|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14 May 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Kosminski, Aaron:
Archive through 14 May 2001
Author: Jack D. Killian
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 04:31 pm |        | All,
If the assumption is taken that Kosminsky is JTR; does anyone have ideas or evidence which can explain why the MO with the five canonical victims stopped after Nov 1888? Why would AK stop since he was was largely still on the streets until his "first attack" brought him to the attention of the police two and one half years later in July 1891?
Is there evidence, which supports or weakens, the possibility that JTR could have been the perpetrator in Alice McKenzie's murder on 7/16/89?
Regards,
JDK |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 05:51 pm | | Hi Melvin,
In your posting of 4 June 2000, you cited from your book; "...the main police suspects have been sadly misdirected. The police were never looking for a serial sexual murderer, they were hunting for their imaginary homicidal lunatic"
Does Aaron Kosminsky fit into the group of "main police suspects"?
Cheers,
JDK |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 06:38 am | | Hi Jack,
Your point about Kosminski's harmless presence on the streets for two years after MJK's murder is sound and, coupled with his non-violent medical records, determined my original decision when I found him that he couldn't possibly be Jack the Ripper and there was no need for me to displace my candidate David Cohen from the lead position of 'most probable' Anderson suspect. The same thinking is what converted John Douglas from Kosminski to Cohen as soon as he learned of the latter's existence.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 12:43 pm | | Martin,
I appreciate your feedback. I really do need to read your book on the subject and learn about Cohen. The whole Kaminsky/Kosminsky/Cohen issue makes my befuddled brain tired just thinking about it. The alluring aspect of putting the finger on Kosminsky is the schizoid break which was possibly beginning to escalate around the summer/fall of 1888. Who knows what the halucinatory voices were "guiding" him to do. He may have been getting "pushed" to do unusual actions not normally part of his sloitary, harmless demeanor.
In any case, I'm off to read up on Cohen.
Cheers,
JDK |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 04:08 pm | | Jack,
If you think you're befuddled now, wait until you hit Chapter 20 (page 209) of Mr. Fido's "The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper."
Mr. Fido's brain is running at about warp factor eight in these pages, I'd reckon. I hadn't been that scared since I had to write my PhD comp exams.
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 06:39 am | | Apologies to all for the difficulty of Chapter 20 of 'The Crimes, Detection and Death...' The version printed in the hardback first edition was an emergency rush rewrite after the publishers had given me just one week to make the necessary total revision consequent on my finding that there really was a Kosminski in Colney Hatch. The paperback edition (whose pagination David cites), while updating slightly to take into account the discovery of the Swanson marginalia, had to follow as much of the earlier version as possible to avoid my again having to pay the printers' costs of resetting. Jack will find the whole case made much more clearly and simply, I hope, in Maxim Jakubovski and Nathan Braund's 'The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper' (Robinson Publishing, London, 1999).
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 12:35 pm | | Martin,
What I'm talking about concerning Chapter 20 is good ol' intellectual intimidation, and nothing for which you need to apologize. I seek out people smarter than I, because those are the ones from whom I learn the most.
Incidentally, I was looking right at your hardbound edition.
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 09:05 am | | Sorry, David: I thought you were referring to the whole chapter from the beginning, which is on p.209 in the paperback and 207 in the hardback.
Martin F |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 11:26 pm | | I saw a recent post from Viper that there was a Kosminski, one Maurice, aged 28, a baker at 70 Brener Street in the 1891 census. Since the 1891 census was released in April of that year, but probably complied in late 1890, I wonder what significance this may have to the possible date of the identification of the Kosminski suspect. I draw a possible connection to a tid-bit unearthered by Nick Connell in Ripperana no. 27 (1997), p. 22: The Pelican, the house journal of the Cafe Royal, 68 Regent Street, London W. (May 1908) advertises Martin Kosminski's services as "established over 40 years", manufacturing furriers of 50 Brener's Street, Oxford Street, London W."
(Not to imply Maurice was the Kosminski suspect).
