|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:27 am: |       |
I have posted an essay regarding Aaron Kosminski as a JTR suspect.
Click Here to read the article.
I look forward to hearing feedback on this, and hope it may generate some lively debate.
Robert House |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3114
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Excellent article, Robert - thanks for sharing it with us!
With Robert's permission, we've now reprinted the article on the Casebook at:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/robhouse-kosminski.html
(Message edited by admin on June 02, 2004)
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
Robert
Thank you for posting that very interesting essay.
A had a couple of queries:
(1) I'm still a bit confused about Kosminski's mother. A few weeks ago Chris Scott posted details from the 1901 census showing "Colda Abrahams" living in Morris's household then. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find that post when I last looked - I wonder if it got lost in the change of servers? - and haven't taken a note of the address.
Was Colda also with the same family in 1891? The census entry for 63 New Street, New Road, was illustrated in Scott Nelson's Ripperologist article on "Kosminski's Family", but unfortunately the illustration isn't included in the version of the article on this website.
(2) I found the summary of the historical position of Polish Jews very helpful. One detail that puzzles me a bit is that Aaron is described as speaking mainly in German in the asylum (if I remember correctly).
If this is correct, does it give us a clue as to where the family came from? I wondered whether it might indicate a western region, such as Kalisz, where the other London Kosminskis came from. However, looking at a map showing the distribution of languages in the 19th century (in the Times Atlas of World History), there is no indication of German speaking areas in Russian territory (except a mixed region in Lithuania). Or could it be explained by an earlier eastward movement of German-speaking Jews? Or is it just a mistake, and did Aaron speak Polish?
Chris Phillips
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Chris,
I admit I do not have an answer to your second question.
As for Aaron's mother, she is listed in the 1891 census at 63 New St with the Lubnowski family. I also am basing much of this on the same article by Scott Nelson.
I agree that it would be helpful if someone could post the images referred to in that article, ie. scans of the census records. I do not have a copy of the Ripperologist article. But I do seem to remember that someone posted images of the census records somewhere on the message boards, I just can't remember where...
Rob House |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Robert and Chris,
I will send Stephen the census images to see if he can append them to the article. BTW, a very good perspective Robert. Aaron's mother is NOT listed in the 1891 census as residing with the "L. Cohens" My speculation was that either the mother 1) joined them in London between 1891 and 1894 (Golda Abrahams appears up in the 1901 Lubnowski census return), 2) Matilda identified herself as Aaron's mother, or 3) a family relative simply answered the question put to them by the Asylum as to who was Aaron's next of kin (with the rejoinder that the mother was still in Poland, but that the address (of Matilda) was recorded as 63 New Street in the anticipation that the mother would soon join them.) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Scott
Thanks for that information.
I found Chris Scott's information on Kosminski's mother very interesting, and I wonder whether you or he (or anyone else) have plans to follow it up.
Looking for a death registration shouldn't be too difficult, and if she left a will - perhaps not out of the question - it could be very informative. If she could be located elsewhere in the 1891 census, it could be equally interesting. I know Ancestry.com has been indexing this (and I think Chris is familiar with their index).
In Kosminski's case it seems to me this is of more than academic interest, for a couple of reasons. There's the reference to his brother Wolf, who seems to be really his brother-in-law, but if his mother is called Abrahams, is it possible that Wolf is also his step-brother? Likewise the reference in the Swanson Marginalia to "his brother's house".
Also if C/Golda were already in England in 1891, it might point towards another alternative abode for Aaron at the time of the murders.
Also I reckon that Stephen Ryder's discovery of a letter to Sir Robert Anderson from the Earl of Crawford, concerning an unnamed woman who thought the murderer was nearly related to her - and who was afraid of suspicions placing "her & her family in peril" - could fit a relation of Kosminski better than a relation of Druitt.
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-emily.html
I've also wondered whether anyone has tried to pursue the Kosminski genealogy in Polish sources. No doubt you've seen this website:
http://www.jewishgen.org/jri-pl/
As someone who knows nothing about either Polish or Jewish genealogy, I thought it looked as though fairly detailed knowledge of the place of origin was necessary (until the coverage of the indexes increases). But perhaps something could be done with Martin Kosminski et al, whose place of origin in Kalisz is known, and maybe it could be clarified whether or not they were related to Aaron's family.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
Scott,
I would appreciate that very much. It would be very helpful to have the pictures of those Census records.
