the boards but have an opinion. I have read a bazillion words on the identity of Mr. Ripper. A bazillion more could be written, but why isn't it clear from notes made in Chief Inspector Donald Swanson's copy of the autobiography of Dr. Robert Anderson, in the margins, that they knew who Jack the Ripper was and were convinced. The suspect was named as Aaron Kosminski. The police stood down after the MJK debacle because the suspect had been taken and later committed. Very few words but if the police were satisfied, why can't we? I really think most people don't want to know; it would spoil all the fun.
Look at Lizzie Borden. What a travesty of justice that was!!! Yet I've read many books by people who had to have another suspect, this one was too easy. Frank Spiering wrote a book claiming it was Emma, Lizzie's sister, who did the foul deed. He also wrote "Prince Jack" and I am only keeping it because it is supposedly about Jack the Ripper. 'Nough said. Thanks for listening.
Paula |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 04:03 pm | | Paula,
Generally speaking, a number of Ripperologists don't like Aaron as a suspect because (1) there isn't any confirming evidence on him beyond what Swanson said, (2) He appears to be a bit young for the honor, only 22 when the murders occured, and (3) He doesn't appear to have the right kind of psychological profile for the part, being essentially mumbling, nonviolent, filthy and dis-occupied. Since there are other, apparently better suspects available, like Tumblety, Chapman, Sickert and Kaminsky/Cohen, among others, people let their preferences decide. Its like being in a restaurant--when the waitress tells you the available deserts are apple crumb cake, cockie-leekie, and ice cream, who are you to ask for pumpkin pie?
Regards,
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 10:57 am | | Paula---The whimsical analogy of "chosing desert" perhaps hides the fact that there are some serious and solid objections to the Polish Jew theory, not the least of which is the fact that the Anderson theorists can't agree on a) the suspect, b) the witness, or c) when or how this remarkable identification took place.
We know that in Oct 1888, Anderson admitted that there was no 'clue' to the murderer's identity. We also know at the time of Cole's murder (1891) the police were still investigating the possibility that it was a Ripper murder [calling up old witnesses, checking Sadler's whereabouts at the time of the earlier killings]. Clearly, the police hadn't solved the case, and, aside from Anderson, all other police officers from the top to the bottom openly admitted this. When Anderson's claims 'hit the fan', he was hooted at in the House of Commons.
By the way, Aaron Kosminski was a free man until 1891 [briefly in Mile End in 1890] which goes against any notion that the police 'stepped down' after Mary Kelly's death because they had caught the murderer.
This is not to say that Kosminski isn't the most important historical suspect. The top gun claimed he was Jack the Ripper. But he wasn't, nor was any other Polish Jew. Why? Because the Ripper was clearly someone else. Regards, RJP |
Author: Monty
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 12:06 pm | | RJ
????
Why clearly ????
????Monty
 |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 12:17 pm | | Paula---The whimsical analogy of the Ripper having been "clearly someone else" perhaps hides the fact that there are some serious and solid objections to the above opinions on the case.
Please note Mr. Palmer's profile, under "Favorite Suspects:"
"Tumblety, Druitt"
is what it says there. Please consider whether you may want to view what he says in this context.
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 01:39 pm | | David--You'd be best served in ignoring little ol' me and, instead, work on your thesis. The truth is coming soon, so don't tarry.
As for 'the context', our friend Martin voiced the same opinion to Stewart Evans last summer. You're basically implying the same thing that Paula states in her original post. Put in much ruder terms, the argument is that the police knew the murderer, he was a Polish Jew, and all efforts to dismiss this amount to the barking of swindlers who are trying to pawn off a their own pet theory.
But in the final reckoning, one's got to present a convincing case. But has this been accomplished? What evidence did Anderson dredge up in 1891? Mary Kelly's dried heart? Clearly not, as this would be material evidence, and the boss admitted he had no such evidence. Will you be the man that finally convinces the skeptics? Perhaps.
The above critique of Anderson is entirely independent of my own thoughts about the murderer's identity. These and similar remarks [and yes, better remarks] have been made by Sugden, Harris, Evans, and other experts on the crimes.
