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

[JeffHamm]

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.

That's a fair point. The addition of the name at the end could simply have been an after thought, with the initial intent just to add some details to what was written, and the plopping in of the suspect's name as a sort of footnote. In that case, the phrase "Kosminski was the suspect", signals "put Kosminski where it says suspect in the previous text", and in that sense it may be less unnatural.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

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

Hi Jeff.

I don't disagree and I've thought along similar lines. The only discrepancy comes from Swanson's own relatives (who could have been wrong) who seemed very instant that Donald Swanson would have never revealed confidential information--not even to his own wife, etc.

Jim Swanson even states something along the lines that "wild horse couldn't have dragged the name from him." Yet reveal the name he does.

So, on some level, if we accept the marginalia as genuine, Swanson must have made the conscious decision to reveal the suspect's name to prosperity and was not simply writing for his own benefit.

What is most compelling to me (besides the handwriting looking kosher--if I may use that word) is that Jim Swanson identified the suspect as 'Kosminski' to the News of the World in 1981 --and this was before Martin Fido wrote his well-known book about Anderson’s suspect (it came out in 1987).

If this was a hoax, it would have to have been by a well-informed and sophisticated student of the case who had anticipated Anderson's suspect was the same Polish Jew mentioned in the Macnaghten Memo of 1894. This is possible, but rather unlikely because I think I'm correct in saying that no one had ever made that connection before Martin Fido did and this was around 1986 or 1987. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Indeed, in some early Ripper books (I’m thinking of Donald Rumbelow’s) it was assumed that Anderson’s suspect was an entirely different Jew: John Pizer.

Thus, it seems authentic to me.

I wish the last line didn't bother me, but I'm just being honest. It has always nagged at me. It’s a matter of ‘ear’ and of subjectivity, admittedly, but no one will convince me that it's not a strange way of going about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is most compelling to me (besides the handwriting looking kosher--if I may use that word) is that Jim Swanson identified the suspect as 'Kosminski' to the News of the World in 1981 --and this was before Martin Fido wrote his well-known book about Anderson’s suspect (it came out in 1987).

If this was a hoax, it would have to have been by a well-informed and sophisticated student of the case who had anticipated Anderson's suspect was the same Polish Jew mentioned in the Macnaghten Memo of 1894. This is possible, but rather unlikely because I think I'm correct in saying that no one had ever made that connection before Martin Fido did and this was around 1986 or 1987. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

;

In addition Roger we have the excerpt from an email sent by Swanson’s great-granddaughter Mary (2012) published in the Rip 128 article:

“When the family gathered at Orchard Cottage after Lal’s funeral, [Jim] read the Will to us. At that time the passion for antiques was at its height and I, knowing that some pilfering had already taken place, had arranged a transport van and brought large pieces of furniture back to Beverley. Some of these I bought from the estate at Probate value. Other pieces I brought to [Jim’s home at] Badgers Walk, where Jim had assembled the pictures and valuables including the documents and books. Valuation prices had been put on objects (except the documents and criminal memoranda), and we could choose things we desired and their value was debited from each inheritance. [When we were shown the Marginalia it] was the first time that any of us had seen the name of the suspect, written very faintly in pencil! [Jim] must have realised the significance… I don’t think DSS would have broken the Police Code to impart it to anyone, but we, in the family, had all been assured that the culprit was known.”

So she saw the name Kosminski in the marginalia in what I assume would have been sometime at the end of 1980.

[Trevor Marriott]

In addition Roger we have the excerpt from an email sent by Swanson’s great-granddaughter Mary (2012) published in the Rip 128 article:

“When the family gathered at Orchard Cottage after Lal’s funeral, [Jim] read the Will to us. At that time the passion for antiques was at its height and I, knowing that some pilfering had already taken place, had arranged a transport van and brought large pieces of furniture back to Beverley. Some of these I bought from the estate at Probate value. Other pieces I brought to [Jim’s home at] Badgers Walk, where Jim had assembled the pictures and valuables including the documents and books. Valuation prices had been put on objects (except the documents and criminal memoranda), and we could choose things we desired and their value was debited from each inheritance. [When we were shown the Marginalia it] was the first time that any of us had seen the name of the suspect, written very faintly in pencil! [Jim] must have realised the significance… I don’t think DSS would have broken the Police Code to impart it to anyone, but we, in the family, had all been assured that the culprit was known.”

So she saw the name Kosminski in the marginalia in what I assume would have been sometime at the end of 1980.

The word Kosminski from the photos provided doesn't show it having been written faintly and there is no mention of this in the forensic reports

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

I don't disagree and I've thought along similar lines. The only discrepancy comes from Swanson's own relatives (who could have been wrong) who seemed very instant that Donald Swanson would have never revealed confidential information--not even to his own wife, etc.

