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

[rjpalmer]

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

Good Grief. I'm looking over my previous post.

I had two morals pulled today and was doped-up this afternoon. I'm still doped up.

I hope that's the explanation. Prosperity=posterity. I hope I'm not turning into Majorie Taylor Greene!

Either that, or it was a Freudian slip in homage to the money motive suggested by Trevor.

[rjpalmer]

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.

Hi Mike. I thought The Ripperologist article was a little ambiguous on this point. In the paragraph you quote, Mary makes it sound as if she saw the marginalia at around the time the will was read.

But a few paragraphs earlier, the authors state that Orchard Cottage had been emptied in a hurry after Alice's death and the books were shipped to down to Jim's house in Surrey before Mary or the others had made any real examination of them.

So, if I'm reading it correctly, by the time the will was read at Orchard Cottage, the books were long gone.

I think this means that Mary and the other family members were probably unaware of the marginalia until after the books had been in Jim's possession down at Badgers Hill. He certainly made them aware of it by 1981, however.

So, to me at least, it's not really certain when Mary first saw the name Kosminski.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything untoward about that. It's just my understanding of the chronology as described by Messrs. Wood and Skinner.

[rjpalmer]

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

It's a reasonable explanation, Jeff. Kind of like the phrase "for 'suspect' read 'Kosminski.'"

As you say, we are speculating, but it is a reasonable explanation. I suppose it is also possible that Swanson didn't initially recall the name of Anderson's suspect when he was writing the initial marginalia but recalled it when he came to write the second part. He then decided to go ahead and name Kosminski in the manner you suggest. Thus, the two entries being made at different times could theoretically help explain the oddity of the final wording.

I'm drifting off-topic, but document examination is any interesting topic but there are times when there is a fair amount of subjectivity and even wild theorizing.

Not long ago I read a paper about a 'tremor' in Shakespeare's last will and testament that seems to gradually increase.

After repeating the old story of Shakespeare dying suddenly then suggests the 'tremor' is evidence that Shakespeare's children poisoned him.

[mpriestnall]

Another question that I have is - do we think it possible that an ID might have taken place but the witness said that he couldn’t identify him and that he said, because of his uncertainty, that he was unwilling to send a potentially innocent, fellow Jew to the gallows? Could this have led the officers that were with him to believe that the only reason that he was unwilling to ID him was because he was a fellow Jew? And when this was related back to Anderson he took it as being true?

A good question. And Anderson took it to be true because, for some reason, it suited his bias or purpose?

[Trevor Marriott]

A good question. And Anderson took it to be true because, for some reason, it suited his bias or purpose?

Thats not how any ID parade works, the witness has to make a positive ID there are no half-measures like "I think it could be him" or "I am not sure" or "possibly could be" if any of those are uttered by the witness then that does not count as a positive ID.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

As to the use of two different pencils showing that they were annotated at different times, this is hardly astounding is it? Swanson clearly owned at least two pencils, so - perhaps the nib broke on one so he picked up another intending to sharpen the broken one at some later time, or that he was called away from the book (a visit to the loo, to answer the door or for any other mundane reason) and when he returned to the book he picked up a different pencil from his desk. So ‘at a different time’ could easily have been a matter of hours, minutes or even seconds.

And is the observation that some perhaps appeared in shakier writing? People with Parkinson’s can (I believe) have times when they shake and times when they don’t. So we can’t imply a lengthy gap of time. It might have been the next day or even later the same day.

We then have Mary seeing the word Kosminski written in the book shortly after Alice’s funeral. You want to call her a liar but that’s up to you. I’m more reluctant to call someone a liar without strong evidence (and there’s no strong evidence here)

Then we also have to consider that Jim Swanson was not only the General Manager of a group of tanneries (with commensurate salary and perks) but he had just come into his share of an inheritance. Would he really risk his, and the family’s reputation, for the sake of something that was hardly worth a life-changing sum of money.

Its also worth pointing out the obvious fact that he agreed to subjecting the writing to testing.

The points for the marginalia being genuine vastly outweigh the points against, most of which are pretty shaky interpretations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike. I thought The Ripperologist article was a little ambiguous on this point. In the paragraph you quote, Mary makes it sound as if she saw the marginalia at around the time the will was read.

But a few paragraphs earlier, the authors state that Orchard Cottage had been emptied in a hurry after Alice's death and the books were shipped to down to Jim's house in Surrey before Mary or the others had made any real examination of them.

So, if I'm reading it correctly, by the time the will was read at Orchard Cottage, the books were long gone.

I think this means that Mary and the other family members were probably unaware of the marginalia until after the books had been in Jim's possession down at Badgers Hill. He certainly made them aware of it by 1981, however.