But from a certain perspective, Martin is entirely in the right. The Polish Jew is on the throne---Anderson says he did it. No other suspect has such an impressive endorsement, and few experts can keep up with Martin Fido. I bad-mouth the Polish Jew theory, but it's a type of homage, really. The assassin pays homage to the king. While one can entirely afford to ignore Jim Maybrick, Prince Eddy, and Wally Sickert, etc., one is obliged to deal with the Polish Jew.
Monty--Sorry for sounding so boringly familiar, but I promise to let you know soon enough. I'm not being whimsical, I'm being accurate. The Polish Jew theory will always be cloaked in the obscurity of Anderson's claims and the bizarre revelations of the Swanson marginalia. The Polish Jew theory, like the Druitt theory, is based on what we don't know, rather than on what we do know. The only way to finally disprove it is to show that the culprit was someone else. Cheers, RP |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 02:04 pm | | | Or for further revelations to surface from Anderson or Swanson, if possible. |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 02:08 pm | | Mr. Palmer, forgive me but I can't choose a "desert" from pumpkin or apple --maybe the Gobi or Death Valley. The word is "dessert", is it not? :>) Forgive me if I offened. That was not the purpose. I have something else to say but will do it later because of crummy migraine. Thanks for taking your time. I can't say I agree yet, but we'll see.
Chin-chin,
Paula |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 02:10 pm | | Oh, dear, David, this also refers to you and "desert". So sorry. ;>)
Paula |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 03:55 pm | | Paula--No offense taken. Anyone can spell accurately; only a few can spell with an element of surprise.
Suddenly I hear the voice of my fifth-grade teacher, "Dessert has two "s"s because you want more of it."
Take care of the crummy migraine. RP |
Author: Goryboy
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:15 pm | | Paula,
As to the Polish Jew theory, I fear it comes up wanting. For one, JTR seemed to go out of his way to implicate Jews. Given eyewitness accounts and the only two clues ever left behind, look at his actions on the night of the Double Event:
1) Kills Lizzie Stride next to the International Working Men's Club -- a Jewish club
2) Yells the anti-Jewish pejorative "Lipski!" at Israel Schwartz
3) Kills Catherine Eddowes just down Church Passage from another Jewish club on Duke St.
4) Writes the Goulston Graffito ("The Juwes are the Men who will Not be blamed for Nothing.")
Methinks the lad doth protest too much, eh?
goryboy |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:19 pm | | Mr. Palmer,
You are gracious indeed, considering I misspelled "offended". One upsmanship or something. My grandchilden hate me at times because I corret their English. That's quite a feat considering I'm from Texas and most people in TX are considered just kind of "ignrant". But I do love the English language and words in general. I still have my teeth into Aaron Kosminski and will work so more. Been at it since the late'60's myself but hard to find the equipment I need in the little burg I live in, here in the vast uncharted wastes of central TX. LOL Can and do buy books. Miss Cornwell's I will pass on as I saw the documentary and couldn't follow all her points and disagreed with the ones I did. Oh, well, 5 victims and Aaron Kosminski and I'm happy. Headache still making me ga-ga.
Regards,
Paula |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:28 pm | | Goryboy,
Thanks for the observations. But I've never known a religious group that didn't call each other names. We Christians aren't any better than the others. I can picture a Jew being offense to another Jew. Maybe he didn't like the way Israel was looking at him. After all, Mr. Schwartz is considered the most reputable eye-witness, even if he wouldn't testify so that a fellow Jew would hang. Or so I've heard. By the way, I like your picture. How's Indiana?
Rip on,
Paula |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 07:09 pm | | Goryboy,
The person who yelled Lipski may not be Liz's killer. Liz's killer may not have been Eddowes' killer. The person who wrote the graffito may not have been a killer at all.
You're in good company when you make those statements, but I don't think most of those assumptions have been anywhere near proven.
Dan |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 07:14 pm | | Goryboy:
And I feel I should add, I'm pretty sure you couldn't 'take a leak' in 1888 Whitechapel without it hitting some part of some building somehow associated with the Jews.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 10:31 pm | | "I'm pretty sure you couldn't 'take a leak' in 1888 Whitechapel without it hitting some part of some building somehow associated with the Jews."
This is certainly not true. The Jews were Eastern European and Russian immigrants of comparatively recent traduce. They hadn't gotten everywhere or owned everything yet by 1888. For the most part, they inhabited the very worst slums and worked in the very worst sweat shops. They still kept together for the most part, witness their disproportionate population in the Wentworth building.
