The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

[JeffHamm]

It isn't unnatural at all to my mind. Some people have a writing style like that. Once the clarifications are offered on the identification Swanson merely adds that Kosminski was the suspect. I dont see it naturally fitting anywhere else in the text. It is intriguing though that McNaghten references Kosminski in his report and Swanson confirms he was subject to some sort of ID. It is obvious his name was very much on the Police radar so much so that senior officers offered his name on two separate independent occasions.

Hi Sunny Delight,

It could just be an idiosyncratic thing about how he made notes in his books. He's not writing a formal report, or letter, he's just jotting down information and his thoughts for himself. So, as you say, it may not be unnatural for him. And whether or not it reads unnatural, or weird, is a subjective impression. To me, it does read a bit "weird" if one views at as a continuous paragraph of writing. On the other hand, given the context (self notes in a book), writing out one's main idea, then plopping in an additional important detail as a guide, isn't strange at all. Particularly if the additional note was made at a later date, so an addition to the notes he made before. People who make notes in their books will add to previous notes as new ideas and thoughts occur to them as they go through the book, and their older notes, again on another occasion.

But the grammar/syntax aside, I agree that that Kosminski showing up in both Mcnaghton. and Swn.'s writings is interesting. I think, though, McN's preference for Druitt appears odd if the identification of Kosminski, while not sworn to by the witness, was still viewed as indicating Kosminski was the man seen by that witness (whomever the witness was). That could be resolved if the identification took place after Mcnaghton wrote the memorandum in 1894, which means after Kosminski was confined to Colney Hatch (1891). That could explain the difficulty of getting Kosminski to the "Seaside home" for the identification, and why a confrontation method was used. And I suppose one could put forth the idea that it was the writing of the memorandum that revived the idea of trying to get an identification, and with Druitt dead and Kosminski not (but neither was Ostrog of course, but he appears to have been stealing books at Eton in 1894 while Kosminski was at least in London), then an attempt was then made to see if Kosminski would be recognized.

With the information we have, all being written many years after relevant events, it becomes trickier to work out what details reflect the oddities of memory, and what details are more reliable as written. Regardless, we also have to keep in mind that even if we could work out the actual events, and end up concluding that yes, Kosminski was indeed confronted by a witness who indicated some reasonable degree of recognition of him, the witness could still be wrong in their identification. But that, of course, is a different issue and I'm getting side-tracked here.

- Jeff

(It should be noted that the version of the memorandum under the official documents section here on Casebook and dated 23rd February 1894 doesn't seem to include the bit where Mcnaghton mentions his preference for Druitt).

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve just re-read both of Dr. Davies reports and the above quote appears in neither of them. Where are you quoting from?

A press release by the Forensic Science Service dated 11th January 2007

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Darryl Kenyon;n802999]

From a financial perspective without the name Kosminski the book and its annotations would be worthless

So why would Jim Swanson, or anybody else who allegedly forged the annotations then muddy the waters by mentioning a seaside home nobody was aware of ? And by mentioning the suspect was watched by City CID day and night, which again flies in the face of what was known and what Henry Smith said about the ripper ?

Regards Darryl

That's the point. if the seaside home ID was made up then whoever made it up would no that it didn't take place and be aware that it could not be checked out because it never happened, that is why we see no corroboration and no mention of anything about a positive ID by Major Smith or any other officers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

A press release by the Forensic Science Service dated 11th January 2007

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From the reports undertaken by Davies I can see no solid basis for the conjecture that any parts being written years later. How can that be a reliable conclusion simply based on viewing the writing and in the complete absence of any scientific tests that could have showed when the writing was applied to the paper. At the end of the day Davies second report speaks for itself. Very strong evidence that it was genuine and no evidence that it wasn’t. Add this to the things that I mentioned in my earlier post the evidence for it being genuine is overwhelming.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you dont actually why the News of the World didn't publish?

I use to drink most night of the week in the mid 80s at a pub in Mill Hill, north west London.
One of the other regulars was a Mr Robert Warren, senior figure News of the World. We discussed it.

