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

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor
The same sort of confrontational ID was attempted with the then suspect Jacob Isenschmid. See post 61

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl

The ID was totally different she was asked to identify a man she saw with blood on him an hour after the murder who was then in an asylum and the identification didn't happen. What would have been the evidential value if she had subsequently identified him as being that man almost zero?

The marginalia ID was apparently to try to identify the specific killer. The suspect named Kosminski was not in an asylum otherwise the medics would not have allowed it to happen he clearly was not under arrest so you can understand my concerns

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ll repeat my two questions:

1. Why is there an assumption that some parts of the marginalia were written at different times? Surely it can’t be just because different pencils were used?

Because the handwriting expert tell us that in his report

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

So why did he wait till the last sentence to state "Kosminski was the suspect" and considering he was supposed to have been a prime suspect he doesn't even know his full name and he led the investigation

All I see in your post Trevor is your opinion, what you believe.

You completely ignore my last comment.

It's a private note meant for no one but himself, why should he give a full name.

That he didn't know his name is nothing but assumption on your part.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because the handwriting expert tell us that in his report

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But no chemical tests were undertaken and I can’t see anywhere in the report where he states any other reason. I can’t see how the use of 2 different pencils points to this conclusion. Also any minor differences that might be put down to ageing or unsteady hands. Im pretty sure that people who have an illness which causes hands to shake can have periods when the shaking ‘dies down’ or disappears entirely. So I’d have thought that this fact wouldn’t necessarily imply any great period of time between entries?

The handwriting expert also tells us, in his summary:

1) I have concluded that there is very strong support for the view that the notes towards the bottom of page 138 in Donald Swanson’s copy of The Lighter Side of my Official Life and the notes on the last leaf in this book were written by Donald Swanson)

2) I have concluded that there is no evidence to support the view that the final line on the last leaf of the book was added much later to a pre-existing text. I have also found no evidence to support the view that this line was written by Jim Swanson.

Which part of this do you want to ignore to prop up your theory?

Also, I’ll repeat:

2. Do you think that Swanson’s granddaughter, Mary Berkin, was ‘in on it’ too because she said that she saw the name Kosminski written in Anderson’s book at Jim Swanson’s house just after Alice Swanson’s funeral in 1980?

This was just after (perhaps only a week or two, I don’t know) after the items, left at Alice Swanson’s house, had been boxed up and transferred to Jim Swanson’s house. So if Mary saw Kosminski’s name pencilled into Anderson’s book at that time (unless you are suggesting that she was lying) then Jim Swanson must have added it in that very short space of time when they were busy collecting up and packing items away and sorting out the will and the house. A time when they say that they didn’t have time to look through things in any detail which makes absolute sense.

And let’s face it, this isn’t an alcoholic, out-of-work former scrap metal dealer we’re talking about. Jim Swanson was apparently the General Manager of an international group of tanneries so he was hardly on the breadline desperate for a few hundred quid was he? The family were also clearly very proud of their father’s achievements. Would they have risked damaging the family reputation by potentially attaching it to a tawdry bit of forgery knowing that the possibility of exposure always exists? He was an intelligent man who would have been well aware that handwriting experts exist and that any potential buyer would want the writings verified before money changed hands.

Its just not plausible imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So why did he wait till the last sentence to state "Kosminski was the suspect" and considering he was supposed to have been a prime suspect he doesn't even know his full name and he led the investigation

This is such a feeble, desperate point.

[Trevor Marriott]

All I see in your post Trevor is your opinion, what you believe.

You completely ignore my last comment.

It's a private note meant for no one but himself, why should he give a full name.

That he didn't know his name is nothing but assumption on your part.

Its not an opinion or an assumption I am stating a fact that in the marginalia he only writes the surname of Kosminski when as an officer of high rank such as Swanson who was directly involved in the investigation doesnt even bother to name the prime suspect/killer in full and it reads all wrong with the last sentence which could have been added at a later time to bolster the rest of the content. By adding the name Kosminski as the suspect would have added value to the book.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

It's a private note meant for no one but himself, why should he give a full name.

Hi Steve,

but...

by the same token, if it's a private note meant only for himself, and Swanson knows who is being discussed, why give the suspect's name at all?

Doesn't he already know who Anderson means?

Or why not just use the name 'Kosminski' in passing instead of making a grand announcement out of it at the end?

"Kosminski was the suspect."

One either hears it or doesn't hear it, but it it's not entirely natural. It is the kind of statement someone makes when writing with an audience in mind.

By way of full disclosure, when I theorize about Anderson's suspect, I theorize from the point of view that the Marginalia is genuine. The handwriting looks like Swanson's to me, and I can't prove otherwise.