"Associated with the Jews" is further a relativistic notion as generally understood by the locals. There were Jews located in certain areas that were nevertheless not associated with them. Certainly, there were some areas in the murder district associated with the Jews, and there were other areas not.
David |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 10:34 pm | | Scott,
I know where you're coming from, but my take on this is: "Don't hold your breath."
Regards,
David |
Author: Chris Jd
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 07:25 am | | "They hadn't gotten everywhere or owned everything yet by 1888." is implying they do now.
Adolf would've been so proud.
Christian |
Author: Paula Wolff
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 05:58 pm | | Did you know that Adolf's last name was not Schickelgruber? He was illegitimate but took his father's last name. Otherwise, WWII would have been fought by Adolf Schickelgruber, et al. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Not so evil.
Now, that out of the way. Running through Mr. Stewart Evan's wonderful Companion again, I am still convinced that the police knew. I would take their word over hack writers (newspaper writers of the time), etc. any day, even with the knowledge they make mistakes. But they are also at times, a lot of times,are privy to information we will never see, at least in our lifetime.
Were Anderson, Swanson and McNaughten chronic liars or half-wits that they couldn't figure this out to the best of their knowledge and, possibly, anyones? I can't help but think they KNEW enough to make an assumption. Whoops! Never assume. What shall we say then, case against Kosminski?
Mr. Evans, I did not get this attitude through your book. That is a wonderful book and I praise you for your time and effort, knowledge and perserverance, as well as Mr. Skinner's.
A word about fog not being mentioned in any of the reports. I read that on a posting somewhere here. It was a likely combination of fog which was perpetual at that time and smog which was ditto a la Los Angeles. It wasn't until he later 1950's was it that they cleared London's problem up, at least some? I'd plump for a foggy night any old time. Thinning and thickening, moving, swirling, eddying. Oh yes.
With thanks,
Paula |
Author: Scott Nelson
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 08:42 pm | | | I'm not holding my breath David. But if there is anything else out there I'll do my best to find it. For example, I'm currently looking into reviewing the post-1890 Stepney Union Workhouse (St. Leonards St., Bow) records of Admissions and Discharges, Deaths, Creed Registers and Guardians' Minute Books. To my knowledge, this was only done for 1888-90. |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 09:38 pm | | Dear Folks,
Can you see what Mr. Nelson is doing above? He's determined a place where no one has gone before, and he's going there with a critically-determined perspective in mind. No one has critically reviewed the post-1890 Stepney admission records, so, with Anderson and Swanson in mind, he is doing so. Notice how he intelligently selects a center for himself: Anderson's and Swanson's statements. Then he thoughtfully determines a way or medium in which to be different from other Ripperologists: the post-1890 Stepney files. Now he uses his center to logically guide his original thought.
This is SO much better than what SO many others posting here do concerning the case. It is sound, solid, insightful work, capable of developing real leads, capable of solving.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 11:14 pm | | Paula,
"Were Anderson, Swanson and McNaughten chronic liars or half-wits that they couldn't figure this out to the best of their knowledge and, possibly, anyones?"
Well, I can't say directly as to Swanson and McNaughten, but Anderson was a supreme egotist. I'm sure the fact that he never found the killer was a thorn in his side, and that he had fully convinced himself that he knew who the killer was to assuage his bruised ego. If he really had any proof beyond mere thought, he would've arrested Kosminski. They threw so many people in jail for less evidence than him - Pizer for instance. This is the guy who wrote that if he just had the time to focus all of his attention on the case he could solve it in a few days. The arrogance of that statement is just mind-blowing to me.
B |
Author: Jack Traisson
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 01:20 am | | Brian,
You are erroneously attributing the words of Charles Warren to Robert Anderson. Though Warren did say he could solve the case in a few days, you have to realise the context in which it was written. It comes from a document dated September 15, 1888, Warren explaned the need for the case to go through one "Central Office," in the hands of one man who would devote his time to this and nothing else and to whom all information should be sent. In the absence of Anderson, Swanson was thus appointed. The idea was practical, and avoided some of the typical bureaucracy problems associated with the Metropolitan Police structure.
An arrogant statement? Perhaps... but what would you expect the Chief Commissioner to say under such circumstances.
