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

[caz]

I honestly don’t see why the use of 2 pencils and the signs of shakiness in certain parts of the handwriting equate to a sizeable gap of time between entries. The use of a different pencil might be explained for example by Swanson breaking the nib of one pencil and not having a knife to hand, so rather than getting up to fetch a knife he simply picked up another pencil and continued writing. After all, the different colouring of the pencils wasn’t easily noticeable and the 2 pencils might actually have looked the same or similar. Or, as I said earlier, he might just have been called away for a minute or two then when he came back to the book he picked up a different pencil.

On the handshaking, I once knew someone with Parkinson’s and he had periods when his hand shook and periods when it didn’t. If I recall correctly I believe that he also said that tiredness appeared to result in shaking. So it could have been that extracts with and without evidence of shaking could have been done on the same day.

Of course this doesn’t prove a small gap of time but equally I’d say that the use of two pencils and the ‘shakier’ extracts don’t prove a longer gap and it certainly shouldn’t be taken as evidence of a gap of years.

Hi Herlock,

I would imagine a good way to tell if there was a considerable time gap between the use of each pencil, would have been to do a thorough comparison exercise using authenticated examples of Swanson's handwriting at various intervals during his life. If the tremor was there, but only began manifesting itself in later life, and then remained fairly consistent in those later examples, one might then be able to estimate a minimum and maximum time gap between the two sets of notes, and the age he was when he made each one, but I'm still not sure how anyone could get it more accurate than that. Reputable professionals tend to err on the side of caution in any case, even if they privately hold a strong opinion one way or the other.

Any evidence of a tremor, however, in an example of Swanson's known hand, would tend to make it less likely that the Kosminski note was written by anyone else. A close family member might have known about the tremor, but why would they do their best to mimic one, if they wanted to give the impression that the notes were all written in the same steady hand and around the same time?

Sometimes, I don't think Trevor engages his brain before he lets his imagination run away with him.

But don't tell anyone I said so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

For me, the problem that I have with dismissing Kosminski is that the police were clearly interested in him as a suspect but we we don’t know what they might have known. It’s surely not much of a stretch to suggest that they might at least have had reasonable grounds for suspicion? An apparent lack of reasons to suspect him today doesn’t equate to a lack of reasons to suspect him then. Justified or not. We certainly have unanswered questions but should we simply dismiss Anderson and Swanson because of that? For me, Kosminski remains firmly in the top three likeliest of the named suspects. It could easily have been someone else though of course (as long as it can be proven that they were in the country at the time though)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes , that is the strongest point against the ID being enough to secure a conviction . But I will still argue that Kosminski [ I am not saying he was the ripper ], was a strong suspect and there must have been some evidence which made the police put him on an ID in the first place. And not because he was the local loony who happened to be Jewish. As some suggest

Regards Darryl

Beat me to it Darryl.

[rjpalmer]

Hi rj,

Yes, I get that. I gathered from the thread the pencil change was visible, but I was unclear at what point in the text the change of pencil occurred. Obviously, if it were mid sentence that would suggest some sort of trivial reason ( i e he was interrupted mid sentence and when he resumes he just grabbed a different one; just to resort to the common interruption theories that are prevalent in JtR theories ).

Hi Jeff. I think I inadvertently led you astray. There may have been as many as three pencils and three sessions of writing; it's not really clear.

Referring back to the article by Wood & Skinner, the very first section of the marginalia in the main body of the book is written with two different pencils, one gray and one purple. The pencils almost do change in mid-sentence, or at least in mid-thought; the phrase "because the suspect was also a Jew" being the first appearance of the purple tint. It is with this same purple pencil that the writer then finishes this section and signs off 'D.S.S.'

He then (presumably later) resumes the marginalia with a gray tinted pencil, continuing on to the back endpaper, where he finishes and again signs off.

Thus, the purple passage--if we can call it that--appears in the middle of the account. The most obvious hypothesis is that the marginalia was written over time.