Jim Swanson even states something along the lines that "wild horse couldn't have dragged the name from him." Yet reveal the name he does.

So, on some level, if we accept the marginalia as genuine, Swanson must have made the conscious decision to reveal the suspect's name to prosperity and was not simply writing for his own benefit.

What is most compelling to me (besides the handwriting looking kosher--if I may use that word) is that Jim Swanson identified the suspect as 'Kosminski' to the News of the World in 1981 --and this was before Martin Fido wrote his well-known book about Anderson’s suspect (it came out in 1987).

If this was a hoax, it would have to have been by a well-informed and sophisticated student of the case who had anticipated Anderson's suspect was the same Polish Jew mentioned in the Macnaghten Memo of 1894. This is possible, but rather unlikely because I think I'm correct in saying that no one had ever made that connection before Martin Fido did and this was around 1986 or 1987. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Indeed, in some early Ripper books (I’m thinking of Donald Rumbelow’s) it was assumed that Anderson’s suspect was an entirely different Jew: John Pizer.

Thus, it seems authentic to me.

I wish the last line didn't bother me, but I'm just being honest. It has always nagged at me. It’s a matter of ‘ear’ and of subjectivity, admittedly, but no one will convince me that it's not a strange way of going about it.

Hi rj,

Good points, and I get why his character of not revealing information would create one to pause and re-think (at least I hope it would!). I suppose, though, it comes to "state of mind", meaning, if he's of the mindset that the marginalia are notes only for himself, and is of the belief nobody else is ever going to look at these books, then the fact he would be unlikely to disclose the information in other ways, jotting it down in what he sees as his private notes is not really "revealing" the name to anyone.

On the other hand, as you point out, Jim Swanson appears to have been aware of the name Kosminski (perhaps after stumbling across the marginalia after Donald's death, as Herlock's post implies Jim was the one who took possession of that book). Moreover, also as per Herlock's post above, it appears that he did tell his family that Jack's identity was known, even if he didn't reveal the name itself (in keeping with his described character).

Anyway, I agree with you that the last line is weird; it's a weird grammatical structure to use as a sentence, and it doesn't go well with the previous section. In my post 136 (just above), I suggested an idea (and it's only that) in response to some comments made by Sunny Delight, that "unweirds it" somewhat, at least to me. That being said, I'm not sure if even I'm convinced by my own suggestion, but would be happy to hear your thoughts on that possibility.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The word Kosminski from the photos provided doesn't show it having been written faintly and there is no mention of this in the forensic reports

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So she’s lying?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff.

I don't disagree and I've thought along similar lines. The only discrepancy comes from Swanson's own relatives (who could have been wrong) who seemed very instant that Donald Swanson would have never revealed confidential information--not even to his own wife, etc.

Jim Swanson even states something along the lines that "wild horse couldn't have dragged the name from him." Yet reveal the name he does.

So, on some level, if we accept the marginalia as genuine, Swanson must have made the conscious decision to reveal the suspect's name to prosperity and was not simply writing for his own benefit.

What is most compelling to me (besides the handwriting looking kosher--if I may use that word) is that Jim Swanson identified the suspect as 'Kosminski' to the News of the World in 1981 --and this was before Martin Fido wrote his well-known book about Anderson’s suspect (it came out in 1987).

If this was a hoax, it would have to have been by a well-informed and sophisticated student of the case who had anticipated Anderson's suspect was the same Polish Jew mentioned in the Macnaghten Memo of 1894. This is possible, but rather unlikely because I think I'm correct in saying that no one had ever made that connection before Martin Fido did and this was around 1986 or 1987. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Indeed, in some early Ripper books (I’m thinking of Donald Rumbelow’s) it was assumed that Anderson’s suspect was an entirely different Jew: John Pizer.

Thus, it seems authentic to me.

I wish the last line didn't bother me, but I'm just being honest. It has always nagged at me. It’s a matter of ‘ear’ and of subjectivity, admittedly, but no one will convince me that it's not a strange way of going about it.

The last line of the marginalia also bothers me!

James Swanson approached The Sunday Express and The News of The World newspapers in 1981 with the story surrounding the book and its annotations. The News of The World took up the offer and they agreed to pay him £750.00 for the rights to publish Donald Swanson’s story, which included annotations. James Swanson requested a further £250.00 should a second article ever be published to which they agreed. However, for whatever reason, The News of The World did not publish the article and I have to ask why given such an important news story. Was it because the last sentence naming Kosminski was not present in those annotations?