I am glad you liked the article. By the way, any input on this from you will be very helpful, as I based a lot of my assumptions on your essays anyways. I found the essays to be very well written and crammed with information and insight. I actually read through each essay about 4 or 5 times.
I think there are a lot of potential avenues for research that are open, for example tracking down the Polish geneaology as Chris mentions. Or the death records. It is likely that the descendents of the Lubnowskis and the Abrahams are out there somewhere, and who knows what they might have... Photos even?
It seems confusing why Aaron's mother is named Abrahams. Maybe she adopted that name after moving in with the family?
I am going to start digging and see if I can come up with anything else.
Rob H
(Message edited by robhouse on June 02, 2004) |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
Chris and Robert,I will shortly have a piece out in the May Rip that address some of the questions above, but as I've said before, it will offer nothing "concrete." |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 7:45 pm: | |
Hi Robert
Great article and I look forward to some very detailed reading of it!
You said in one reply:
As for Aaron's mother, she is listed in the 1891 census at 63 New St with the Lubnowski family.
The listing for 63 New Street for 1891 lists:
Morris L Cohen aged 33
Matilda L Cohen aged 35
Children:
Joseph aged 11
Bertha aged 9
Annie aged 7
Samuel aged 4
Jane aged 2
Milly and Woolf aged 3 weeks
There is no listing for Kosminki's mother (see below)
All the best
Chris
 |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Chris,
Thanks very much. This is very helpful. I will update the essay, and also the image of the family tree. I don't know where I got the idea that Aaron's mother was on that Census entry.
Rob |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Chris Scott,
By the way, on which board did you post discussion concerning Colda Abrahams? And what is your take on her? Do you believe she was Aaron's mother?
Robert House
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:29 pm: | |
I wonder if maybe the reason that the asylum records werent right was that Kosminski was admitted under a pseudonym or maybe the records were changed later.
The Jews were terrified of another pogrom. Warren's action in erasing the graffito indicates that he also saw it as a real possibility.
Now suppose you've caught JTR and he is Jewish and you dont want a riot. So you have him quietly put away at an asylum, maybe under an assumed name or maybe you alter the records after a few years just to muddy the waters. After all he wasnt fit to stand trial.
It certainly would be the same kind of thing that was done with the graffito, only on a grander scale. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1240
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Hi Robert
I also cannot find the original message! I am posting again below the 1901 Lubnowski entry and the enlargement of the entry for Colda Abrahams. The head of household was Morris Lubnowski and Colda Abrahams, under relationship to head of household, is described as "wife's mother" i.e. the mother of Matilda Lubnowski née Kosminki. If Matilda and Aaron were full blooded siblings then Colda must have been Aaron's mother also
Chris
PS I'm still pretty convinced that her name was probable Golda, a relatively common Jewish female name at the time, rather than Colda.
PPS I should have added that the address for the Lubnowski household in 1901 was 64 Wellesley Street, London
(Message edited by Chris on June 03, 2004)
(Message edited by Chris on June 03, 2004) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
Interesting to note in the Lubnowski family list above that the place of birth of the children enables us to narrow down when the family came to England. The eldest child, Bertha, aged 19 in 1901, is listed as born in Germany - this would in or about 1882. The next eldest, Annie, aged 17 in 1901 (i.e. born in or about 1884) is listed as born in Spitalfields.
Chris |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Isn't it also interesting that the children aged between 10 and 17 are said to have been born in Spitalfields, and only the younger ones (7 and less) in Mile End?
Scott's essay has the family at Greenfield Street (Mile End Old Town) in December 1885 and December 1888, but by the 1891 census they are at New Street (also Mile End Old Town).
The change between Spitalfields and Mile End in the children's places of birth seems to correspond to the move from Greenfield St to New St, but why describe Greenfield St as Spitalfields?
Chris Phillips
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
Actually, I believe Bertha was born in late 1881. In one of Scott Nelson's articles, he refers to a Lubnowski Naturalization document that is dated 1881, so it seems they were in England by then.
I believe the Abrahams family moved as a result of the police surveillance referred to by McNaughton.