Cheers |
Author: Paula Wolff
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 08:17 am | | Thank you, Jack, for helping me say what I seemingly couldn't get out. They may have ALL been arrogant. I know squat. But my point is that they were working so closely with this case, couldn't they have actually been correct? Between stumbling over corpses and killers thick on the ground around there, I agree with Stewart Evans that we will probably never know. But surely someone at that time had a very good idea. Evidence is something else again.
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 08:40 am | | Jack,
As I reread Sugden, it looks like he misattributed this too - he has it coming from Anderson, but I found the original correspondence from Warren in Stewart's compendium.
I completely understand the context for why he wrote it, even though through the 20/20 lens of hindsight, it wasn't the most judicious thing to write. I'm a complete Sir Charles supporter though - make no mistake. I think he gets a bum rap.
Coming from Anderson, that statement is arrogance. Coming for Warren, it's politics. Ahh...the priveleges of rank - the benefit of the doubt.
B |
Author: Goryboy
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 01:38 pm | | Scott Nelson:
Am most intrigued by your current research, re the Stepney Union Workhouse. Several months ago, before my day job took over my life, I had embarked on similar research, via email and snail mail, at the London Hospital Archives. Please let me know what if anything you find, especially if it touches on anyone working or assisting in the local mortuary or sickroom.
After 26 years of reading, researching, and stumbling from one suspect to the next, I think I've hit upon a similar line of research. I'm looking for any post-mortem room attendants, hospital autopsy room clean-up grunts or others who might have had access to corpses in any of the nearby mortuaries or, of course, the London Hospital itself.
I was especially motivated by Tim Mosley's article "The Bucks Row Flier," which reinvestigated the locale of the first canonical Ripper murder, Polly Nichols in Bucks Row. The gist of the article was that the relative isolation of Bucks Row (as compared to the other murder sites) may hold a clue as to the location of the killer's residence or workplace, since many serial killers, especially of the "disorganized" variety, tend to make their first kills injudiciously close to their homes or places of employment.
If JTR did have some skill with the knife, as declared by several of the physicians involved in the earlier murders (Nichols, Chapman), then it's just possible our boy got his experience working in one of the East End mortuaries, hospitals or slaughter houses -- especially those near Bucks Row. Later, he switched to Hanbury Street (Chapman), then Berner (Stride), Mitre Sq. (Eddowes) and, finally, Dorset/Miller's Court (Kelly). Was it possible he'd intentionally carried his work westward, so as to keep attention away from his home or place of employment?
Also, one final tidbit regarding JTR's possible dwelling: according to Sugden, at least one eyewitness reported seeing a man in Church Lane, not far from Berner, cleaning or wiping off his hands shortly after the Stride killing. This suspect was wearing clothing remarkably similar to that worn by the man Schwartz saw attacking Stride. IF (and it's a big IF) this was the killer, then what if we draw a straight line from Dutfield's Yard northwest to Church Lane? What if we follow that line straight for another 100-200 yards? We wind up in George Yard, near Wentworth.
Now, compare that with the known route JTR took from Mitre Sq. after killing Eddowes. Draw a line from Mitre Sq to the northeast section of Goulston St., where he dropped that piece of Eddowes' apron. Follow that line into the ghetto and you come out at Flower & Dean St. Both lines of flight lead into this general area.
My contention is that the Ripper lived somewhere in the area bounded by Commercial St to the west, Whitechapel High St to the south, Heneage St to the north and Casson St to the east.
Further, I think he worked somewhere near the Whitechapel & Spitalfields Union Workhouse and the London Hospital. I suspect he attacked Annie Millwood (White St) that March, then killed Martha Tabrum (George Yard) that August -- both sites injudiciously close to his home. Then, on his way home from work the night of August 31, he happened upon a drunken Polly Nichols wending her way up Whitechapel Road, couldn't help himself and did the deed up the Bucks Row, then ran home.
I think our boy was a Cockney white male (non-Jewish), about 28-34 years of age, shorter than average (about 5'5") but stocky and broad-shouldered. He had fair hair, fair mustache and a cutaway jacket of salt-and-pepper color, along with a cloth peaked cap, like a sailor's.
