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

[rjpalmer]

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?

I think the obvious implication of Jim Swanson's account is that he first discovered the Marginalia after Orchard Cottage was cleared of possessions and he had the book to himself down in Surrey. Thus, there were no witnesses to his discovery, and his family first learned of it after he did.

But this is hardly strange, is it? It is the natural order of things--a man mucks through his newly acquired acquisitions, determining what he's got.

I can only think of one example in all of Ripperology where a man only discovered what he really had nearly a year after he first acquired it--yet was somehow still lucky enough make his once-in-a-lifetime discovery in front of eyewitnesses with immediate access to a microscope. But I digress.

[caz]

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.

I saw that, RJ, and feel your pain - in both senses.

I hope you won't miss the two 'morals' that were pulled!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I saw that, RJ, and feel your pain - in both senses.

I hope you won't miss the two 'morals' that were pulled!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Love,

Caz
X

Pain and drugs do the darndest things to my vocabulary--at the height of my misery I almost felt like gorging out an eye. Slightly better this morning.

I'll be back to cracking walnuts with my teeth in no time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

And we have no evidence that those rules weren’t adhered to. Are you suggesting that Anderson would have wasted time describing the exact circumstances 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

You don’t have to keep saying it because we know it. This doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur though. How do we know that it wasn’t a case of just one or two officers took Kosminski to the Seaside Home and that those at the Home weren’t informed of the real reason for the ID? The witness might have been told to keep it to himself. This could have meant that only a couple of officers were aware of what was actually going on. Those at the Home, seeing that an ID was taking place could have been told that the suspect was being ID’d for something other than the ripper murders.

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

You’re exaggerating as ever. This could very easily have been kept to bare minimum of trusted officers who were warned not to talk. Those at the Home could have been kept in ignorance with no reason for suspecting that the ID was ripper-related.

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.

This is just like your reading to much into Collard’s use of the word ‘apparently.’ People write in different ways. The wording employed by one person might seem strange to someone else. I see nothing suspicious.

And what if Swanson at first wasn’t going to put the name, then he thought about it for a while and thought: “only my family are going to see it and I’ll be dead when they do?” And so he added that “Kosminski was the subject.”

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

There are 2 signatures. One after the words “….to be left on his mind.” And one after “Kosminski was the subject.” Both after the longer paragraphs about the case. So if he signed the first, it’s a likely possibility that he would have signed the second. I’m not stating this a a certainty to a likely possibility. And if it’s correct then there would have been no space to add “Kosminski was the suspect,” by your non-existent forger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the obvious implication of Jim Swanson's account is that he first discovered the Marginalia after Orchard Cottage was cleared of possessions and he had the book to himself down in Surrey. Thus, there were no witnesses to his discovery, and his family first learned of it after he did.

But this is hardly strange, is it? It is the natural order of things--a man mucks through his newly acquired acquisitions, determining what he's got.

I can only think of one example in all of Ripperology where a man only discovered what he really had nearly a year after he first acquired it--yet was somehow still lucky enough make his once-in-a-lifetime discovery in front of eyewitnesses with immediate access to a microscope. But I digress.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So according to Trevor, in the very short time between sorting out and boxing up Alice’s effects after her death and fulfilling his duties as an executor of the estate (whilst probably at the same time undertaking various work commitments) and Mary seeing the name Kosminski in the book, Jim Swanson, the general manager of a group of tanneries who was also a benefactor of the will decided on the spur to add in some additions to Donald Swanson’s margin notes, even though we have no reason to believe that he was desperate for a few hundred quid. And even though the marginalia didn’t prove Kosminski’s guilt so this was a much less ‘stunning’ and so hardly massively lucrative revelation. And that this intelligent man was so confident in his forging skills that he knew that he’d be able to fool the document/handwriting expert that would undoubtedly have been employed before any money changed hands. Added to this Trevor mentioned that testing could be done to check when the writing was applied to the page so why wasn’t Jim Swanson worried that a potential buyer might not demand this test exposing his deceit? The family were clearly very proud of Donald Swanson, so would Jim really have wanted to bring the family name into disrepute? Might this not have triggered comebacks from his employers who might not have been keen to have a forger running their tanneries? All for the sake of a few hundred measly quid?

Is there anything remotely plausible in the suggestion of forgery? I’d say absolutely not. It’s just conspiracy theory thinking. It’s time to move on. The combined evidence shows us that the marginalia is entirely genuine. It doesn’t mean that Kosminski was the ripper though of course. But he might have been.

[caz]

I think the obvious implication of Jim Swanson's account is that he first discovered the Marginalia after Orchard Cottage was cleared of possessions and he had the book to himself down in Surrey. Thus, there were no witnesses to his discovery, and his family first learned of it after he did.

But this is hardly strange, is it? It is the natural order of things--a man mucks through his newly acquired acquisitions, determining what he's got.

I can only think of one example in all of Ripperology where a man only discovered what he really had nearly a year after he first acquired it--yet was somehow still lucky enough make his once-in-a-lifetime discovery in front of eyewitnesses with immediate access to a microscope. But I digress.