Also, I notice that next to Golda's name is says "Wid" or widow. So this means that Aaron's father was dead before 1901 anyways.
I have emailed Stephen to update the article with some of these bits of info that you guys have contributed. I had some errors in there, and I hope they are all gone now. But they probably arent.
Also, as far as the letter Stephen discovered. I agree with Chris Phillips idea.... it seems to me that the woman could be one of Aaron's sisters. It fits pretty perfectly actually.
Rob H |
d g cornelius
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:35 pm: | |
Regarding Kosminski's purported use of German in the asylum:
There were indeed numerous areas in Russia with large German-speaking populations, but generally not Jewish. Kosminski more likely was speaking in Yiddish, which is closely related to and easily confused with German.
Respex,
d g cornelius |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1242
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
To any continuing the 1891 search for Kosminski's mother, there is an added complication (Isn't there always??)
The manual index for 1901 lists her name as Edda Abrahams. The name Edda did indeed exist - there are 66 records of it in the 1891 index. The other possible rendering, allowing for the L in the name is ELDA, of which there are 141 occurrences in the 1891 data.
However if you look at the Lubnowski listing above, the name above the supposed Edda reading is ESTHER. Comparing the capital E of Esther with the name below it, I find the reading of Edda to be unconvincing.
Chris |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
d g cornelius
Thanks for the explanation. It seems so obvious now that you've pointed it out!
Chris Phillips
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Robert,
According to your dissertation, on 7/12/90 Aaron was "Admitted to Mile End Town Workhouse Infirmary" by "Wolf" (sic) Abrahams." I believe the admission papers indicated "Wolf Kosminski" not Abrahams. I don't think there is a reason to believe that Woolf Abrahams necessarily was the person admitting him. It could have been Morris Lubnowski, Isaacs Kosminski or someone else as well as Abrahams, using a pseudonymn to throw suspicions onto another person.
Also, you say on 2/4/91 Aaron was "Re-admitted to Mile End Town Workhouse Infirmary (from 16 Greenfield Street) again by his "brother" Woolf." This was of course the address of the Lubnowski family. How does the admission certificate read with respect to the person admitting?
Thank you.
David
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 10:34 pm: | |
David,
I have to admit that I am basing certain assumptions in the dissertation on secondary sources, some of which are posted on casebook. I am not basing them on the primary sources (ie the actual Workhouse records) because I have not seen them, nor have I seen copies of them.
The admission to the Workhouse by Woolf Abrahams is based on Scott Nelson's dissertation "Kosminski's Relatives". Also, Stewart Evans asserts that Woolf is Aaron's brohter-in-law in the article "Kosminski and the Seaside Home."
In Sugden's book, he says that Aaron "was admitted from 3 Sion Square, the home of Woolf Abrahams, his brother-in-law... Three days later he was discharged into the care of his 'brother'. The 'brother' referred to was probably Woolf Abrahams".
It would be certainly worthwhile for someone to post the the actual text of the Workhouse records in their entirety, so as to clear up any confusion. It is probably not a good idea to be putting things out as facts when they may actually be assumptions. I would guess Scott Nelson might have this information.
Do you have access to these primary sources David?
By the way, if anyone is going to read the article above, please link to the version on my personal website at http://www.roberthouse.com/aaron1.html for the time being. There were a few small errors that were pointed out to me that I corrected, (such as the 1901 residential address of the Lubnowski family). I think Stephen will eventually update the dissertation on Casebook, but as of now the link above is the most up-to-date, correct version.
Thanks.
Rob House |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Robert,
Just read your work.
Very good. I must admit, the Polish connection makes my head hurt and your essay brings a little light to my darkness.
Just one or two things though.....and yes, I know, Im being extraordinarily picky....sorry.
The apron deposit indicates a move north east and terminates a Goulston st. There is no turn eastwards (into Wentworth) as indicated on your map. For what its worth I personally feel you are right to think this but the fact remains the trail ends on Goulston St.
I also query Tabram as the first attack. I feel we should be looking at Millwood and Wilson. This would obviously counteract the 'Marauder' idea (with the 1st strike being closest to home). I feel he was a 'Commuter' because I see assaults elsewhere at the beginning of these crimes and then branching out to Whitechapel because, as you have mentioned, the availability of prostitutes in that area.