This appears to be a West London address, but I can't be sure. Could this address be the same Brener Street of the East End? Any input would be appreciated. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 04:18 am | | Hi Scott
It was Berner Street, off Oxford Street, not the Berner Street in the East End, and furrier Martin Kosminski has been looked at quite closely, the more so because Joseph Hyam Levy stood witness for him in his application for naturalisation.
Morris, sometimes Maurice, was the son of Barnet and Rachel Kosminski and was born 19 September 1863 in Wattan, Kalisch, Poland. He arrived in Britain in 1884. By December 1889 he was living at 70 Berner Street and stayed there until 10th January 1895, when he moved to 36 Christian Street. He had a wife called Rebecca (nee Rosenberg), a son named Israel (b.1888) and a daughter named Betsy or Becky. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 05:53 am | | And a real pedantic purist's unnecessary correction: Berners Sreet off Oxford Street has a final -s at the end. Berner Street, (now Henriques Street) off Commercial Road, doesn't.
Please may have this year's Stephen Knight prize for the ponciest piece of unnecessary topographical spelling correction masquerading as scholarship?
Martin Fido |
Author: Scott Nelson
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 02:43 pm | | | Thank you Paul and thank you (?) Martin. |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 04:26 pm | | I worked in the West End Berners St. in the late 70's and it was still very much a Jewish 'rag trade' area even then.
Steve S. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 08:46 pm | | Hi, Martin & Stephen:
Martin, if anyone would, I thought you might know the answer to this. Does the West End Berners Street have any connection with Gerald Hugh Tyrwhitt-Wilson, Lord Berners, the famous eccentric, painter, composer, and dilettante, subject of the book by Mark Amory, Lord Berners: The Last Eccentric? I think it might be stretching things to think the East End "Berner Street" without the ending "s" might also have a connection to the blue-blooded Berners family, but it conceivably could. What do you think?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 07:11 am | | Chris - Only if he was related to William Berners, the Suffolk landowner who held an estate in the angle now formed by Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road. (My source is Barker and Jackson's 'History of London in Maps').
I agree with you that Lord Berners was a fascinating multi-talented figure.
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 09:02 am | | Hi, Martin:
Thanks for elucidating the origin of the name of the Berners Street in the West End. You appear to have a good working knowledge of the origin of London street names and of the early landowners who contributed their names to the topography of London. I appreciate your help.
Chris |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 09:26 am | | Not much knowledge, Chris: just a useful reference book within immediate reach of my desk!
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 11:43 am | | Hi, Martin:
Still, you knew where to look for the information!  Might I enquire what the reference book is?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 11:56 am | | Chris!!! You'll make me as rude as I've been accusing Another of being! I scrupulously cite my source in my original posting, and then you ask for it!
'Tis Felix Barker and Peter Jackson's 'The History of London in Maps', Guild Publishing, London, 1990.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 12:14 pm | | Hi, Martin:
I must plead guilty that my eyes completely skated over the first reference you made to the source where you obtained the derivation of the name of Berners Street in the West End. You were indeed scrupulous in giving me the source in your earlier post, and thanks for pointing out my gross ignorance in not picking up on what you said the first time. Now, isn't it nice to have some enlightening discourse and politeness instead of the browbeating and ugly accusations elsewhere on these boards? 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 12:37 pm | | | In an effort to seize from Martin the Stephen Knight prize for the ponciest piece of unnecessary topographical correction masquerading as scholarship, may I point out that Berners Street was laid out on land acquired by Josias Berners of Woolverstone Hall in Suffolk in 1654 and was developed by his descendant William Berners, building beginning in 1746, becoming part of Marylebone's artistic community, Samuel Taylor Coleridge lodging there from 1812-1816, and it was to no.54 that Theodore Hook sent all manner of unwanted goods inwhat became known as The Berners Street Hoax. The source of this information is my own profound knowledge of London and otherwise from the 27th word onwards on the excellent "The London Encyclopedia" edited by Ben Weireb and Christopher Hibbert (London: Macmillan, 1987) |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 12:51 pm | | Sorry, Paul. You lose. Correcting the presence or absence of the final -s in Berner Street is indeed prizeworthy ponciness. Giving detailed and useful information correcting a misleading impression I left is not.