Not for the reason you suggest, just the opposite actually.

Steve

But having paid that amount of money for the rights there must have been a dam good reason for not publishing it

it should be noted that in 1981 when James Swanson agreed to sell the story to The News of The World, the story was to be written by reporter Charles Sandell. His typewritten article has been found and published and in that he makes no mention of that last line in the marginalia “Kosminski was the suspect.” I find that strange as that last line is the most important part of the marginalia because it names the suspect, and I would have expected it to have been included in his article.

Now I have to ask why it was not. Was it an omission on Sandell's part, or was it a case that the last line was not there in the marginalia at that time? If that was the case it might explain why The News of The World article never got published, because the name Kosminski was already in the public domain via the Magnaghten Memo

In the 1987 article published by The Telegraph, the line “Kosminski was the suspect was mentioned as being part of the marginalia.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

From the reports undertaken by Davies I can see no solid basis for the conjecture that any parts being written years later. How can that be a reliable conclusion simply based on viewing the writing and in the complete absence of any scientific tests that could have showed when the writing was applied to the paper. At the end of the day Davies second report speaks for itself. Very strong evidence that it was genuine and no evidence that it wasn’t. Add this to the things that I mentioned in my earlier post the evidence for it being genuine is overwhelming.

You keep believing that because that Forensic report from the Forensic Science laboratory where Dr Davies was employed is an official document

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep believing that because that Forensic report from the Forensic Science laboratory where Dr Davies was employed is an official document

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I believe Davies final report. What qualifies you to disagree with him?

[rjpalmer]

HI rj,

Yes, that's the sort of thing I was suggesting.

I'm not sure which bits are the first and second "sets", but if just the phrase "The suspect was Kosminski" is the second set, and the analysis is correct that this was added at a different time (apparently years later), then it would not be so surprising that it doesn't "fit it" with the original notes. It's an "addendum", and if viewed that way the phrasing is less weird. Much of the weirdness, at least to my reading, comes from the assumption it was all written in one go.

Hi Jeff.

Just to be clear (and I suspect that you are already aware of this), but we know that the marginalia in the main text was written with a different pencil than the 'addendum' on the endpaper, so the whole account was unlikely to have been written in one sitting (the pencil tints are different as first noted by Stewart Evans). That's all I meant by the 'two sets.'

Of course, that doesn't tell us whether they were written two hours apart, two days apart, or two years apart, but the document examiner thought he could detect some signs of tremor in the writing on the endpapers, which could mean there was an intervening health issue between the two writings, or that some considerable time had passed before Swanson resumed his account, albeit with a different pencil.

It is also worth noting that Swanson initialed the note in the main text-- 'D.S.S.' as if he was finished with saying what he intended to say and hadn't planned on immediately writing more on the other side of the margin and the endpaper.

That's how I view it.

[c.d.]

Hello Trevor,

Why did Dr. Davies undertake his report? Did he do it voluntarily or was he paid for his opinion? In my experience, in civil litigation, the party paying an expert witness always has a specific conclusion that they want the expert witness to reach.

c.d.

[Elamarna]

But having paid that amount of money for the rights there must have been a dam good reason for not publishing it

it should be noted that in 1981 when James Swanson agreed to sell the story to The News of The World, the story was to be written by reporter Charles Sandell. His typewritten article has been found and published and in that he makes no mention of that last line in the marginalia “Kosminski was the suspect.” I find that strange as that last line is the most important part of the marginalia because it names the suspect, and I would have expected it to have been included in his article.

Now I have to ask why it was not. Was it an omission on Sandell's part, or was it a case that the last line was not there in the marginalia at that time? If that was the case it might explain why The News of The World article never got published, because the name Kosminski was already in the public domain via the Magnaghten Memo

In the 1987 article published by The Telegraph, the line “Kosminski was the suspect was mentioned as being part of the marginalia.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sadly you have made some very BIG assumptions Trevor.
Having drunk with Robert and discussed it with him, before it was public, I can tell you your assumptions are wrong.

