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

[Elamarna]

And he was so unconcerned about whether anyone would ever read them that he specified that the identification took place at the Seaside Home and not just 'a seaside home' or 'a home at the seaside'?

Your interpretation of the meaning of Swanson's comments and his intention.
Nothing more, nothing less than that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I repeat, that he was known to write such notes in his books, is not an indication that the intention was for them to be read by anyone but himself.

That you wish to believe otherwise is your choice.

And he was so unconcerned about whether anyone would ever read them that he specified that the identification took place at the Seaside Home and not just 'a seaside home' or 'a home at the seaside'?

[Elamarna]

I was already familiar with the history of those marginalia and their discovery.

I was referring to Swanson's habit of producing marginalia in general and his grandson's remarks suggesting that he was known to have been in the habit of writing them.

I suggest that Swanson wrote them for posterity.

He evidently did not intend to take them with him when he departed, which means he expected them one day to be read by someone else.

I repeat, that he was known to write such notes in his books, is not an indication that the intention was for them to be read by anyone but himself.

That you wish to believe otherwise is your choice.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What it says, is that the books Donald Swanson read, he made annotations in. That seems to be an accepted fact by most.

Jim Swanson was born in 1912, and thus would have been only 12 at the time of his grandfather's death.
The books and other papers ended up with Jim's aunt, Donald's daughter Alice.
Apparently although the family had been told the killer had been known, they had never been given a name.
It was only with the death of Alice in 1980, that the name in the Marginlia became known to the family. Jim and his brother Donald, being the executors of Alice's will.


Whether or not Swanson's grandson, Jim, actually witnessed Donald making Notes, or was told by other members of the family, it seems clear he, nor any other member of the family had seen the name, or the Marginlia before the the death of Alice in 1980.
I would therefore suggest that Donald Swanson did not write the Marginlia or any comments in his books with the intention of them being read by anyone else.

I was already familiar with the history of those marginalia and their discovery.

I was referring to Swanson's habit of producing marginalia in general and his grandson's remarks suggesting that he was known to have been in the habit of writing them.

I suggest that Swanson wrote them for posterity.

He evidently did not intend to take them with him when he departed, which means he expected them one day to be read by someone else.

[Elamarna]

Swanson's grandson said in relation to the marginalia:

My grandfather used to make copious notes in books that he read

Does that seem like the comment of someone who only discovered that years later?

What it says, is that the books Donald Swanson read, he made annotations in. That seems to be an accepted fact by most.

Jim Swanson was born in 1912, and thus would have been only 12 at the time of his grandfather's death.
The books and other papers ended up with Jim's aunt, Donald's daughter Alice.
Apparently although the family had been told the killer had been known, they had never been given a name.
It was only with the death of Alice in 1980, that the name in the Marginlia became known to the family. Jim and his brother Donald, being the executors of Alice's will.


Whether or not Swanson's grandson, Jim, actually witnessed Donald making Notes, or was told by other members of the family, it seems clear he, nor any other member of the family had seen the name, or the Marginlia before the the death of Alice in 1980.
I would therefore suggest that Donald Swanson did not write the Marginlia or any comments in his books with the intention of them being read by anyone else.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

One only writes to be read. But I would agree that the marginalia was for his eyes only. But for what purpose? I suspect he was making notes in preparation of a rebuttal.

A rebuttal would have needed to include such details as would have convinced readers that the identification really took place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That his grandson read the comments many years later and was thus aware that Swanson made such annotations, does not mean that Swanson ever made the comments with the intention of them being read by another person.

Swanson's grandson said in relation to the marginalia:

My grandfather used to make copious notes in books that he read

Does that seem like the comment of someone who only discovered that years later?

[Tom_Wescott]

He wasn't writing for readers.

One only writes to be read. But I would agree that the marginalia was for his eyes only. But for what purpose? I suspect he was making notes in preparation of a rebuttal. But to whom, and where? A personal correspondence perhaps or a letter to an editor? Or his own memoirs?

