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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Thank you for checking the source material and confirming I was right. As you have clearly demonstrated, Anderson did not say that Kosminski's family "refused to co-operate with the police in any way".

Nor would the police tying Kosminski's hands behind his back evidence non-co-operation by the family.

How did the police send Kosminski to the Seaside Home without an arrest warrant? With difficulty, as Swanson said.

Why would they have allowed him to return home to after his identification as the Whitechapel Murderer? This is explained by Swanson. The witness refused to testify. They had no basis to charge Kosminski. Legally they could not prevent him from going to live with his brother.

Why would they have kept him under surveillance? Perhaps to ensure that he didn't murder any more women, do you think?

Why would they then re-arrest him? Swanson doesn't mention an arrest.

Why would they take him to a workhouse? MEPO 8/17: Metropolitan Police: Instruction Book for the Government and Guidance of the Metropolitan Police Force 1893 - When a prisoner is taken to a workhouse by direction of the Divisional Surgeon, the police are to give intimation to the Workhouse Authorities that the person is a prisoner and will be taken charge of by police when in a fit condition to leave the Workhouse, and a request is to be made that due notification may be sent to the Police prior to the discharge of the prisoner.

In 1894, Macnaghten stated in his official Scotland Yard report that it was possible that Jack the Ripper had been incarcerated in an asylum. So he clearly did NOT believe, while serving in the Metropolitan Police as Chief Constable, that the Ripper was never placed in an asylum, otherwise he wouldn't have signed off on his report. You will have to explain why he said something different in his book 20 years later.

As for Anderson's error, it was corrected in his book. Any normal person will understand that writing 20 years after an event from memory, it's possible to make small errors of detail or chronology. But the whole point is that Anderson's account is corroborated by Swanson in the marginalia. That's why Swanson's marginalia is so important. Swanson was the Chief Inspector of C.I.D. at Scotland yard who had been given charge by the Commissioner in 1888 of all the evidence in the Ripper case and is a very credible source. If you don't believe Swanson, it's difficult to know who or what you will believe.

Very interesting point about the workhouse Herlock, thank you

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anderson has Kosminski's family refusing to co-operate with the police in any way

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



False. Anderson does not say that Kosminski's family refused to co-operate with the police in any way.

(Herlock Shomes, # 570)



if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice ... he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

(ANDERSON)





If [Kosminski's family] were not [cooperative], then it would have had to have been the police who tied his hands behind his back.


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



Isn't that what police do in order to detain or restrain violent criminals or lunatics?


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)




How could the police have taken Kosminski from London to the Seaside Home without an arrest warrant; why would they have allowed him to return home after his identification as the Whitechapel Murderer; why would they have kept him under surveillance for a few days; why would they then re-arrest him, and why would they then take him to a workhouse?





Macnaghten thought Kosminski was such a strong suspect that he stated his belief that the murderer had never been incarcerated in an asylum


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



False. He says no such thing


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)



I [do not] believe that [the Whitechapel Murderer] had ever been detained in an asylum


(Macnaghten, Days Of My Years, Chapter IV)





Anderson originally had Kosminski in an asylum when the identification took place, which contracts Swanson's account.


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



And that was removed from the version in his book suggesting he had made an error in the earlier magazine version


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)





Sir Robert Anderson made an error when he wrote that Kosminski was already incarcerated in an asylum at the time of his identification?

If he could not get such basic details right about what had happened in the most sensational identification in British criminal history, then what reliance can be placed on anything else he claims to have happened?

How about Anderson making an error about a Jewish witness identifying him?

How about Anderson making an error about a Jewish witness refusing to testify against the suspect?

How about Anderson making an error about it being a definitely ascertained fact that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Polish Jew?

Thank you for checking the source material and confirming I was right. As you have clearly demonstrated, Anderson did not say that Kosminski's family "refused to co-operate with the police in any way".

Nor would the police tying Kosminski's hands behind his back evidence non-co-operation by the family.

How did the police send Kosminski to the Seaside Home without an arrest warrant? With difficulty, as Swanson said.

Why would they have allowed him to return home to after his identification as the Whitechapel Murderer? This is explained by Swanson. The witness refused to testify. They had no basis to charge Kosminski. Legally they could not prevent him from going to live with his brother.