If you can find a man working or registered at Stepney who gave an address somewhere in the vicinity I've described, and who fits the other criteria, I'd say you're well on your way to finding our man.
Just some thoughts....
All best,
John |
Author: Goryboy
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 01:49 pm | | Dan Norder:
You make a good point, re my earlier discussion: "The person who yelled Lipski may not be Liz's killer. Liz's killer may not have been Eddowes' killer. The person who wrote the graffito may not have been a killer at all."
I base my conclusions on Abberline's interpretation of the anti-Jewish nature of the pejorative "Lipski." While the other police chiefs (Anderson, Swanson, et al) plumped for a Jewish killer, I think Abberline (being far more familiar with the streets and idiom of Whitechapel) hit the nail right on the head. Whoever it was that Schwartz saw attacking Stride, he was yelling "Lipski!" as an epithet at Schwartz, due to the latter's "strong Jewish appearance," according to Abberline.
Secondly, I am convinced that the man who killed Stride also killed Eddowes. After all, what are the chances that someone like Michael Kidney would kill Stride in Berner St., only to have the Ripper strike just 40 minutes later in Mitre? The odds are mind-boggling. Also the M.O. of the wound to Stride's throat is perfectly in keeping with JTR's attacks on his other victims' throats -- though in this case he only had time to make the first slash. (His other victims had two deep slashes to their throats -- a shorter one running from left to right, coupled with a longer one running the same direction).
Finally, at least one cop (PC Halse, I believe) said that the Goulston Graffito looked "fresh." And it is doubtful that such a slanderous scribbling would have remained on the doorway of a building housing primarly Jews for very long. Someone would have wiped it away soon enough. I think the Ripper dropped that piece of Eddowes apron there beneath the graffito for a very definite purpose: to implicate the Jews. Hence, my contention that he was a local Cockney.
All for now,
John |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 08:16 pm | | Goryboy et al:
"I think our boy was a Cockney white male (non-Jewish), about 28-34 years of age, shorter than average (about 5'5") but stocky and broad-shouldered. He had fair hair, fair mustache and a cutaway jacket of salt-and-pepper color, along with a cloth peaked cap, like a sailor's."
Totally, utterly agree with this profile. I think he was actually physically strong, in addition to the stockiness.
Not too sure about the mortuary link though. I incline towards a slaighterman, butcher, or failed apprentice at either profession. The neck wounds and the careful direction of arterial spray suggest to me slaughterhouse methods (although I am no expert obviously - is anyone?).
As for the graffiti, I agree with the 'freshness' issue and the likelihood of it being erased by one of the tenants and hence probably written after dark on that evening (or at least after the majority of the residents had arrived home, whichever would be earlier).
I don't think he wrote it to implicate the Jews. I think he wrote it 'cos he was mad at Schwartz and Diemschutz (as I believe I've expounded more fully on another thread and in chat) and blamed them for the 'necessity' of the Eddowes murder.
As for Eddowes' killer also being Stride's killer, there's a fascinating quote in The News from Whitechapel (Daily Telegraph, Oct 6 1888, reporting the fourth session of the Stride inquest):
THE CORONER: From the position you assume the perpetrator to have been in, would he have been likely to get bloodstained?
DR PHILLIPS: Not necessarily, for the commencement of the wound and the injury to the vessels would be away from him, and the stream of blood - for stream it was - would be directed away from him, and towards the gutter in the yard.
Same night. Neck wound. Same direction of the arterial spray. I'm convinced. (As I am that Schwartz saw her killer.)
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Goryboy
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 06:12 am | | Timsta:
Excellent suggestion: "I don't think he wrote it to implicate the Jews. I think he wrote it 'cos he was mad at Schwartz and Diemschutz... and blamed them for the 'necessity' of the Eddowes murder." I don't think I've ever read or heard of this before, but it makes sense to me. "Because Juwes interrupted me, I had to get another, so it's their fault." Sounds like a serial killer's reasoning.
Has anyone else been looking into work or admittance records at the Stepney, Whitechapel or other nearby workhouses?
All best,
John |
Author: Goryboy
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 07:24 am | | All:
I realize I've veered off topic in my last few messages, and I apologize. This is, after all, a board devoted to Aaron Kosminksi. I'll try to get back on track here.