There were several reason for not proceeding with the story, none of which were due to the name not being genuine.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

Just to be clear (and I suspect that you are already aware of this), but we know that the marginalia in the main text was written with a different pencil than the 'addendum' on the endpaper, so the whole account was unlikely to have been written in one sitting (the pencil tints are different as first noted by Stewart Evans). That's all I meant by the 'two sets.'

Of course, that doesn't tell us whether they were written two hours apart, two days apart, or two years apart, but the document examiner thought he could detect some signs of tremor in the writing on the endpapers, which could mean there was an intervening health issue between the two writings, or that some considerable time had passed before Swanson resumed his account, albeit with a different pencil.

It is also worth noting that Swanson initialed the note in the main text-- 'D.S.S.' as if he was finished with saying what he intended to say and hadn't planned on immediately writing more on the other side of the margin and the endpaper.

That's how I view it.

Hi rj,

Yes, I get that. I gathered from the thread the pencil change was visible, but I was unclear at what point in the text the change of pencil occurred. Obviously, if it were mid sentence that would suggest some sort of trivial reason ( i e he was interrupted mid sentence and when he resumes he just grabbed a different one; just to resort to the common interruption theories that are prevalent in JtR theories ).

It sounds, however, like there is a clear separation between the sets that would be consistent with jottings from separate sessions, hence the separate pencils as well. The signs of tremor being the hint towards the passage of a fair bit of time. It is the accuracy of that inference derived from handwriting analysis that I was wondering about? How reliable is it? I have no idea, so I can't raise an informed objection, nor can I offer informed support for the inference I can only say it is the opinion of the expert, and acknowledge my own ignorance.

Anyway, I agree that the signing with DSS does signal an end to that session, which is consistent with the possibility a long time passes before the addition with a new pencil. But I wonder if, for example, "tremors" could also indicate he had a wee dram or two? If, say supper intervened, during which he had a few glasses of wine, could he have returned that same evening, added the 2nd pencil addendum, with a slightly less steady hand? I have no idea if that would show similar tremors or if it would show a different sort of shakiness to the script that a handwriting expert would be able to spot as such?

It is amazing what the ignorant imagination is capable of dreaming up that the expert would never think of because the expert knows such things are not possible. But the ignorant imagination can so convince itself that it sees the expert as the blind fool.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Sadly you have made some very BIG assumptions Trevor.
Having drunk with Robert and discussed it with him, before it was public, I can tell you your assumptions are wrong.

There were several reason for not proceeding with the story, none of which were due to the name not being genuine.

Steve

Well maybe you would care to share them with us?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

Why did Dr. Davies undertake his report? Did he do it voluntarily or was he paid for his opinion? In my experience, in civil litigation, the party paying an expert witness always has a specific conclusion that they want the expert witness to reach.

c.d.

Dr Davies was asked by the Met Police Black museum to carry out the tests after it was offered to them for display.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n803008]

That's the point. if the seaside home ID was made up then whoever made it up would no that it didn't take place and be aware that it could not be checked out because it never happened, that is why we see no corroboration and no mention of anything about a positive ID by Major Smith or any other officers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So why mention a seaside home in the first place ? And if I was going to forge a document written by a police officer I would want at least an outline of the case the police officer was involved in. As I am sure Jim Swanson had.

The suspect was identified by a witness who no doubt saw the murderer, but he would not testify, thus we could not prove the suspect was the killer, . The murderer was then put in an asylum by his friends and family. A very few select police officers in the met were privy to this info regarding the suspect. Kosminski was the suspect.

Just my thoughts but I would expect forged annotations to read something like that. Corroborating Anderson and going towards explaining why Smith didn't have any idea who the ripper was, instead of mentioning the city police keeping watch on Kosminski.

Regards Darryl

[Joshua Rogan]

You keep believing that because that Forensic report from the Forensic Science laboratory where Dr Davies was employed is an official document

The report may be an official document, but is the press release?