Why would they have kept him under surveillance? Perhaps to ensure that he didn't murder any more women, do you think?

Why would they then re-arrest him? Swanson doesn't mention an arrest.

Why would they take him to a workhouse? MEPO 8/17: Metropolitan Police: Instruction Book for the Government and Guidance of the Metropolitan Police Force 1893 - When a prisoner is taken to a workhouse by direction of the Divisional Surgeon, the police are to give intimation to the Workhouse Authorities that the person is a prisoner and will be taken charge of by police when in a fit condition to leave the Workhouse, and a request is to be made that due notification may be sent to the Police prior to the discharge of the prisoner.

In 1894, Macnaghten stated in his official Scotland Yard report that it was possible that Jack the Ripper had been incarcerated in an asylum. So he clearly did NOT believe, while serving in the Metropolitan Police as Chief Constable, that the Ripper was never placed in an asylum, otherwise he wouldn't have signed off on his report. You will have to explain why he said something different in his book 20 years later.

As for Anderson's error, it was corrected in his book. Any normal person will understand that writing 20 years after an event from memory, it's possible to make small errors of detail or chronology. But the whole point is that Anderson's account is corroborated by Swanson in the marginalia. That's why Swanson's marginalia is so important. Swanson was the Chief Inspector of C.I.D. at Scotland yard who had been given charge by the Commissioner in 1888 of all the evidence in the Ripper case and is a very credible source. If you don't believe Swanson, it's difficult to know who or what you will believe.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anderson has Kosminski's family refusing to co-operate with the police in any way

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



False. Anderson does not say that Kosminski's family refused to co-operate with the police in any way.

(Herlock Shomes, # 570)



if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice ... he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

(ANDERSON)





If [Kosminski's family] were not [cooperative], then it would have had to have been the police who tied his hands behind his back.


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



Isn't that what police do in order to detain or restrain violent criminals or lunatics?


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)




How could the police have taken Kosminski from London to the Seaside Home without an arrest warrant; why would they have allowed him to return home after his identification as the Whitechapel Murderer; why would they have kept him under surveillance for a few days; why would they then re-arrest him, and why would they then take him to a workhouse?





Macnaghten thought Kosminski was such a strong suspect that he stated his belief that the murderer had never been incarcerated in an asylum


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



False. He says no such thing


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)



I [do not] believe that [the Whitechapel Murderer] had ever been detained in an asylum


(Macnaghten, Days Of My Years, Chapter IV)





Anderson originally had Kosminski in an asylum when the identification took place, which contracts Swanson's account.


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



And that was removed from the version in his book suggesting he had made an error in the earlier magazine version


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)





Sir Robert Anderson made an error when he wrote that Kosminski was already incarcerated in an asylum at the time of his identification?

If he could not get such basic details right about what had happened in the most sensational identification in British criminal history, then what reliance can be placed on anything else he claims to have happened?

How about Anderson making an error about a Jewish witness identifying him?

How about Anderson making an error about a Jewish witness refusing to testify against the suspect?

How about Anderson making an error about it being a definitely ascertained fact that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Polish Jew?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor, you have an astounding capacity for not directly addressing what I say in my posts but changing the subject to something else.

You want to go back to the topic of corroboration now?

Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.

But Anderson doesn't name Kosminski does he and if you are referring to Magnahten he in the Aberconway version tends to exonerate him, why would he exonerate a killer who had been positively identified, and a point you keep ignoring is that MM was Swansons boss yet he makes no mention of this ID procedure can you explain those two anomalies in suggesting that the Marginalia is to be relied on?

I already demonstrated some time ago - without any opposition from you - that the Aberconway version is a draft while the filed version is the final official version. The final official version doesn't give any details but says that there were "many circumstances" connected with Kosminski "which made him a strong suspect". That is entirely consistent with what Swanson tells us in the marginalia, which simply gives more details about those circumstances

So we have three of the most senior officials at Scotland Yard - Assistant Commissioner, Chief Constable and Chief Inspector - all telling us the same thing. In circumstances where Scotland Yard's 'Suspects' file no longer exists, it's hard to know what better corroboration you could want.

But they are not all telling the same thing are they? Swanson purportedly names Kosminski. Anderson doesn't name anyone and MM exonerates Kosminski.