Martin Fido makes a good case against Kosminksi as JTR in his controversial chapter "David Cohen and the Polish Jew Theory" published in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, Jakubowski & Braund. Since most of us are already familiar with his theory, I won't rehash it here. Suffice to say that his diligent research into the wanderings of Aaron Kosminksi -- which led to Fido's discovery of Nathan Kaminsky and David Cohen -- is original and fascinating to say the least.
What argues against Aaron Kosminksi as JTR (besides his age of 23) is the length of time he was still on the streets after the last canonical killing (Mary Kelly, Nov. 9, 1888). His family first took him for a three-day stay at Mile End Old Town Workhouse Infirmary in July, 1890, then readmitted him Feb. 4, 1891. He was then transferred to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum Feb. 7th, 1891.
This means Kosminski wandered the streets at large for 27 months after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly (save for his three-day stay at the infirmary in July, 1890). If this is the cunning, cold-blooded, ruthless maniac who slaughtered at least five women in nine weeks during the autumn of 1888, how could he suddenly calm his blood-lust and content himself with scrounging "bits of bread out of the gutter" and drinking from open taps (according to lay witness Jacob Cohen)?
Further, even if we credit the murder of Alice McKenzie to JTR, in July, 1889, this still means Kosminksi was on the streets for 19 months without committing another assault of any kind (save for allegedly menacing his sister with a knife). The authorities at Colney Hatch claimed he'd been bonkers for six years as the result of "self-abuse," so he could hardly have been the sort to engage prostitutes for liasons in the dark. Or could he?
Could this pathetic, filthy (he refused to bathe), gutter-scrounging masturbator really be a serious candidate for Jack the Ripper?
I think not. The Kaminsky/Cohen line seems much more promising -- though I still believe the Ripper was non-Jewish. And I doubt very seriously that he was only 23 at the time.
Wot say the rest of ye?
Cheers,
John |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 10:53 am | | Goryboy:
Since you say this is the first time you've seen these ideas articulated, I'll throw in another snippet.
There was certainly a public (and perhaps official) belief that the murders had been committed by a Jew. If I were a Gentile serial killer, I might be somewhat angry about this. Hence the possible reading of the graffito as: "You've been blaming the Jews; well, tonight there's something to blame them for." (Pesky meddling Schwartz and Diemschutz.)
And it's a bit of a stretch, I admit, but given that Eddowes gave her name as "Nothing" to the cops, it's not *inconceivable* that she could have given the same reply when asked that question by her killer. Although I tend to subscribe to the "normal London dialect double negative" on that one, frankly.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 11:51 am | | Goryboy,
This whole idea of the murderer needing to have some kind of particular experience with the knife may be overstated. If we focus on the the logistics of his knife-wielding--where he got the knife; what he might have been attempting to extract from the victims; how he might have become interested in using a knife, etc.--we may be exaggerating the importance of this aspect of the case and excluding consideration of other aspects. The whole point of knife-wielding may have been rather secondary to what the murderer was up to. It might be wrong to think "the knife-wielding is all we have to go on" in trying to solve the case. Knife, knife, knife--this has been the thought for a century--and where is the clear solution to this case?
David |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 02:27 pm | | David,
Not to be a pain but would a teaspoon have fit the bill better??? The knife is important for several reasons that I can think of - mostly cheap and silent, easy for a strong man. But then a sharpened teaspoon....
Sorry,
Paula |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 06:29 pm | | | Dave......Personally,I think that it would not have been wise to use a gun and a little difficult to use a rope....The knife is a much more user-friendly instrument of death at close quarters,don't you think ? Howard |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 08:11 pm | | Howard:
Don't forget the lead piping.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 08:50 pm | | | Timsta....likewise,you forgot a really good Rebel yell.... |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 09:06 pm | | Howard:
I don't drink bourbon much. More of a tequila hound.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 11:08 pm | | What low men post here. They can't even imagine the light they see by.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 11:18 pm | | | Thanks for the acknowledgement,Dave. Do you make house calls to the Philadelphia area for accounting work ? |
Author: Goryboy
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 11:58 am | | All:
Many thanks for the replies, and please forgive my repeated misspelling of Kosminski (erroneously typed as "Kosminksi;" I was in a hurry, dash it. Next time I shall be more clever and take all with me--all!)
Au revoire,
Sir Jim |
|
|
|
|