Of course, these are just my views and I am not for one minute disputing yours. I cannot. I just would like to add a slightly different angle.
Interesting work mate, well done.
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Monty,
Thanks for the reply. I am hoping to get the ball rolling in this thread, so any input is welcome.
I feel that I am handicapped by not having a great map, as the one I am using does not clearly show the streets, and is also outdated by about 35 years (it is from the 1850s). I am hoping to get a copy of the 1891(?) ordinance map of the area.
In any case, it has been established that the location of the apron indicates that he turned North after entering Goulston Street , correct? You are right in saying that I probably went too far in indicating a turn east on Wentworth street, but I guess I was just trying to indicate a logical escape route based on the Sion Square address.
Incidentally, this route seems to make more sense than the other option, which would have been to cross Aldgate High Street and proceed east via Minories or some variation. I am basing this assumption on the idea that the dark streets of Spitalfields were the Ripper's "comfort zone".
Incidentally, I agree with your saying we should look at Millwood and possibly others.
My theory with Aaron as the Ripper is that he started out by accosting women closer to his home, in the vicinity directly north of Sion Square, on the other side of Whitechapel Road, then later began travelling farther away from home. That places the 3 (possible) earliest attacks in a swath that is just north of Whitechapel Road: George Yard, Whites Row, and Buck's Row. (see image below, early hunt area is in red)
This type of spatial pattern may be explained in a sense by something I touched on in the article called a "psychological barrier". I believe, in Aaron's mind, Whitechapel Road/Whitechapel High Street may have been a psychological barrier.... in other words that he felt most comfortable in hunting north of it. It is interesting to note that these early attacks all occurred just barely north of this road. Then later, as he became more confident(?), he goes further away from home, and deeper into Spitalfields.
So this does, in a sense fit the Commuter theory I think.
Rob
|
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 16
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 1:51 am: | |
Hi Robert,
There's a 1898-1899 online map of the area which you can zoom into. I hope this can be of help.
180400,6,large,5,http://booth.lse.ac.uk/cgi-bin/do.pl?sub=view_booth_and_barth&args=531000,180400,6,large,5
Nina |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Let me see if I can set the record straight on Aaron's relations during his Workhouse stays and asylum confinement. In both editions of Sugden's book, the sequence is ambiguously described.
1) On July 12, 1890, Aaron was admitted to the Mile End Old Town Workhouse Infirmary from no.3 Sion Square. His "brother," "Woolf" was recorded as certifying the entry.
2) On July 15, 1890, Aaron was discharged into the care of an unnamed "brother" whose address was recorded as no. 16 Greenfield Street.
3) On February 4, 1891 Aaron was returned to the Mile End Old Town Workhouse from no. 16 Greenfield. Who brought him in is not recorded (my personal belief is that it may have been the police)
4) On February 7, 1891, Aaron was admitted to the Colney Hatch Asylum. The Register states that Aaron's nearest known relative was "Woolf Kosminski" of no. 8 Sion Square.
As can been seen from the above, the picture is somewhat muddled as to who Aaron was staying with when he was at liberty, and where, exactly was he living. Consider these implications:
Aaron's brother-in-law, Morris Lubnowski, and his family lived at no. 16 Greenfield Street from 1885 to sometime in early 1890, when they then move to no. 63 New Street, New Road. The question is, who, if anyone, lived at no. 16 Greenfield Street between the time the Lubnowskis left, and until April 1891, when the address is recorded as uninhabited?
Was there actually a "brother," Woolf Kosminski, who lived briefly with Aaron at no. 16 Greenfield Street until prior to Aaron's being brought back to the Workhouse? Woolf could have left the Greenfield St. address sometime in late 1890 and moved to no. 8 Sion Square, leaving Aaron on his own. The April 1891 census shows that an unrelated family was living no. 8 Sion Square, so Woolf Kosminski, if he was actually present in London at the time, may have moved prior to the April census. Interestingly, Woolf K-something-ski, a married tailor, was living at no. 9 Batty Gardens in the 1891 census. But there is no further information on this man.
There is also the possibility that the Sion Square number "8" is actually a "3", making the "brother" (in-law) Woolf Abrahams.