How can you possibly say that MM exonerates Kosminski when he describes him as a "strong suspect" in the final version of his report which was filed at Scotland Yard? Do you just see what you want to see and ignore everything else you don't like?

I know that Anderson doesn't name anyone (and he explained why) but that's precisely what Swanson did in the marginalia. He provided the identity of Anderson's suspect.

And you nor anyone else can explain why according to the marginalia Kosminski was watched day and night by City police, when Major Smith is emphatic that he had clues as to the identity of the killer


I assume you mean "no clues". He actually said "no...idea". There isn't any contradiction between the City Police keeping a suspect (who they never saw murdering anyone) under constant surveillance and Smith saying that he had no idea who the murderer was. Unless you think that every suspect is automatically guilty

There is corroboration to show no organs were taken away by the killer of Kelly but that is not for this thread

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No there isn’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you have an astounding capacity for not directly addressing what I say in my posts but changing the subject to something else.

You want to go back to the topic of corroboration now?

Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.

But Anderson doesn't name Kosminski does he and if you are referring to Magnahten he in the Aberconway version tends to exonerate him, why would he exonerate a killer who had been positively identified, and a point you keep ignoring is that MM was Swansons boss yet he makes no mention of this ID procedure can you explain those two anomalies in suggesting that the Marginalia is to be relied on?

So we have three of the most senior officials at Scotland Yard - Assistant Commissioner, Chief Constable and Chief Inspector - all telling us the same thing. In circumstances where Scotland Yard's 'Suspects' file no longer exists, it's hard to know what better corroboration you could want.

But they are not all telling the same thing are they? Swanson purportedly names Kosminski. Anderson doesn't name anyone and MM exonerates Kosminski.

And you nor anyone else can explain why according to the marginalia Kosminski was watched day and night by City police, when Major Smith is emphatic that he had clues as to the identity of the killer

That strikes me as way better corroboration of something than a single newspaper interview of an elderly H Division detective uncorroborated by a single Scotland Yard official, or any other known police official, whose recollection is in direct contradiction of an official autopsy report, don't you think?

There is corroboration to show no organs were taken away by the killer of Kelly but that is not for this thread

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The marginalia is not only lacking in detail it is also lacking in any form of corroboration

(Trevor Marriott)



Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.


(Herlock Shomes)



Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson mentioned the Seaside Home.

So what?

Neither mentioned CID surveillance.

So what?

Macnaghten never mentioned any identification of Kosminski.

So what?

Macnaghten thought Kosminski was such a strong suspect that he stated his belief that the murderer had never been incarcerated in an asylum and that he was inclined to exonerate Kosminski.

False. He says no such thing. On the contrary, he says in the official version of the report that the murderer either committed suicide or was confined by his relations in a lunatic asylum. And in the official version of the report there is no mention of an inclination to exonerate Kosminski.

Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson mentioned Kosminski's hands ever having been tied behind his back, and neither did the workhouse.

So what?

Macnaghten never mentioned a Jewish witness in connection with Kosminski.

So what?

Anderson originally had Kosminski in an asylum when the identification took place, which contracts Swanson's account.

And that was removed from the version in his book suggesting he had made an error in the earlier magazine version

Anderson has Kosminski's family refusing to co-operate with the police in any way, yet Swanson has Kosminski taken to the workhouse, conveniently shortly after CID had put the Kosminski residence under surveillance.

False. Anderson does not say that Kosminski's family refused to co-operate with the police in any way. But if he had done there is no contradiction with that and Swanson saying that Kosminski was taken to the workhouse after having been placed under surveillance.

If Anderson was right, then why were Kosminski's family so co-operative?

What co-operation are you talking about?

If they were not, then it would have had to have been the police who tied his hands behind his back.



Is that believable?

Yes. Isn't that what police do in order to detain or restrain violent criminals or lunatics?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The marginalia is clearly genuine and as such it proves that the ID took place.

(Herlock Shomes)



That is a fallacy.

If Swanson wrote the marginalia, that does not prove that what he wrote is true.

They contain mistakes, including a serious one, namely that Kosminski died about three decades before he did.




The marginalia is unsafe to rely on and maybe you should have a go at answering the questions posed by PI in post 559

(Trevor Marriott)




What an odd list of questions, and you forgot to ask why he didn't identify the Seaside Home.