But the last line has always bothered me. There's something about it that I can only describe as 'showmanship.'

When Littlechild writes to Sims, he only gives the suspect's last name--Tumblety--but he also gives it from the outset.

When Macnaghten discusses his suspects--all of them---he also names them before describing them: be it Cutbush, Druitt, Ostrog, Kosminski, etc...

It's the natural order of things.

No, I'm not saying that the Marginalia is a forgery, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I've always felt uneasy about that last line. There is something not entirely right about it.

If Swanson was simply writing for himself, one would think he would write something along the lines of 'Kosminski was watched day and night by the City C.I.D.'... or 'We took Kosminski with great difficulty...'

Revealing the suspect's name in the last line is...like I say...not entirely natural.

--Just my opinion.

[caz]

Unless you are aware of your own mortality, and feel the need to add this rather significant detail for posterity - to let future readers know that you knew who the suspect was. Maybe an ego thing, but not entirely unnatural if so. He could have just thrown the whole book in a skip if he didn't care about it being read after his death.

My opinion only.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Unless you are aware of your own mortality, and feel the need to add this rather significant detail for posterity - to let future readers know that you knew who the suspect was. Maybe an ego thing, but not entirely unnatural if so. He could have just thrown the whole book in a skip if he didn't care about it being read after his death.

My opinion only.

Love,

Caz
X

So, you're suggesting the problematic line 'Kosminski was the suspect' was added as an afterthought after initial reluctance...or...heaven forbid....later....?

Either way, it's not entirely natural.

I would hardly write to myself "Kosminski was the suspect that I just spent several sentences describing in considerable detail..."

[Sunny Delight]

So, you're suggesting the problematic line 'Kosminski was the suspect' was added as an afterthought after initial reluctance...or...heaven forbid....later....?

Either way, it's not entirely natural.

I would hardly write to myself "Kosminski was the suspect that I just spent several sentences describing in considerable detail..."

Didn't Donald Swanson annotate a lot of books that he was in possession of? Didn't he annotate Anderson's book more than just the marginalia? How do the other noted compare does anyone know? What was his writing style?

[rjpalmer]

Didn't Donald Swanson annotate a lot of books that he was in possession of? Didn't he annotate Anderson's book more than just the marginalia? How do the other noted compare does anyone know? What was his writing style?

You can see photographs of the various marginalia in Ripperologist 128.

To me, it all looks very similar and authentic.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Steve,

but...

by the same token, if it's a private note meant only for himself, and Swanson knows who is being discussed, why give the suspect's name at all?

Doesn't he already know who Anderson means?

Or why not just use the name 'Kosminski' in passing instead of making a grand announcement out of it at the end?

"Kosminski was the suspect."

One either hears it or doesn't hear it, but it it's not entirely natural. It is the kind of statement someone makes when writing with an audience in mind.

By way of full disclosure, when I theorize about Anderson's suspect, I theorize from the point of view that the Marginalia is genuine. The handwriting looks like Swanson's to me, and I can't prove otherwise.

But the last line has always bothered me. There's something about it that I can only describe as 'showmanship.'

When Littlechild writes to Sims, he only gives the suspect's last name--Tumblety--but he also gives it from the outset.

When Macnaghten discusses his suspects--all of them---he also names them before describing them: be it Cutbush, Druitt, Ostrog, Kosminski, etc...

It's the natural order of things.

No, I'm not saying that the Marginalia is a forgery, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I've always felt uneasy about that last line. There is something not entirely right about it.

If Swanson was simply writing for himself, one would think he would write something along the lines of 'Kosminski was watched day and night by the City C.I.D.'... or 'We took Kosminski with great difficulty...'

Revealing the suspect's name in the last line is...like I say...not entirely natural.

--Just my opinion.

Hi rj,

I get what you're thinking here, and I agree, it's an odd place to name the suspect and an odd way to phrase it. Presuming authenticity, there's no way to know what was going on in Swanson's head, so obviously we can only speculate. It occurs to me, though, that he might have been reluctant to write the name down if it was information the police considered confidential (officially or otherwise). So, he writes the first part, and only at the end, decides to put the name down on paper, overcoming whatever reluctance he may have had. And because he's adding it at the end, which as you say is unnatural, he puts it in a sort of bullet point format (maybe at first was just going to write Kosminiski, and once he wrote that he continued with "...was the suspect", rather than what sounds to me to be the more natural "The suspect was Kosminski."

Anyway, that occurred to me just now, and just thought I would put it out there.

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

You can see photographs of the various marginalia in Ripperologist 128.

To me, it all looks very similar and authentic.