With regard to the possibility of Aaron Kosminski living on his own at no. 16 Greenfield St., we could recall the description (of Kosminski) by the journalist George Sims, who wrote that he "was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall."
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
Hello Scott,
A few questions for you:
Does the Feb 7 1891 admission Register actually read "Woolf Kosminski" or is it just "Wolf"? Because I am referring to your article "Kosminski's Relatives", where you say:
"The admission register records his nearest known relative as his brother "Wolf" of 8 Sion Square. It is certain that the '8' is a misreading of '3' because the Census records a Greenwald family residing at no. 8".
This seemed to me from your previous article that it was pretty clear that this was referring to Woolf Abrahams.
Also when you say: "On July 12, 1890, Aaron was admitted to the Mile End Old Town Workhouse Infirmary from no.3 Sion Square." What exactly is meant by the word "from" in this context? Does that mean Aaron's RESIDENCE at that time was 3 Sion Square?
You say: "Morris Lubnowski, and his family lived at no. 16 Greenfield Street from 1885 to sometime in early 1890, when they then move to no. 63 New Street, New Road." How do you know that they made this move in early 1890? By saying "early 1890" do you mean before July 1890? What is the documentation that proves this?
Again to quote from your article"Kosminski's Relatives":
"on February 4, 1891, Aaron was readmitted to the workhouse from 16 Greenfield Street, again under the care of Woolf." From this, I inferred that you meant Woolf (Abrahams) brought Aaron to the workhouse. You now seem to be saying that is not the case.
Do you have copies of the Workhouse records that you are basing these claims on. I just want to be clear what it says in the actual documentation.
Thanks,
Rob |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Rob,
OK, Im happy with that. Its clearer to me now.
I understand that 'psychological barrier'. Its a territory thing isnt it ? An area which is known to him, which, as you say, is comfortable. I think we all can relate to that. I know I feel more relaxed drinking in certain areas than others.
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Robert,
The post I wrote above is based on the records. When I wrote the article a couple of years, ago I was relying primarily on published sources, so a couple of errors may have crept in. To answer your specific questions:
1) The full name of Woolf Kosminski appears on the Colney Hatch admissions register.
2) The problem is interpretation, it looks like an "8", but it could be a "3". If it is a "3", it looks like there was no brother, Woolf Kosminski, instead a brother in-law, Woolf Abrahams.
3) Aaron's address is uncertain, but it possible that he was staying with the Abrahams family at this time. The record refers to the brother, Woolf's address as no. 3 Sion Square. Woolf could have picked Aaron up from the streets and brought him to the Workhouse for all we know.
4) The early 1890 dates for the Lubnowski's move is based on a 1889 birth certificate for their daughter, Jane (who was 2 in the 1891 census), showing their address as 16 Greenfield St.
5) When Aaron was returned to the Workhouse on February 4, 1891, we don't know who brought him in. Yes, this was an error on my part. |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Correction to #4 above, the early 1890 Lubnowski move is based on the December 15, 1888 birth certificate for daughter Jane. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Scott
I don't quite follow that - how can you deduce a move in early 1890 from knowledge of where they lived in December 1888?
Chris Phillips
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Chris,
When I said the move was in early 1890, it was based on the error that Jane's birth (at 16 Greenfield St.) was in December 1889, not 1888. I should have gone back and checked my article more carefully. But then assuming further that there was no one, except possibly Aaron and his brother "Woolf Kosminski", living at that address in July 1890, this means that the Lubnowskis could have left in early 1890. But now, I admit that their move could have been anytime in 1889-90.
Sorry for the confusion here, but I don't think I've helped matters very much. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Scott
Thanks for the explanation.
Just another quick question - are there any surviving parish rate books or similar records, that might shed any light on the movements of the Kosminskis (or others for that matter)?
Chris Phillips
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 6:52 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I've tried to trace the movements of several Kosminskis by examination of Kellys Postal Directories. That is the best tool I know of for that purpose. The problem is, that unless a Kosminski was an employer, shop owner or prominent business person, like Martin Kosminski,they wouldn't necessarily show up in the various Directories. Take Aaron Kosminski. He didn't work, and he came to London in 1882, so he wouldn't show up in the 1881 census. Several Kosminskis that are listed in the 1891 census, bootmakers and tailors, are not listed at their postal address when reviewing the 1891 Directory for address in the census. This is because more often than not, these families shared the premise with other families, and if it was a shop, the proprietor was the only person listed.