Are you aware that Swanson was a private citizen writing a private note in the marginalia of a book with limited space, not a formal report as a serving officer to the commissioner?

(Herlock Shomes)



Well, he did identify it, by referring to it as 'the Seaside Home' and not 'a Seaside Home'.

If his comments were so private, why did he name the suspect, the area where he lived, the workhouse to which he was sent (incorrectly), the CID's involvement, and the religion of the witness?

Oh, you know which one it is, do you? Do tell. I've always wanted to know.

As for lack of space, the book ran to more than 300 pages.

300 pages of text! He ran out of room in the margin on page 138 where he wrote his note and had to continue on the endpaper. That's the very last page of the book. But in responding to this you've totally ignored the other point I made which is that he wasn't writing an official report to the commissioner. He had no need to put in all the additional stuff you personally, in 2023, seem to think should be in there

If he could find space to name the suspect, why could he not find space to name the witness?

He didn't need to name the witness. He didn't even need to name Kosminski but thankfully he did.

If he was really involved in the events he described, why could he not mention a single date of one of them?

That fact that no dates are mentioned does not mean for one second that he "could not mention a single date".

If other policemen were involved, as he claimed, why could he not remember any of their names?

The fact that no other officers are mentioned in the marginalia does not mean for one second that he "could not remember any of their names".

If the note was so private, he could not have been worried about being sued or causing embarrassment to anyone.

Why are you responding to an objection that I haven't even raised? Where did I mention any fear of being sued or causing embarrassment?

So why did he write his notes in such a way that no witness to the events he described is identified?

What are you talking about? Why should he have done? I repeat that it was not a formal report to the commissioner. It was a private note.

The most important witness in British criminal history is left unnamed and all the policemen involved in the transportation, identification and surveillance of the suspect remain unidentified, even though - according to Shomes - Swanson had no expectation that anyone would ever read his notes!

I never said that Swanson had no expectation that anyone would ever read his notes. Please stop putting words into my mouth. I merely said it was a private note.

If he was just talking to himself, as it were, he might as well have filled in some of those details.

Or he might not. So you've got absolutely nowhere.

And those details are precisely the details that someone unfamiliar with the events described would NOT have known of.

He wasn't writing a formal report to the commissioner. He didn't need to include every single detail. He was writing a private note

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The marginalia is not only lacking in detail it is also lacking in any form of corroboration

(Trevor Marriott)



Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.


(Herlock Shomes)



Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson mentioned the Seaside Home.

Neither mentioned CID surveillance.

Macnaghten never mentioned any identification of Kosminski.

Macnaghten thought Kosminski was such a strong suspect that he stated his belief that the murderer had never been incarcerated in an asylum and that he was inclined to exonerate Kosminski.

Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson mentioned Kosminski's hands ever having been tied behind his back, and neither did the workhouse.

Macnaghten never mentioned a Jewish witness in connection with Kosminski.

Anderson originally had Kosminski in an asylum when the identification took place, which contracts Swanson's account.

Anderson has Kosminski's family refusing to co-operate with the police in any way, yet Swanson has Kosminski taken to the workhouse, conveniently shortly after CID had put the Kosminski residence under surveillance.

If Anderson was right, then why were Kosminski's family so co-operative?

If they were not, then it would have had to have been the police who tied his hands behind his back.

Is that believable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The marginalia is not only lacking in detail it is also lacking in any form of corroboration

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you have an astounding capacity for not directly addressing what I say in my posts but changing the subject to something else.

You want to go back to the topic of corroboration now?

Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.

So we have three of the most senior officials at Scotland Yard - Assistant Commissioner, Chief Constable and Chief Inspector - all telling us the same thing. In circumstances where Scotland Yard's 'Suspects' file no longer exists, it's hard to know what better corroboration you could want.

That strikes me as way better corroboration of something than a single newspaper interview of an elderly H Division detective uncorroborated by a single Scotland Yard official, or any other known police official, whose recollection is in direct contradiction of an official autopsy report, don't you think?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The marginalia is clearly genuine and as such it proves that the ID took place.

(Herlock Shomes)



That is a fallacy.

If Swanson wrote the marginalia, that does not prove that what he wrote is true.

They contain mistakes, including a serious one, namely that Kosminski died about three decades before he did.