Great thanks I will get a look.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi rj,

I get what you're thinking here, and I agree, it's an odd place to name the suspect and an odd way to phrase it. Presuming authenticity, there's no way to know what was going on in Swanson's head, so obviously we can only speculate. It occurs to me, though, that he might have been reluctant to write the name down if it was information the police considered confidential (officially or otherwise). So, he writes the first part, and only at the end, decides to put the name down on paper, overcoming whatever reluctance he may have had. And because he's adding it at the end, which as you say is unnatural, he puts it in a sort of bullet point format (maybe at first was just going to write Kosminiski, and once he wrote that he continued with "...was the suspect", rather than what sounds to me to be the more natural "The suspect was Kosminski."

Anyway, that occurred to me just now, and just thought I would put it out there.

- Jeff

Jeff I think that is a very plausible scenario. Reading the marginalia however it does seem to follow nicely and naturally from Anderson's paragraph on the witness refusing to swear to the suspect. And so Swanson begins with some additional info and carries on in that vein. It's only at the end does Swanson add the name which doesn't really seem unnatural to me.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
If the marginalia is the real deal firstly why is there no corroboration of what is contained in it?

Secondly, if this ID did take place as described it goes against the rules of evidence as set out in The Victorian police codes and why would the police risk jeopardising any subsequent prosecution by breaking those rules?

Thirdly the MM was discovered in the early 60`s I believe in that he describes a suspect by the name of Kosminski with no Christian name who he later exonerates. I find it strange that MM makes no mention of any such ID, and if the marginalia is genuine why is the full name of Kosminski not recorded in the marginalia? and I also find it strange that the marginalia does not name the suspect until the very last sentence and then only by surname.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Since others have responded I won't go on too long (he says hopefully! )

Well, Kosminski is mentioned in the M.M. Given the number of files and documents that have been lost, we cannot say that there hadn't been official documents that at one time described the identification it mentions. If this is the only surviving document providing us with a pointer to that identification, then we would be remise to ignore it. Given it's not an official document, written down quite some time after the event, it would not be impossible for there to be some errors involved. One possibility (pure speculation on my part to illustrate what I mean) might be that the proposed identification was actually the one we know about (Isenschmid), which he's mis-remembered and conflated with their later suspicions of Kosminiski. We see something similar in Anderson's 1908 interview where he says:

"Something of the same kind happened in the Ripper crimes. In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin.

In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had had taken it up, thrown it into the fire-place and smashed it beyond recognition.

In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognized as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated."

I wrote a piece on this in the dissertation section many years ago (here), but the short version is that it is pretty clear Anderson has conflated the pipe found in the Alice McKenzie murder with aspects of Mary Jane Kelly's murder (where there was also a pipe found, Barnett's). If something similar has happened here, then there may indeed already be some degree of confirmation of a confrontation type identification that was interfered with. Obviously, there are problems as well with that explanation, but that's the sort of thing we have to do - try as best we can to pick out the errors without throwing away the good information (separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak).

And as for the 2nd, as others have mentioned, the police did use that sort of confrontation approach. It's not ideal, and we know now it is also highly error prone (far more likely to get a false positive response - misidentify the wrong person), but that wasn't known at the time. Moreover, the police often resort to things that are not the ideal protocol (and I believe in 1888 it has been shown that id protocol was written in a way that is far more suggestive of using a line up than one which dictated use of a line up; Monty's post). Given that it is described as "should be", rather than "must be", then the police may have convinced themselves that a confrontation type identification, in this particular case, was the "most fair option" (i.e. protects the suspect from being made known to the public - meaning the others in the line up - given the possible consequences of even just being suspected). Again, we have too little information to actually know, but there are certainly realistic possibilities available that lead to the police adopting a confrontation style id.

As for the 3rd point, we don't know the temporal order of the writing of the M.M. and the proposed identification. If the identification happened after the M.M. was written (and the Swanson details about when the ID took place are incorrect), then that would make sense. Alternatively, it could be that the M.M. mentions Kosminski because of this identification, but because it "failed", he chose to direct attention towards a different suspect (Druitt) because Druitt was dead (and so could not be prosecuted) while Kosminski was alive but without the identification could also not be prosecuted. The latter he may have thought would reflect worse upon him and the police than the former, and his main objective in the M.M. was to show that Cutbush wasn't really a good suspect.

Personally, there's just a lot of conjecture going on, both for and against. What I'm suggesting above is, of course, all conjecture, but the objections against the memorandum are also based upon conjecture (so like counters like).

What we need is evidence, either evidence found that touches enough of the memorandum points to suggest those that conflict could be errors in the memorandum (which I would be surprised if there were none) or evidence found that shows the memorandum is nothing but poppycock. Until then, we just float around in the unconstrained space of conjecture, where one speculation is as good as another.

- Jeff