James Swanson waited until 1987 and then The News of The World agreed to rescind the original contract enabling him to then offer the rights to the same book and its annotations to the Telegraph who took up his offer and did publish an article which did contain the last questionable sentence naming Kosminski.

If the last line had been added in between those dates then whoever did it could only have had the name Kosminski to work with because that is the only part name to have been made public up until then, and Martin Fido didn't discover Aarron Kosminski until 1987 and by that time the end sentence had probably already been added to the marginalia so the full name could not have been added and that is why we see the last sentence in that strange form

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So she’s lying?

One pic is worth a thousand words !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

One pic is worth a thousand words !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Rubbish. It was written in pencil. It looks fairly faint to me as opposed to being written in pen.

This is yet another bee-in-your-bonnet. The marginalia is clearly not a fake. You’re like a conspiracy theorists, poking around looking for anything desperate and trivial to build some half-baked theory around. One day you might come up with something sensible.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I take your point Trevor but at the time the police thought Isenschmid a very likely suspect. Abberline in a letter dated 18 Sept writes that at present they were unable to procure evidence to connect him to the murders ,but he appears to be the most likely person thus far to have committed the crimes. It is obvious the Met took great interest in him.

We know that Isenschmid is not the murderer but Fiddymont's evidence of seeing a man acting strangely in her public house only 400 yards from the murder scene with blood on his hands on the morning of said murder . It would have been all circumstantial evidence of course. But it seems to me that Mrs Fiddymont, had she identified Isenschmid and a case was built against Isenschmid she would have been part of that case in a court of law.
So why risk her evidence with a confrontational ID ,[ because I cannot see Isenschmid being put on any form of proper identity parade in an asylum ], if her evidence was then going to be deemed inadmissible. Unless confrontational ID's were allowed in certain circumstances ?

Swanson writes that Kosminski was sent by the Met with difficulty to be identified at the seaside home. Perhaps the difficulty arose in not being able to put the suspect in a proper Identification parade with his state of mind , or he flatly refused. so a confrontational ID it had to be.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Following on from my last post

This is from the Police and Criminal act of 1984

Confrontation

2.10 A confrontation is where the suspect is directly confronted by the witness. This procedure may be used when it is not possible to arrange a video identification, identification parade, or group identification.

2.11 Confrontations must be carried out in accordance with Annex D.

2.12 References in this section to a suspect being “known” means there is sufficient information known to the police to justify the arrest of a particular person for suspected involvement in the offence. A suspect being “available” means that they are immediately available to take part in the procedure or will become available within a reasonably short time. A known suspect who fails or refuses to take part in any identification procedure which it is practicable to arrange, or takes steps to prevent themselves from being seen by a witness in such a procedure, may be treated as not being available for the purposes of this section.

In Annex D
ANNEX D CONFRONTATION BY AN EYE-WITNESS

1. Before the confrontation takes place, the eye-witness must be told that the person they saw
on a specified earlier occasion may, or may not, be the person they are to confront and that
if they are not that person, then the witness should say so.

This is from 1984 but would the rules not be similar in Victorian England ?
If it was, the paragraph above mentioning the suspect may or may not be the person the witness saw and if not the person they saw they must say so becomes very important.
Witness says Kosminski is the person he saw the second he is confronted with him. Anderson/Swanson may have taken great stock by that.

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

I take your point Trevor but at the time the police thought Isenschmid a very likely suspect. Abberline in a letter dated 18 Sept writes that at present they were unable to procure evidence to connect him to the murders ,but he appears to be the most likely person thus far to have committed the crimes. It is obvious the Met took great interest in him.

The police were chasing shadows and everyone mentioned to them became a potential suspect

We know that Isenschmid is not the murderer but Fiddymont's evidence of seeing a man acting strangely in her public house only 400 yards from the murder scene with blood on his hands on the morning of said murder . It would have been all circumstantial evidence of course. But it seems to me that Mrs Fiddymont, had she identified Isenschmid and a case was built against Isenschmid she would have been part of that case in a court of law.
So why risk her evidence with a confrontational ID ,[ because I cannot see Isenschmid being put on any form of proper identity parade in an asylum ], if her evidence was then going to be deemed inadmissible. Unless confrontational ID's were allowed in certain circumstances ?

I doubt the medical authorities would allow any form of an ID parade to be conducted in their asylum with a patient under their care and control or for that matter anyone of their patients to be removed for such a purpose

Swanson writes that Kosminski was sent by the Met with difficulty to be identified at the seaside home. Perhaps the difficulty arose in not being able to put the suspect in a proper Identification parade with his state of mind , or he flatly refused. so a confrontational ID it had to be.