The marginalia is unsafe to rely on and maybe you should have a go at answering the questions posed by PI in post 559

(Trevor Marriott)




What an odd list of questions, and you forgot to ask why he didn't identify the Seaside Home.

Are you aware that Swanson was a private citizen writing a private note in the marginalia of a book with limited space, not a formal report as a serving officer to the commissioner?

(Herlock Shomes)



Well, he did identify it, by referring to it as 'the Seaside Home' and not 'a Seaside Home'.

If his comments were so private, why did he name the suspect, the area where he lived, the workhouse to which he was sent (incorrectly), the CID's involvement, and the religion of the witness?

As for lack of space, the book ran to more than 300 pages.

If he could find space to name the suspect, why could he not find space to name the witness?

If he was really involved in the events he described, why could he not mention a single date of one of them?

If other policemen were involved, as he claimed, why could he not remember any of their names?

If the note was so private, he could not have been worried about being sued or causing embarrassment to anyone.

So why did he write his notes in such a way that no witness to the events he described is identified?

The most important witness in British criminal history is left unnamed and all the policemen involved in the transportation, identification and surveillance of the suspect remain unidentified, even though - according to Shomes - Swanson had no expectation that anyone would ever read his notes!

If he was just talking to himself, as it were, he might as well have filled in some of those details.

And those details are precisely the details that someone unfamiliar with the events described would NOT have known of.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, why do you keep quoting from a press release when you must be aware that the full report of Dr Davies dated 3 Nov 2006 doesn't actually say that the second set of notes were made some years later?

You also ‘forget’ to mention Dr. Davies second report where he said that there was simply no evidence of forgery. Only you could evaluate that as somehow inconclusive. It’s the opposite of inconclusive. You also ignore the very obvious point that the man who you suspect of ‘adding a bit’ was the General Manager of a string of companies who had just received his share of an inheritance. So hardly a Mike Barrett-type figure desperate for a few quid. So why would he have bothered adding something? How much could anyone have reasonably been expected to have been paid for this book? A few hundred pounds perhaps. So we have no possible, reasonable motive from a man who, I think it’s fair to say, wasn’t a Ripperologist - the relevance of this last point being that we would have to ask how he could have known that some researcher hadn’t discovered that the man at the ID wasn’t actually Kosminski? How would his bit of forgery have looked then?

The marginalia is clearly genuine and as such it proves that the ID took place. It’s just that we are short on detail but a lacking of detail or background information doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur. That’s purely an assumption on your part.

The marginalia is not only lacking in detail it is also lacking in any form of corroboration

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Davies report is not as conclusive as you suggest and I refer to A press release by the Forensic Science Service dated 11th January 2007 which quoted Dr Davies on his findings: “What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors. It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

And I am still waiting for Adam Wood or Paul Begg to publish the first forensic report by Dr Totty on the marginalia despite making this request several times in the past nothing has been forthcoming and I wonder why after Paul Begg commissioned that report there was a need later to get Dr Davies involved for a further examination?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, why do you keep quoting from a press release when you must be aware that the full report of Dr Davies dated 3 Nov 2006 doesn't actually say that the second set of notes were made some years later?

You also ‘forget’ to mention Dr. Davies second report where he said that there was simply no evidence of forgery. Only you could evaluate that as somehow inconclusive. It’s the opposite of inconclusive. You also ignore the very obvious point that the man who you suspect of ‘adding a bit’ was the General Manager of a string of companies who had just received his share of an inheritance. So hardly a Mike Barrett-type figure desperate for a few quid. So why would he have bothered adding something? How much could anyone have reasonably been expected to have been paid for this book? A few hundred pounds perhaps. So we have no possible, reasonable motive from a man who, I think it’s fair to say, wasn’t a Ripperologist - the relevance of this last point being that we would have to ask how he could have known that some researcher hadn’t discovered that the man at the ID wasn’t actually Kosminski? How would his bit of forgery have looked then?

The marginalia is clearly genuine and as such it proves that the ID took place. It’s just that we are short on detail but a lacking of detail or background information doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur. That’s purely an assumption on your part.

[Trevor Marriott]

The evidence of Swanson's family is that he did have all his faculties in old age.

and the same could be said of Insp Reid!