So, to me at least, it's not really certain when Mary first saw the name Kosminski.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything untoward about that. It's just my understanding of the chronology as described by Messrs. Wood and Skinner.

Hello Roger,

Yes, it seems impossible to get a completely accurate timeline. When did they move the boxes? I original pointed at the end of 1980 but it certainly could have been early 1981. I’d suggest that it would have been very early 1981 though?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A good question. And Anderson took it to be true because, for some reason, it suited his bias or purpose?

I think it’s a possibility Martyn.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A quick minor point (before I head out for a bit of snow shifting) ….. Swanson only signed the two longer ripper-related passages. So if he signed the first longer one wouldn’t we perhaps have expected to see the second longer one (with the name added) signed too? If that was the case then there would have been no space for “Kosminski was the suspect” to be added before a signature that was already there?

[mpriestnall]

Thats not how any ID parade works, the witness has to make a positive ID there are no half-measures like "I think it could be him" or "I am not sure" or "possibly could be" if any of those are uttered by the witness then that does not count as a positive ID.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I read Herlock's posting as suggesting that as the witness couldn't definitely id the suspect and the identifying officers themselves interpreted the non-identification being down to witness being reluctant to id a fellow jew rather than the witness simply being unable to make the id.

It's just speculation on our part and I take your point.

Thanks for your comment.

Martyn

[Herlock Sholmes]

……..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?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can I ask what you mean by this? All that the Police Code warns against is simply taking a witness to see an individual suspect and that an ID parade should take place and that the others in the line up are similar in terms of age, appearance etc. There’s no mention of a prescribed location for this to take place. How can you know that an proper ID parade wasn’t arranged at the Seaside Home and that everything was done by the Police by the book? Why do you appear to assume that it wasn’t?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I read Herlock's posting as suggesting that as the witness couldn't definitely id the suspect and the identifying officers themselves interpreted the non-identification being down to witness being reluctant to id a fellow jew rather than the witness simply being unable to make the id.

It's just speculation on our part and I take your point.

Thanks for your comment.

Martyn

Maybe the witness initially said something like “well it certainly looks like him”? Or “ well it might be him”? But then he began to have second thoughts, especially considering that the gallows would have been looming. He might even have said “I think it’s him,” followed by a “then again” after a bit of thought.

It can’t be impossible that it then got relayed to Anderson as “he recognised him alright but he wasn’t willing to go the whole hog. Probably because he was a fellow Jew. These fellows tend to stick together.” Speculation of course but possible imo.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can I ask what you mean by this? All that the Police Code warns against is simply taking a witness to see an individual suspect and that an ID parade should take place and that the others in the line up are similar in terms of age, appearance etc. There’s no mention of a prescribed location for this to take place. How can you know that an proper ID parade wasn’t arranged at the Seaside Home and that everything was done by the Police by the book? Why do you appear to assume that it wasn’t?

The police codes set out the rules for the running of an ID parade.

And how many times do I have to keep saying that there is no corroboration to any such Id parade having taken place in the way described in the marginalia? MM was Swansons boss and he had two chances of corroborating any such ID having taken place. yet he exonerates Kosminski, So why does the marginalia tells us different

Just think about how many people would have had to have been involved in the preparation of the parade, the number of police officers of different ranks who would have to have been actively engaged, not to mention the staff at this seaside home, and most importantly the outcome as is described in the marginalia the positive ID of Jack the Ripper

How would this secret ID and not to mention the damming outcome have been kept from all of those people who would have been involved someone would have talked yet the only mention of this ID to be found is in this suspicious marginalia and in particular the last sentence? The writing of that sentence is out of context with the rest why would he have waited till the very end to name Kosminski and why does he decide to initial that entry, after all, it's his own book.

I stand to be corrected but I don't believe there are any other annotations in the book which have been initialled by Swanson

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Maybe the witness initially said something like “well it certainly looks like him”? Or “ well it might be him”? But then he began to have second thoughts, especially considering that the gallows would have been looming. He might even have said “I think it’s him,” followed by a “then again” after a bit of thought.

It can’t be impossible that it then got relayed to Anderson as “he recognised him alright but he wasn’t willing to go the whole hog. Probably because he was a fellow Jew. These fellows tend to stick together.” Speculation of course but possible imo.

Conjecture !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

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..."

The several sentences would have been an aide-mémoire for his own benefit, with no personal need to include the name, so I wouldn't interpret this necessarily as an initial 'reluctance' to do so, as you put it. The name would then be added to aid those who came after him, who'd have had no clue otherwise who he was writing about and would have been naturally curious.

Would that not be natural enough?