A free pdf of Ripperologist 128 is available at the Ripperologist website.

[Bridewell]

And unless Anderson or Swanson was present at that ID parade what they said or wrote after that is hearsay.

And what puzzles me about this mythical ID parade is the fact that we have no evidence from anyone directly involved in the setting up of the parade or how the parade was conducted. An Inspector or above would have no doubt been responsible for organising the parade and for the running of the parade yet we see no evidence from any police officers who would have to have been directly involved in later years.

It reads like a direct confrontation which irrespective of the final outcome would have been of very little evidential value as there were guidelines in place to ensure fairness to the suspect see below extract from Sir Howard Vincent Victorian police codes on identifications

(a)	The officer in charge of the case against the prisoner, although present, should take no part in the particular proceedings connected with the identification, which should be carried out by the officer on duty in charge of the station or court.
(b)	The witnesses should not be allowed to see the accused before he is placed with others for the purpose of identification, nor should they be shown photographs of him or verbal or written descriptions.
(c)	The accused should be placed among a number of persons (not police)—eight or more, of similar age, height, general appearance, and class of life. He should be invited to stand where he pleases among them, and to change his position after each witness has been called in. He should be asked if he has any objection to any of the persons present, or the arrangements made, and, if he wishes, his solicitor or a friend actually in attendance may be allowed to be present.
(d)	The witnesses should be brought in one by one, and be directed to touch the person they identify. On leaving they should not be allowed to communicate with any other witness in waiting.
(e)	Every circumstance attending the identification should be carefully noted by the officer carrying it out, and whether the accused be identified or not, care being taken that when a witness fails to identify the fact should be as carefully recorded with name and address as in the contrary case—the object being that no subsequent allegation of unfairness can lie.
(f)	Any statement made by the person suspected must be recorded at once and read over to the officer in charge of the case in the presence of the prisoner, who should be invited to sign it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As you say, this was clearly (as described) a confrontation ID which would be worthless evidentially - because the witness is presented with a 'yes or no' alternative, prejudiced by the knowledge that the person presented to him or her is suspected by the police. Highly problematic if it was proposed to use the identification in evidence before a court for the reasons you set out. The likelihood IMHO (if indeed there was such an ID) is that the police were looking for confirmation, safe in the knowledge that there would never be any court proceedings.

In terms of the hearsay aspect. If Anderson and/or Swanson were/was involved in setting up the Seaside Home ID their reference to it as an historical occurrence wouldn't be hearsay although any allusion to what was said on that occasion certainly would be, unless they were actually present (which seems unlikely - especially in Anderson's case).

Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court. Whether or not it should therefore be inadmissible in the historical record is perhaps a topic for another thread.

[Trevor Marriott]

As you say, this was clearly (as described) a confrontation ID which would be worthless evidentially - because the witness is presented with a 'yes or no' alternative, prejudiced by the knowledge that the person presented to him or her is suspected by the police. Highly problematic if it was proposed to use the identification in evidence before a court for the reasons you set out. The likelihood IMHO (if indeed there was such an ID) is that the police were looking for confirmation, safe in the knowledge that there would never be any court proceedings.

But what would be the point of just the confirmation, according to the marginalia they had gone to great lengths to set this ID parade up. So after this positive ID would they have simply taken the suspect back to an address and simply left him to his own devices knowing that a positive ID had been made on a serial killer they had been trying to catch?