As I keep having to tell you, the fact that Grainger was reportedly subjected to an ID procedure is wholly irrelevant because this would have been conducted by officers from H Division who might well have known nothing about an identification some years earlier, especially if conducted by the City Police, but, even if they did, might have been wholly unimpressed by it.

But we have no knowledge as to when this mythical ID procedure is alleged to have taken place. and as I keep saying something as game-changing as the ID of Jack the Ripper would have been common knowledge amongst the police from all divisions

You are nevertheless correct to say that Swanson's memory as to certain details of events 20 years earlier could have been wrong. Of course that's true and, indeed, he seems to have muddled the Stepney Workhouse with the Mile End Workhouse. But as to the fact of an identification, he was corroborating Anderson and his claim that Kosminski was a JTR suspect is independently corroborated by Macnaghten's 1894 memo.

But Anderson mentions no name of the suspect and MM exonerates Kosminski in the Aberconway version hardly supportive evidence to show the accuracy of the marginalia

You repeatedly ignore Dr. Davies report on the marginalia where he stated that there was no evidence of forgery. It doesn’t become ‘unsafe’ purely because you dispute the contents. The evidence (Davies plus what we know of the books history) tells us it’s genuine…..the identification story should be judged in light of that.

Dr Davies report is not as conclusive as you suggest and I refer to A press release by the Forensic Science Service dated 11th January 2007 which quoted Dr Davies on his findings: “What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors. It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

And I am still waiting for Adam Wood or Paul Begg to publish the first forensic report by Dr Totty on the marginalia despite making this request several times in the past nothing has been forthcoming and I wonder why after Paul Begg commissioned that report there was a need later to get Dr Davies involved for a further examination?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But in line with the marginalia which is unsafe we know Grainger was subjected to an Id procedure and Swanson could not have penned any part of the marginalia before 1910 I wonder how good his memory was and did he still have all his faculties in the years following his retirement in 1903.

I mention the latter because if you remember it was you who poured scorn on the article in The News of the World dated 1896 whereby Inspector Reid stated that there were no organs removed and taken away from Mary Kelly's room and that Insp Reid's memory had failed him.

Well if Reid's memory had failed only 8 years after the murder how was Swanson's memory 20+ years later?

The marginalia is unsafe to rely on and maybe you should have a go at answering the questions posed by PI in post 559

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence of Swanson's family is that he did have all his faculties in old age.

As I keep having to tell you, the fact that Grainger was reportedly subjected to an ID procedure is wholly irrelevant because this would have been conducted by officers from H Division who might well have known nothing about an identification some years earlier, especially if conducted by the City Police, but, even if they did, might have been wholly unimpressed by it.

You are nevertheless correct to say that Swanson's memory as to certain details of events 20 years earlier could have been wrong. Of course that's true and, indeed, he seems to have muddled the Stepney Workhouse with the Mile End Workhouse. But as to the fact of an identification, he was corroborating Anderson and his claim that Kosminski was a JTR suspect is independently corroborated by Macnaghten's 1894 memo.

You repeatedly ignore Dr. Davies report on the marginalia where he stated that there was no evidence of forgery. It doesn’t become ‘unsafe’ purely because you dispute the contents. The evidence (Davies plus what we know of the books history) tells us it’s genuine…..the identification story should be judged in light of that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So when did this mythical ID procedure take place? and why is there no record of it ever taking place, or any of the officers involved in the investigation having any knowledge of it ever taking place

(Trevor Marriott)


I would add: why is there no record of the name of the witness?

Why did Swanson refer to him as witness?

Why did he not give his name?

Why did he not name a single policeman involved in the transportation of Kosminski or the identification of Kosminski?

Why did he not name a single policeman involved in the CID surveillance of Kosminski's home?

Why did he not give Kosminski's brother's name?

Why did he not give the name of the street in which the surveillance took place?

Why did he not say when the identification took place?

What an odd list of questions, and you forgot to ask why he didn't identify the Seaside Home.

Are you aware that Swanson was a private citizen writing a private note in the marginalia of a book with limited space, not a formal report as a serving officer to the commissioner?

You, on the other hand, have plenty of space but have failed to answer the question I directed at you yesterday in #551. Is that because you have no answer? After all, you do have form for asking questions but not answering any.