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 12:58 pm | | Thanks, Paul! I shall have to look up the references that you and Martin have cited.
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 01:20 pm | | | Martin - rats! I'll try harder next time. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Gentlemen,
Is this a**-kicking for real? How real is it? When Martin kicks my a**, I feel I must have it coming, or else I wouldn't be so treated. My execrable Italian, and so on.
I fear I've lost sight of the whole paradigm here. Does this constitute real line-drawing in the sand? How can I write about the case if I simply cannot fathom the Englishman?
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:26 pm | | David - To which application of toecap to buttocks do you refer?
Martin |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 05:28 am | | Martin, you're not helping.
David, if you cannot fathom the Englishman (and when he is being playfully mischievous), perhaps someone ought to start an appropriate college course. When you graduate from that one, you qualify for the Fathoming the Englishwoman course - naturally the certificate for this one tends to be delivered posthumously. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 01:59 pm | | Caz,
What that means to me:
Both the Englishman and the Englishwoman are playfully mischievous. Where the Englishman is so to a puerile and largely harmless extent, the Englishwoman is so to an evil and deadly extent. The two lead the foreigner into a game whereby the rules require the foreigner to determine the sublime nature of English playful mischeivousness. While the foreigner is so occupied the Englishman is toying with him, having a laugh, and taking advantage of him in anyway possible; where the Englishwoman is repeatedly stinging him with a deadly venom. In the end, the foreigner accomplishes the goal of understanding the English psyche by being thoroughly taken advantage of by the English, and so dying.
Come to think of it, isn't this what happened to the Chinese people back in empire days?
David |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 03:50 pm | | | How dare you say that my playful michievousness is puerile. It isn't, it isn't, it isn't, so there. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 04:43 am | | Hi David,
That would certainly explain why such a huge proportion of Americans don't have a passport.
Thank God for the internet then. I can still get you all into my parlour and tickle you to death after Paul has had his own idea of fun. So there.  
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 09:59 am | | Hi, Caz:
I suggest you start David off with the comfy chair. 
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 05:02 pm | | Hi Chris,
Start David off?
How would you suggest I stop him once I get him started? 
I think he misconstrued my 'posthumous' remark. I merely meant that it would probably take more than a lifetime to figure out an Englishwoman.
Love,
Caz |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 10:27 pm | | Caz,
Once you got me started, BELIEVE ME, you would not want to stop me. Women I've known after I'd satisfied their curiosity whether my hair was red all over, next often remarked I shouldn't be let out on the streets.
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 04:03 am | | Hi David,
I always think one should be very wary of believing anyone with red hair, whether it's natural or not. (Sorry, but all women are not that curious )
A very commendable effort, though, at getting back on topic. I imagine the women of Whitechapel would have made similar remarks about Kosminski being kept off the streets.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 08:48 pm | | So we have Morris, a.k.a. Maurice Kosminsky, born 1863 living on Berners Street.
We have Martin Kosminsky the West end furrier, whom witness Joseph Levy sponsored for immigration.
We have Aaron Kosminsky, born 1863-ish living on Sion Street.
And another Kosminsky family living on Goulston Street.
I wonder how unrelated all these Kosminskys could be? Makes me speculate if Joseph Levy recognized the suspect he encountered as a relative of Martin Kosminsky's.
Does anyone know if Aaron, or any other Kosminsky, ever worked or lived in Butcher's Row? CP Robert Sager referred to the "Butcher's Row Suspect."
JDK |
Author: David Savitsky
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 12:10 am | | Hello.
I am new to the site (this is my first post) but consider myself an avid JTR hobbyist. I hope the questions I am about to ask have not been discussed recently. I did a search of the board but came-up with nothing that overlaps my questions.
The first, is it a 'definitely ascertained fact' that Aaron Kosminski's brother was named Woolf Kosminski? In other words, is it possible that his brother had the surname Woolf?
Second, is there any evidence that Aaron had a brother with the first name letter M?
Thank you in advance for your response.
-animus |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 06:18 am | | Welcome to the boards, David.
Wolf Kosminski's forename is confirmed by the asylum records noting him as Aaron's next of kin.