As they had a suspect in mind for them to organise an ID they would have had the option to arrest him on suspicion and interview him prior to the ID parade, or following the positive ID, but we see no evidence of either of those options taking place and can you imagine the police approaching the suspect in the first instance and saying "Excuse me but we think you are Jack the Ripper would you be so kind as to accompany us to a seaside home where we are going to put you on an ID parade" That would not have happened not then not now

And following this mythical parade and according to the marginalia, the suspect knew he had been identified, but he would not have known that having been identified the witness was refusing to go to court, So again the police had the option to interview him and put the positive ID to him which may have resulted in a confession

Or another option would have been to consider detaining him in a mental institution I cannot see why they would have simply left him at an address, and there lies another issue with the marginalia which states he was watched by the City police day and night, but Major Smith doesn't corroborate this, in fact, he stated he had no clue as to the identity of the Ripper, yet if we believe the marginalia the ripper had been identified.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[AdamNeilWood]

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.

Sorry for the ambiguity; the comments from Mary Berkin as to Alice Swanson's death, and her own first sight of the name 'Kosminski' came from one email to myself, and probably should have been better quoted in the article.

All the items - furniture, family heirlooms, books and documents - remained at Orchard Cottage, Alice's home, until after her funeral. Mary's brother Jim, as executor, then read the will there to the family. He emptied Orchard Cottage in November 1980 in readiness for its sale. Mary (and the rest of the family) viewed the furniture, family heirlooms etc at Jim's house in early 1981, and by this time Jim had discovered the marginalia, and showed it to his siblings.

A couple of months later, in March, Jim wrote to the Sunday Express and the News of the World offering sight of the marginalia.

Jim Swanson had a keen interest in his grandfather's career, not just his role in the investigation into the Whitechapel murders, and in fact several times commented that the case was but a small passage of time in what was a stellar 35 year career.

Adam

[Bridewell]

But what would be the point of just the confirmation, according to the marginalia they had gone to great lengths to set this ID parade up. So after this positive ID would they have simply taken the suspect back to an address and simply left him to his own devices knowing that a positive ID had been made on a serial killer they had been trying to catch?

As they had a suspect in mind for them to organise an ID they would have had the option to arrest him on suspicion and interview him prior to the ID parade, or following the positive ID, but we see no evidence of either of those options taking place and can you imagine the police approaching the suspect in the first instance and saying "Excuse me but we think you are Jack the Ripper would you be so kind as to accompany us to a seaside home where we are going to put you on an ID parade" That would not have happened not then not now

And following this mythical parade and according to the marginalia, the suspect knew he had been identified, but he would not have known that having been identified the witness was refusing to go to court, So again the police had the option to interview him and put the positive ID to him which may have resulted in a confession

Or another option would have been to consider detaining him in a mental institution I cannot see why they would have simply left him at an address, and there lies another issue with the marginalia which states he was watched by the City police day and night, but Major Smith doesn't corroborate this, in fact, he stated he had no clue as to the identity of the Ripper, yet if we believe the marginalia the ripper had been identified.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

The whole thrust of my argument was that what they did (assuming it happened) would only make sense if they knew that the circumstances of the ID would never be tested in court. If the suspect was Kosminski (as Swanson supposedly claimed) that would apply because he was safely incarcerated in a mental institution and would never stand trial. For that reason, and because he would never be mentally fit for interview anyway, there would be no point in arresting and/or trying to interview him. Why The Seaside Home though? I can see why they might want to dodge the Fleet Street press, but Brighton looks further than would have been necessary to achieve that aim. My money (if the incident occurred at all) is on the suspect being taken to Brighton because that's where the witness was. The other possibility is that Anderson and Swanson were convinced of Kosminski's guilt and an invented Seaside Home ID is a rather clumsy attempt to create, in retrospect, a narrative wherein Scotland Yard had the evidence to prove it - even though clearly they didn't.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

The whole thrust of my argument was that what they did (assuming it happened) would only make sense if they knew that the circumstances of the ID would never be tested in court. If the suspect was Kosminski (as Swanson supposedly claimed) that would apply because he was safely incarcerated in a mental institution and would never stand trial. For that reason, and because he would never be mentally fit for interview anyway, there would be no point in arresting and/or trying to interview him. Why The Seaside Home though? I can see why they might want to dodge the Fleet Street press, but Brighton looks further than would have been necessary to achieve that aim. My money (if the incident occurred at all) is on the suspect being taken to Brighton because that's where the witness was. The other possibility is that Anderson and Swanson were convinced of Kosminski's guilt and an invented Seaside Home ID is a rather clumsy attempt to create, in retrospect, a narrative wherein Scotland Yard had the evidence to prove it - even though clearly they didn't.