Point is, we can choose to believe that Anderson made the whole thing up and that the abrasive Smith simply chose not to call him out on it, and that Swanson bought into the lie and told lies of his own but only in the marginalia of a book he owned. OR we can accept that the contemporary record is erred in parts but mostly accurate and that a suspect/witness meeting did occur. But even that tells us nothing because it ends in the witness refusing to give evidence. So, if Anderson and Swanson DID want to create a lie, why not give the lie a more dramatic end? And for those of us not looking for conspiracies, what does any of this tell us? Just that there was a suspect known to Swanson as 'Kosminski' who - for reasons NOT known to us - because a very serious suspect, but nothing so condemning against him that Macnaghten, Smith, and others bought in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Elamarna]

According to his own grandson, he was in the habit of writing such marginalia.

I wonder how he knew.

That his grandson read the comments many years later and was thus aware that Swanson made such annotations, does not mean that Swanson ever made the comments with the intention of them being read by another person.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anderson and Swanson did not personally take Kosminski anywhere for any form of an ID procedure... No one outside of Anderson and Swanson makes any mention of any such ID procedure so we have to ask if it did take place as described why is it that no one else makes any mention of any such ID procedure?

According to Anderson's and Swanson's supporters, no-one else of any importance was involved in or privy to the identification.

Who then was?

And whoever they were, why did they not come forward when Anderson was practically accused of making the identification up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Probably saw him do it on other occasions.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Which reader would that be?

He was writing in his own copy of the book, there is NO indication it was for anyone but himself.l, or that he expected anyone else to read it.

According to his own grandson, he was in the habit of writing such marginalia.

I wonder how he knew.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, I don’t agree. I believe that the evidence strongly favours that the ID took place so if Reid was unaware of it there was a reason for that. We just don’t know what it was.

Why do you believe Reid over Anderson and Swanson?

Its not just Reid there are many others who do not corroborate Anderson and Swanson. Reid, as I keep saying was head of Whitechapel CID. Anderson and Swanson did not personally take Kosminski anywhere for any form of an ID procedure. Thats not how it works, the likes of Reid and others would have been designated to take Kosminski to wherever they, would have been actively engaged in any such ID procedure and would have been present when any ID procedure took place and would have then been involved in conveying him back to wherever. No one outside of Anderson and Swanson makes any mention of any such ID procedure so we have to ask if it did take place as described why is it that no one else makes any mention of any such ID procedure? Even major Smith makes no mention of such an ID procedure, and if the witness had been Lawende Major Smith would have been kept in the loop but he makes no mention.

So we are left to ponder
Did Swanson pen all of the marginalia, and if he did when he did, at what age he was, and whether or not he was suffering from some neurological illness which affected his memory? The forensic findings indicate that not all of the marginalia were written at the same time.

As a result of sceptical comments made by several Ripper researchers, which were also published in the Telegraph article, James Swanson wrote a letter to the newspaper; however, this was never published. There is one part of this letter, which is crucial when trying to judge the authenticity of the marginalia. This part reads, “My Grandfather was a highly intelligent man. He was in complete command of all his faculties at the time of his death in 1924 at the age of 76. My Grandfather’s notes were made in 1910 when he was 62.”

How did James Swanson know when the notes were made?
How did he know that if and when he wrote the marginalia he still had all his faculties?

And why do Adam Wood and Paul Begg keep ignoring the request to publish the first forensic report by Dr Totty? which Paul Begg commissioned

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I am aware that you say that what Anderson and Swanson wrote has to be interpreted, but this is not an exercise in biblical exegesis.

Either Swanson said what he meant or he was writing in parables.

It is not the height of folly to take a person's words to mean what they say.

Neither of your interpretations above contains the word Seaside, with a capital S.

If Swanson meant someone's personal home, he could have named the person or given his initials.

He could have written, J.... B....'s seaside home.

He did not.

He wrote the Seaside Home.

Being a policeman, he must have known how any reader would have understood what he wrote.

Which reader would that be?

He was writing in his own copy of the book, there is NO indication it was for anyone but himself.l, or that he expected anyone else to read it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But they did didn't they?

Detective Inspector Reid speaking again in Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr Anderson, Dr Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in Lloyds Weekly and The East London Observer

“ Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead

Insp Reid was head of Whitechapel CID so if anyone would have been in the know it would have been him would you not agree?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I don’t agree. I believe that the evidence strongly favours that the ID took place so if Reid was unaware of it there was a reason for that. We just don’t know what it was.

Why do you believe Reid over Anderson and Swanson?