The Kosminsky family was very thoroughly researched by Paul Begg at one time. I remember there were sisters as well as Wolf, but can't recall whether there was another brother or not.
All the best
Martin Fido |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 06:45 am | | Hi Jack,
in my extended trawl, I notice that you asked another question that has never, as far as I know, been answered, thus:
"Hi Melvin,
"In your posting of 4 June 2000, you cited from your book; "...the main police suspects have been sadly misdirected. The police were never looking for a serial sexual murderer, they were hunting for their imaginary homicidal lunatic"
"Does Aaron Kosminsky fit into the group of "main police suspects"?
"Cheers,
"JDK"
Now, I can't answer for Melvin's opinion on your final question. But as far as the lead-in goes, it is obviously true to say that 'the police' were not consciously looking for 'a sexual serial killer' as the term didn't exist at the time, and even some doctors were unaware of the possibility since one of the medical journals proposed the extraordinary theory that the series was possibly perpetrated by a burglar killing witnesses who saw him casing joints!
But Anderson and Macnaghten both suggested that it was obvious that the murders were the work of a 'sex maniac' which was probably as close as they could come, linguistically, to our modern concept.
On the other hand, the generalisation, 'the police thought' doesn't give a very clear picture of the investigation, since different officers thought all sorts of different things. Warren, according to his grandson, believed by the time of his death, that the Ripper was a doctor, probably Russian, who committed suicide. (This sounds like a garbling together of two of Macnaghten's three suspects). Monro said at one time that he had a very decided theory founded on facts, and at another that the Ripper should have been caught, and it was 'a very hot potato'. We don't know what all this means in terms of suspects. Anderson thought the Ripper was a local poor Polish Jew who was sent to an asylum and then positively identified by a witness who had definitely seen the Ripper. Swanson thought Anderson's suspect was Kosminski, though his description of him contains erroneous elements which actually fit the only asylum inmate who both matches Anderson's description and was incarceratd at the appropriate time for the cessation of the murders (David Cohen). Littlechild was dismissive of Anderson's confidence, and thought Tumblety was a very promising suspect. But he had never heard of 'Dr D', which may mean that he had never heard of Druitt, whom Macnaghten wrongly thought to have been a doctor. (We don't know whether Littlechild's correspondent Sims actually wrote 'Dr D' thus misleading anybody who had heard of Druitt but knew he wasn't a doctor, or whether he actually wrote out the whole name, which would indicate that Littlechild wasn't privy to Macnaghten's thinking). Macnaghten thought there were three final suspects: Druitt, Kosminsky and Ostrog, of whom he personally concluded that Druitt was the probable Ripper. Assuming that Sims and Griffiths took their information from him (as they follow his triumvirate), he also thought this shortlist had been refined down from a list of seven. Abberline thought nobody had any real idea, and the theories bandied around in Scotland Yard amounted to nothing. He also, however, believed that the motive was theft of the women's wombs for sale to an American doctor carrying out medical research. So he, at least, didn't go for either the sex maniac or the homicidal lunatic explanation. After Chapman/Klosowski's arrest he concluded that he had been the Ripper. Moore thought no one knew. Leeson thought a certain doctor who was always found near the vicinity of the crimes had some explaining to do. Inspector Keaton thought it might be a Dr Cohn or Koch - (the difficulty is hearing the name he gives on a muffled taped interview). Spicer thought it was the doctor - (maybe a medical student) - he found in a court of Heneage Street with prostitute 'Rosie'. White is alleged to have thought it was a well dressed man with a musical voice. And that's only the known police opinions from the Met! The City had further suspects!
You can easily see why, for a long time, Ripper historians felt justified in writing off 'the police' as being at sixes and sevens, leaving the historians free to pick any suspect they chose out of a hat. The selection of Anderson's opinion as the most satisfactory emerges from a careful study of the characters and personalities of the various police officers putting forward opinions, assessing their general reliability and actual proximity to the investigation. It does not (as you might think from some postings on other boards) arise from any predetermined notion that the Ripper was Jewish - which would in itself be an absurd conclusion to reach without some evidence. And to the best of my knowledge, Paul Begg and I, independently, are the only people who have ever conducted such an assessment at the same time as assessing the equal possible reliability of early journalists or cited theorists (like Dr Dutton) without any prior opinion or axe to grind. Philip Sugden, for example, who certainly had no axe to grind, still did not make the sort of detailed examination of the histories, characters and personalities of the senior police that Paul and I had done. It wasn't a part of the brief he set himself: to examine and present the history of the murders, not the investigation, from a complete re-examination of more primary sources than anybody else had consulted.