Its conjecture we have to accept that there is no evidence from anyone to corroborate what is contained in the marginalia and that's what makes it unsafe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Just for clarity, I have set out below the full forensic reports seeing as you have cherry picked the ones to suit your belief

Dr Davies states:
“I have noted that these two sets of interest, although both written in pencil appear to have been written with different pencils. I have further noted that the underline of the words “also a Jew” in the set one entry appears to be in a similar pencil to that used for the set two entries.
These observations cause me to conclude that these two sets of entries were written at different times and that the set one entry was written first.

“The writing of these annotations is of reasonable quality although the writing of the set one entry is of slightly better line quality than is the writing of the set two entries. In particular, the set two entries showed evidence of occasional tremor, which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonism. This may mean that the set two entries were written some time after the set one entry and I am unable to determine any more precisely what the time interval between these entries may have been.”

The report concludes:

“I have not found any differences between the known and questioned writings in features that I consider are clearly fundamental structural features of the writing. However, in certain circumstances, my findings might occur if Swanson were not the writer of the questions writing.
Consequently, my findings do not show unequivocally that Swanson is the writer of the questioned writing but they do support this proposition.

“I have therefore concluded that there is strong evidence to support the proposition that Swanson wrote the questioned annotations in the book “The lighter side of my official life”.

“If I were able to examine known writings by Swanson that were more nearly contemporary with the questioned writing then I might wish to alter this conclusion. Such writings would enable me to determine whether or not differences that have attributed to the passage of time between the production of the known and questioned writings are truly caused by this.”

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

[I]Maybe they [the police] realized that even with an identification they still lacked sufficient evidence for a trial and conviction. What if they simply wanted to confirm that this is most likely our man and now we can scale back our investigation and start taking police off the streets? That could also account for their not doing things "by the book" if that was the case.

This is what I've always thought. Throw in another complicating factor, like the suspect's family threatening religious persecution, and one begins to understand the reticence of those directly involved in the identification proceeding.

[JeffHamm]

Just for clarity, I have set out below the full forensic reports seeing as you have cherry picked the ones to suit your belief

Dr Davies states:
“I have noted that these two sets of interest, although both written in pencil appear to have been written with different pencils. I have further noted that the underline of the words “also a Jew” in the set one entry appears to be in a similar pencil to that used for the set two entries.
These observations cause me to conclude that these two sets of entries were written at different times and that the set one entry was written first.

“The writing of these annotations is of reasonable quality although the writing of the set one entry is of slightly better line quality than is the writing of the set two entries. In particular, the set two entries showed evidence of occasional tremor, which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonism. This may mean that the set two entries were written some time after the set one entry and I am unable to determine any more precisely what the time interval between these entries may have been.”

The report concludes:

“I have not found any differences between the known and questioned writings in features that I consider are clearly fundamental structural features of the writing. However, in certain circumstances, my findings might occur if Swanson were not the writer of the questions writing.
Consequently, my findings do not show unequivocally that Swanson is the writer of the questioned writing but they do support this proposition.

“I have therefore concluded that there is strong evidence to support the proposition that Swanson wrote the questioned annotations in the book “The lighter side of my official life”.

“If I were able to examine known writings by Swanson that were more nearly contemporary with the questioned writing then I might wish to alter this conclusion. Such writings would enable me to determine whether or not differences that have attributed to the passage of time between the production of the known and questioned writings are truly caused by this.”

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

That's an interesting and well balanced report. In short, the report falls on the side of Swanson being the author of all of it, with some parts (referred to as the second set) appearing to have been written some unknown amount of time later, possibly years. This could easily happen, of course, as there's nothing to preclude the idea that Swanson simply added the 2nd set to his notes when revisiting the book, perhaps years later (years are implied by the observed "tremors" in the 2nd set compared to the tremor free 1st set).

Of course, as with any sort of analysis, it is presented cautiously to acknowledge that the pro-offered interpretation could be wrong (any hand-writing expert who tells you there is no chance they could be wrong is either lying, or not really an expert. Basically, it is best not to read too much into their admitting that they could be wrong, but be on high alert if they don't!). That's because admitting they could have it wrong isn't just trying to have a bob both ways, but reflects someone who understands the limitations of the method and analysis, and they are simply acknowledging that sometimes the analysis will produce an erroneous conclusion.

Despite all of that, the report clearly indicates that, barring new evidence, Dr. Davies is of the belief that Swanson was in all likelihood the author of all of the text. Moreover, he suggests it appears the entire text was not written at one time, but that the marginalia was revisited by Swanson a 2nd time, possibly years after the first.

- Jeff