(Message edited by snelson on June 07, 2004) |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 9:45 am: | |
Scott,
It seems to me that we have 2 pieces of documentation relating to this move: Jane's birth certificate, which puts the Lubnowski family at 16 Greenfield Street in 1888, and the census records of 1891, which has the Lubnowskis at New Street. It seems to me that the move could have occurred at any time between these 2 dates(?)
I had wondered if possibly the Lubnowskis moved from this address as a result of the embarrassment caused by the Police surveillance on that address. Also, if they left Aaron to live there alone, this would account for Sims statement of "a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall."
On another point, you say Aaron came to London in 1882, but earlier you mentioned a Lubnowski Naturalisation document dated 1881. It seems to me more likely that Aaron entered London with the Lubnowski and the Abrahams families in late 1881. Thus they would have missed the census anyways, and this would account for the child who is listed as being born in Germany, which was probably also in 1881.
Re "Wolf Kosminski"... if we take the address to be 3 Sion Square instead of 8, do you contend that this is a mistake in the entry, and this should have read "Woolf Abrahams"?
Rob |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Robert,
I know it all seems so confusing, but the little information we have can be interpreted in any number of ways. Realistically, the Lubnowski move could have occurred anytime after December 1888 and before the April 1891 census. We could consider the possibility that they were gone in June 1890 and that the unnamed brother into whose care Aaron was discharged was "Woolf Kosminski" of 16 Greenfield St. It's pretty remote I realize, and the most likely explanation is that it was Morris who took Aaron in to his house.
It's anyone's guess as to why the Lubnowski's moved when they did. If Aaron's brother "Woolf" had come to stay with them, and remained in the house after they moved, he likewise did not stick around very long (if we can believe that there actually was a "Woolf Kosminski" living at no. 8 Sion square in February 1891.)
Aaron's 1882 entry into London is based on his burial record (and I believe it was also on his headstone.) This is likely in error because if he came to London with his sisters and their families, which is far from certain, it had to have been in 1881, like the Naturalization Record says (also we know the Morris Lubnowski was living at no. 10 Plummers Row in 1881).
The most likely explanation on the Colney Hatch register is that the "8" is actually a "3".
If you care to, you can email me as this discussion is getting too lengthy. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
It seems to me that Anderson's account has to be read as implying that the police had, in their house-to-house search, eliminated men who lived alone, and had therefore deduced that he was a "low-class Jew", as people of that class would shield their own from "Gentile justice".
This seems to point to Anderson's suspect having lived with his family, rather than alone.
However, the argument doesn't really make sense if Kosminski and his family were living in either Sion Square or Greenfield Street, which lay outside the area covered by the house-to-house search.
But quite a lot of things about Anderson's argument don't make sense...
Chris Phillips
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 8:06 am: | |
Chris,
I had wondered if Sion Square might have fallen in the October search area. I realize it is a long shot, but it seems (from my map) that Sion Square was just on the southern border of the Whitechapel Road. In other words, there is a block of buildings which on the north side faced the Whitechapel Road, and on the south side faced Sion Square. I understand that the Whitechapel Road was the southern border of the search area, but is it possible that this was a loose definition of the actual search area, that the police would have searched buildings on the South side of that road as well. Again, I do not have a good map, so I do not know exactly how these buildings were laid out. Nor do I know exactly where 3 Sion Square was. But it still seems possible (though not probable) that this address was included in the search.
Rob H |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
Rob,
The Met search area, for those that do not know, was...
....The City boundary, Lamb Street, Commercial Street, Great Eastern Railway and Buxton Street, then by Albert Street, Dunk Street, Chicksand Street and Great Garden Street to Whitechapel Road and then to the City boundary.
I doubt very much that Sion sq was included in this search. Its a clearly defined area and Im sure that it wounldnt be would veered from. For me Whitechapel road (north and south side) was the limit southwards.
For what its worth, my view is that they (The Rossers) were looking for Leather arpon.
Incidentally, your views on Kosminski being Leather Apron.....possible ? If so then the Police were very close.....but no cigar !