To be fair, it was only the fact that Albert Johnson was given a reason by his workmates to tell them about his watch and show it to them, that made the discovery of what was scratched inside not only more likely, but inevitable. It might have looked suspicious if he had just taken it in one day out of the blue for no apparent reason and then - Lechmere like - invited them over to the window to inspect his handiwork - or in this case his brother's. But that's not how it happened, according to those present.

It would seem somewhat unlikely for Robbie to have planned this whole thing, knowing his brother would have 'immediate access to a microscope' at his place of work, but then the workings of the deeply devious mind are another mystery to me.

The suspicious mind is shallower and easier to fathom. I can see how anyone who can even entertain the theory that Kosminski's name might have been introduced by a faker, would have had no problem throwing Albert under a similar bus, regardless of the total lack of evidence against the man.

The more appropriate comparison to make is that Kosminski's name was already there when Jim Swanson first saw the marginalia in the book, while Maybrick's name was already there when Albert first saw the scratch marks in the watch, followed by Robbie. They really ought to be renamed Murphy's Marks, as they were seen there back in 1992, and would have been deciphered if only the light had been that much brighter when the jeweller's rouge was being applied.

Back to the Seaside Home...

...and my own seaside home. It's tea o'clock again.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

There are 2 signatures. One after the words “….to be left on his mind.” And one after “Kosminski was the subject.” Both after the longer paragraphs about the case. So if he signed the first, it’s a likely possibility that he would have signed the second. I’m not stating this a a certainty to a likely possibility. And if it’s correct then there would have been no space to add “Kosminski was the suspect,” by your non-existent forger.

and why would he initial his own writing in his own book what would be the point?

or did the nonexistent forger add those initials to enhance the forged part?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

and why would he initial his own writing in his own book what would be the point?

or did the nonexistent forger add those initials to enhance the forged part?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do we need to know the reason? Possibly to show to future readers that they were his comments given the subject matter.

If you’re asking why Swanson would have added them then you should also ask why a forger would have added them?

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do we need to know the reason? Possibly to show to future readers that they were his comments given the subject matter.

If you’re asking why Swanson would have added them then you should also ask why a forger would have added them?

From a financial perspective without the name Kosminski the book and its annotations would be worthless I have already explained why the first paper did not publish the books content and yet the second newspaper did several years later, time enough for that last sentence to be added.

I also refer back to a passage of the Forensic report quoting Dr Davies

“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 was as they were made some years later."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

From a financial perspective without the name Kosminski the book and its annotations would be worthless I have already explained why the first paper did not publish the books content and yet the second newspaper did several years later, time enough for that last sentence to be added.

I also refer back to a passage of the Forensic report quoting Dr Davies

“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 was as they were made some years later."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve just re-read both of Dr. Davies reports and the above quote appears in neither of them. Where are you quoting from?

[Darryl Kenyon]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n802997]

From a financial perspective without the name Kosminski the book and its annotations would be worthless

So why would Jim Swanson, or anybody else who allegedly forged the annotations then muddy the waters by mentioning a seaside home nobody was aware of ? And by mentioning the suspect was watched by City CID day and night, which again flies in the face of what was known and what Henry Smith said about the ripper ?

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

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

It isn't unnatural at all to my mind. Some people have a writing style like that. Once the clarifications are offered on the identification Swanson merely adds that Kosminski was the suspect. I dont see it naturally fitting anywhere else in the text. It is intriguing though that McNaghten references Kosminski in his report and Swanson confirms he was subject to some sort of ID. It is obvious his name was very much on the Police radar so much so that senior officers offered his name on two separate independent occasions.

[Elamarna]

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

So you dont actually why the News of the World didn't publish?

I use to drink most night of the week in the mid 80s at a pub in Mill Hill, north west London.
One of the other regulars was a Mr Robert Warren, senior figure News of the World. We discussed it.

Not for the reason you suggest, just the opposite actually.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

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.

HI rj,

Yes, that's the sort of thing I was suggesting.

I'm not sure which bits are the first and second "sets", but if just the phrase "The suspect was Kosminski" is the second set, and the analysis is correct that this was added at a different time (apparently years later), then it would not be so surprising that it doesn't "fit it" with the original notes. It's an "addendum", and if viewed that way the phrasing is less weird. Much of the weirdness, at least to my reading, comes from the assumption it was all written in one go.

Still, handwriting analysis is not something I really know very much about, other than it is not an exact science by any stretch of the imagination. I am not familiar with the fine details of the methods, nor have I delved into checking on how reliable those methods are. One can have very complicated procedures, and be very good at executing them, but if the outcome of those procedures are little better than chance, then even reports from top notch experts are still relatively uninformative. In other words, a top notch expert may be good at what they do, but what they do is not good at producing reliable information.

At some point I might have a look to see what sort of "quality control" check type research has been done on handwriting analysis. I'm pretty sure the "personality analysis through handwriting" type thing is bogus, but the reliability of such things as "same vs different hand", "same hand different times", and so forth stands a much better chance of being informative. I just don't know how informative, and that doesn't sit well with me.

- Jeff