I hope this doesn't leave you more confused than you were when you started!
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 07:57 am | | And, going right back to the earliest archives (which I accidentally missed):
Several serious and sensible people queried the Swanson marginalia, thinking they emerged suspiciously aptly in time for the centenary, and wondering how good their provenance was. Paul Begg answered perfectly accurately that none of us who have met Jim Swanson doubt him for a moment, and added that he himself had sent facsimiles to be compared with Swanson's certain handwriting by Dick Totty, who confirmed they were one and the same. I would only add that the marginalia were not produced as a money-making venture for the centenary. Jim and his brother had found them ten years or more earlier when they inherited their grandfather's books from their aunt, and they then sent the material to what seemed to them the paper most likely to be interested in serial murder - the News of the World - which paid them £75 for it. And then made no use of it at all. From then on, Jim considered himself bound by having accepted that payment, and did not feel he could make anything public until the News of the World had taken its pound of flesh. But when the publication of new books on the Ripper in 1987-88 suggested that the experts were still at sixes and sevens, he contacted the N o W again, and they told him he could do what he liked with his material. So he sent it to his own preferred newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, and did not ask or receive any mney for it. As Paul said, the provenance of the Swanson marginalia is impeccable.
Peter Birchwood asked four years ago about Pizer family data, and received from Paul 1891 census data. It may be of interest, Peter, to know that collateral descendants called Pizer still exist, and know, hazily, that some one in the family 'was said to be Jack the Ripper'. One of the descendants of one of the Nathan Kaminskys I traced happened to be friendly with a Pizer, and on their telling him that they were in contact with a researcher who was looking into their ancestor and a Pizer from Whitechapel in the same period, he immediately replied, 'Oh, you mean Jack the Ripper!' But he didn't know anything more.
Guy, on your excellent (long past) point on Anderson's possible extravagance, let it always be firmly remembered that I have said from the very outset, 'Anderson could have been wrong. He was always opinionated.' My words were the result of a very careful study of his character and personality, going beyond merely reading his words on the Ripper. Nevertheless it left me with no doubt that he is more likely to have been right than any other person claiming to have a good idea who the Ripper was. Nor has any of the recent new information about him - that Warren and not he composed the memo putting Swanson i/c the case, for example - shown any reason for me to change my mind. Littlechild's firm questioning of Anderson's belief constitutes the strongest challenge, but we have no idea what Littlechild based it on, nor, indeed, what relations between Littlechild and Anderson were, (as we know relations between Macnaghten and Anderson were bad and relations between Swanson and Anderson were good), nor how much Littlechild knew about the case at all. 'More likely', as has been stressed on another board, does not mean 'absolutely likely'. So Anderson's testimony does nothing to undermine anyone who feels the mystery remains utterly mysterious. But it does put at a discount any claims resting on the preferred testimony of other historical witnesses in the present state of knowledge. And, given the manifest plausibility of the suspect, it justifies the claim of the general likelihood of David Cohen's being the Ripper.
Finally, the complete track through the board shows quite clearly that nobody who has commented has attempted to replicate my work with the asylum records. Nobody else, not even Paul Begg, has ever attempted to go through all the inmates looking for one who fitted Anderson's description, without reference to Kosminsky. Everyone's observations on the relative merits of different inmates is dependent on secondary sources. And I'd have to say that this means there's a lot of whistling in the dark put forward as supposed criticism of the theory.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 09:22 pm | | Dear Martin,
Has anybody ever looked into the following:
Any medical work of importance or great popularity, published between 1891 and 1901, about
diseases of the vagina or the study of gynacology,
that had an author of either United States or
Canadian background?
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