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Monty,
I am sure you are probably right about the search area. As far as Aaron Kosminski being Leather Apron... I admit I do not know much about the Leather Apron angle. I never really looked into it, so I have to claim to be uninformed. I realize that some people seem to think that Pizer was not the "real" Leather Apron, but I admit I have never really understood the argument in favor of this. But please let me know what is your opinion on this?
By the way Monty, what do you think of my Aaron Kosminski theory in general? And who are your prefferred suspects? Are you a Barnett man?
RH |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Robert,
And who are your prefferred suspects?
Ah-haa, I do not disclose such information.
I think your Kosminski theory is very plausible. He has always been up there for me. In my early days he was a suspect who 'fits' my criteria and still does, I cannot shake him off. I would look at him closely. Infact, in the immortal words of John Grieve..."Id have him in for questioning". Im not saying Jack is Kosminski. I am saying I wouldnt be surprised if it was.
The guys I would look at along with Kosminski would be Stephenson, Cutbush, Buchan and another who, due to the fact I know someone is working on this person as we post, I cannot name but interests me greatly.
As for Leather Apron (not Pizer, the real Apron)). Well, I believe the Police were trying to snare this guy during the search. I believe they were working on a referral.....and I believe that Kosminksi may have been implicated in this whole Leather apron thing. Of course, no proof but they seem so closed minded in the way they didnt house to house any other areas. Why not ? The only conclusion I can reach is that they were working to their own agenda and set their own target. Basically, they were after someone they suspected of being the murderer who was living within that search area. Duh, obvious I know, but when you insert what we know about the residents and suspects living within or just on the border of that search area it kinda throws light in only one direction, doesnt it ?
All this is conjecture, I wont deny it, but seeing as out of the three contemperary suspects named by Macnaghten Kosminski is the only one commented on by another Police official involved does indicate to me that Kosminski (whichever Kosminski it was) is a serious contender.
But thats just my opinion.
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Robert
it is because you present your theory well and logically and are nice that there is not a barrage of (mainly insults) on the thread here as is on the A?R or should that be B?S thread!!
Your theory on Aaron while i do not necessarily agree with it is none the less rather well written and argued. I will give it some more thought on wednesday when my final exam is over!
Jennifer |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Thanks Jennifer,
I appreciate your comments, and any further thoughts you may have on this topic would be appreciated.
I admit, I was hoping there would have been a more lively debate on this thread. The more I think about it the more I am becoming convinced of the likelihood that Aaron Kosminski was JTR. I realize that is a bold statement, but it seems that everything fits. And as far as I can tell, that is not the case with any other suspect.
In my opinion, the traditional reasons for Aaron's being dismissed as a JTR suspect (ie. that he was a harmless, drooling imbecile etc) are essentially not valid... this includes Sugden et al.
Anyways, thanks for the comment.
Rob |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 886
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Thanks for your interesting article,Robert.An excellent read.
Problem for me with Kosminski is why he left off from Nov 9 1888,Strange as he appears to have been "at large" until 1890.The murders seem to have a compulsive pattern until Mary Kelly"s murder.
Also its stated clearly in the hospital records that he isnt violent and for me this[covering a period of some 30 years seems strange too].
Finally it does seem that Anderson,Machnaghten and Swanson are all talking about this "Aaron" Kosminski,since he is the one with the "solitary vices".Maybe he was "burnt out" after the murder of Mary Kelly.It does happen to people wiyh paranoid schizophrenia which he appears to have had, but such "burn outs " usually happen [in the case of males]around the age of forty onwards.
I still have him down as a possible "ripper"
though!
Best Natalie |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 10:59 pm: | |
Natalie,
Exactly what do you mean by "burnt out"? I am interested to hear what information you have on schizophrenics burning out like this... I assume you are talking about some kind of total mental breakdown.
I remember someone had suggested that the murders ceased after Kelly because the Ripper had a complete mental breakdown. I don't know much about this so any help is appreciated. Maybe this could account for his later mental state, being somewhat of an "imbecile".... refusing to eat, withdrawn, incoherent etc.