But if he were in a mental institution would the medical authorities have given permission for him to be taken out and placed on an Id parade? I doubt that very much and again we see no evidence of that anywhere and from anyone who might have been involved in such a venture.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry for the ambiguity; the comments from Mary Berkin as to Alice Swanson's death, and her own first sight of the name 'Kosminski' came from one email to myself, and probably should have been better quoted in the article.

All the items - furniture, family heirlooms, books and documents - remained at Orchard Cottage, Alice's home, until after her funeral. Mary's brother Jim, as executor, then read the will there to the family. He emptied Orchard Cottage in November 1980 in readiness for its sale. Mary (and the rest of the family) viewed the furniture, family heirlooms etc at Jim's house in early 1981, and by this time Jim had discovered the marginalia, and showed it to his siblings.

A couple of months later, in March, Jim wrote to the Sunday Express and the News of the World offering sight of the marginalia.

Jim Swanson had a keen interest in his grandfather's career, not just his role in the investigation into the Whitechapel murders, and in fact several times commented that the case was but a small passage of time in what was a stellar 35 year career.

Adam

Adam

For transparency and clarity are you now able to publish the results of Dr Totty's first examination of the marginalia you said to me previously that parts of it would be published in your article which didn't happen and why only parts of it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I would imagine a good way to tell if there was a considerable time gap between the use of each pencil, would have been to do a thorough comparison exercise using authenticated examples of Swanson's handwriting at various intervals during his life. If the tremor was there, but only began manifesting itself in later life, and then remained fairly consistent in those later examples, one might then be able to estimate a minimum and maximum time gap between the two sets of notes, and the age he was when he made each one, but I'm still not sure how anyone could get it more accurate than that. Reputable professionals tend to err on the side of caution in any case, even if they privately hold a strong opinion one way or the other.

Any evidence of a tremor, however, in an example of Swanson's known hand, would tend to make it less likely that the Kosminski note was written by anyone else. A close family member might have known about the tremor, but why would they do their best to mimic one, if they wanted to give the impression that the notes were all written in the same steady hand and around the same time?

Sometimes, I don't think Trevor engages his brain before he lets his imagination run away with him.

But don't tell anyone I said so.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I don’t know how I managed it but I missed your post earlier. Sorry.

To be honest I don’t know why Trevor pursues these things. We have an unlikely forger in Jim Swanson - high powered job, recent inheritance etc risking his and his family’s reputation, possible criminal proceedings, loss of job all for the sake of a few hundred quid. So with just that starting point it’s an unlikely proposition. Clearly he was an intelligent man who would have been fully aware that before any sale a buyer would ask for proofs of legitimacy which would entail various tests which could expose a bit of amateur forgery. Again, massive risk for minimal gain. Then we have Davies report stating ‘very strong evidence’ of it being genuine and no evidence of forgery. Of course it’s not the same as him saying ‘100% genuine’ but let’s face it, even if chemical tests had been done and it was proven that all of the marginalia was written between 1910-1920 he still wouldn’t have been able to have said with 100% certainty that someone else hadn’t added bits during that time period.

The points for ‘genuine’ just massively, overwhelmingly outweigh ‘forgery.’ It’s pretty much a no brainer for me but Trevor is obsessed with lost causes. Let’s face it, he creates some of them himself.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff. I think I inadvertently led you astray. There may have been as many as three pencils and three sessions of writing; it's not really clear.