Rob H |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 887
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hi Robert,If you had ventured into a hospital which housed people who had suffered schizophrenic reaction or psychosis as recently as ten/twelve years ago[and probably still today because not everyone sticks to their medication
and it can therefore still happen]--you would have met individuals who walked as shadows of what they had once been,with whom it would have been difficult to hold a conversation,would have found it difficult to sit still ,concentrate on anything at all and who when they spoke talked of being Catherine the Great,Napoleon,were hearing voices telling them to do various[often quite outrageous/offensive and bizarre]activities.As far as physical appearance went too they were mere shadows of their former selves,shuffling about,pale and thin eyes sunken and haunted looking.Above all there was no return to their former selves apparently possible because the onslaught of the psychosis had devastated them so completely.It was nevertheless clear that such individuals were completely harmless and moreover could live on like this for many years.
When they describe poor Aaron like this-eating out of gutters and having outside powers as he appears to have believed to be running his life for him it suggests to me that his illness had reached that point of no return,described above,
that he was not responsible for his actions and would never be cured.If Aaron Kosminski was JtR
the first murders would have been committed most probably during some psychotic reaction I would have thought and the murder of Mary Kelly would have been the result of an extreme psychosic breakdown[or precipitated such a breakdown]which left him so broken down as to be without the necessary faculties to carry out any more murders of a similar kind.Indeed his paranoia might have departed and left him relatively harmless.
I hope this is of some help.Obviously not everyone who suffers from this illness becomes dangerous-though some very strange behaviour often happens in the midst of a schizophrenic reaction.Thankfully today the illness can be controlled by medication.
Natalie |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
Thanks Natalie,
That was a very helpful post.
Rob |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 56
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Hi all, Robert,
Have just read your essay and I agree with others here that it is an excellently written piece. You convey your arguement well, it has certainly made me reconsider what I've always believed to be a lack of evidence for either the Cohen or Kosminski theories. Of course it is worth stating that much of the evidence regarding location is purely speculative but compellingly speculative nonetheless. I applaud your use of maps as they make it easy to get things in perspective.
I was going to take you to task over the door to door enquiries only coming as far south as Whitechapel Road but I see that has already been done. You are right of course in stating that some of the buildings in Sion Square might well have been canvassed as they may well have had a frontage on Whitechapel Road.
I will take you to task on your assumption that Lawende was the witness. I see no evidence of this nor do I see any that the witness was brought to the seaside home. It seems only logical to me that the witness was at the seaside home already and that the logical, if difficult, course of events was to bring the suspect there. This has always led me to believe that the witness must have been a Police Officer, or had been one. People seem to attach a strange significance to Lawende as a witness and have tied him in with Anderson's lone witness. I see no evidence for this except that Coroner Langham held back part of his statement at the inquest. I think it is important to note that we have no evidence that the Police asked him to do this, and that even if they did it may not have turned out to be significant.
I am curious as to where you found evidence that Kosminski enacted a public display of masturbation.
I thought I had seen the workhouse documents printed in a book but have spent the last hour seaching and can't turn them up. I think it's logical without them to assume that a 3 could be misread for an 8. I also think that even if the name Woolf Kosminski does appear on the record then this could be an easily made mistake. I assume a clerk of some sort would write the entries upon admission. Having already been introduced to a man named Woolf he may simply have asked what relation the patient was and upon being told brother rather than brother in law simply assumed that the man was therefore Woolf Kosminski.
Scotty. |
Frank Hunt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
Folks,
Grab a pen and paper and write Golda with a swirling G and run the o and l together somewhat. I think the subsequent word could be misread as Edda. Possible?
Frank |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
"In my opinion, the traditional reasons for Aaron's being dismissed as a JTR suspect (ie. that he was a harmless, drooling imbecile etc) are essentially not valid... this includes Sugden et al."
>>There's more to it than that, Rob. Essentially, if you want to settle the case on Aaron, then you have to find good reasons to think he really was the murderer. You can't just have the opinion that previous thinkers don't have a good enough case that he wasn't the right type. You have to find confirmatory information about him to set opposed to what was said about the murderer by the police. Since this doesn't happen in Ripperology, Aaron becomes an orphan suspect.
David
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 11:51 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
That was interesting. I have always thought of Kosminski as one of my top suspects along with Tumblety, Druitt and Labruckman. I have to watch what I read because I tend to be easily convinced. I was convinced.
Well done, CB |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