Referring back to the article by Wood & Skinner, the very first section of the marginalia in the main body of the book is written with two different pencils, one gray and one purple. The pencils almost do change in mid-sentence, or at least in mid-thought; the phrase "because the suspect was also a Jew" being the first appearance of the purple tint. It is with this same purple pencil that the writer then finishes this section and signs off 'D.S.S.'

He then (presumably later) resumes the marginalia with a gray tinted pencil, continuing on to the back endpaper, where he finishes and again signs off.

Thus, the purple passage--if we can call it that--appears in the middle of the account. The most obvious hypothesis is that the marginalia was written over time.

A free pdf of Ripperologist 128 is available at the Ripperologist website.

Oh, 3 pencils. Ok, I guess I really should check out the pdf and get familiar with everything first hand. Always the best starting point. Cheers

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

Sorry for the ambiguity; the comments from Mary Berkin as to Alice Swanson's death, and her own first sight of the name 'Kosminski' came from one email to myself, and probably should have been better quoted in the article.

All the items - furniture, family heirlooms, books and documents - remained at Orchard Cottage, Alice's home, until after her funeral. Mary's brother Jim, as executor, then read the will there to the family. He emptied Orchard Cottage in November 1980 in readiness for its sale. Mary (and the rest of the family) viewed the furniture, family heirlooms etc at Jim's house in early 1981, and by this time Jim had discovered the marginalia, and showed it to his siblings.

A couple of months later, in March, Jim wrote to the Sunday Express and the News of the World offering sight of the marginalia.

Jim Swanson had a keen interest in his grandfather's career, not just his role in the investigation into the Whitechapel murders, and in fact several times commented that the case was but a small passage of time in what was a stellar 35 year career.

Adam

Many thanks for that clarification, Adam. Much appreciated.

I only recently discovered that you have a very interesting and well-made video on YouTube about Swanson and the Marginalia. I'll post the link below--it really deserves to have more views. Anyone following this thread should check it:

(15) The Swanson marginalia and the Seaside Home identification - YouTube

[Darryl Kenyon]

As you say, this was clearly (as described) a confrontation ID which would be worthless evidentially - because the witness is presented with a 'yes or no' alternative, prejudiced by the knowledge that the person presented to him or her is suspected by the police. .

Hi Bridewell

We don't know if the witness wasn't presented individually with say two or three people before Kosminski .

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 the police code of 1984 but I would imagine something similar would be used in 1891

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

The whole thrust of my argument was that what they did (assuming it happened) would only make sense if they knew that the circumstances of the ID would never be tested in court. If the suspect was Kosminski (as Swanson supposedly claimed) that would apply because he was safely incarcerated in a mental institution and would never stand trial. For that reason, and because he would never be mentally fit for interview anyway, there would be no point in arresting and/or trying to interview him. Why The Seaside Home though? I can see why they might want to dodge the Fleet Street press, but Brighton looks further than would have been necessary to achieve that aim. My money (if the incident occurred at all) is on the suspect being taken to Brighton because that's where the witness was. The other possibility is that Anderson and Swanson were convinced of Kosminski's guilt and an invented Seaside Home ID is a rather clumsy attempt to create, in retrospect, a narrative wherein Scotland Yard had the evidence to prove it - even though clearly they didn't.

Surely their first objective was to positively identify the killer if they felt that the witness was a capable witness of being able to do that, so that being said their priority would have been to stick to the rules regarding ID procedures as laid down in the police code. I can see no reason why they would go to all that trouble just to do a confirmation ID what would that have achieved in the grand scheme of things?

If the suspect was already incarcerated in a mental institution it is highly unlikely that the authorities would have allowed him to be taken out and as it seems he was never arrested so they could not have forced the suspect to cooperate. Furthermore, the mental institution scenario is ruled out because if he had been incarcerated the police would have to have taken him back to the institution and not taken him to a relative's house after this mythical ID

Even setting aside the forgery issue the whole content on the marginalia is flawed and lacks any corroboration

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk