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

[Elamarna]

The last and important part to the marginalia states “Kosminski was the suspect” it should be noted that in 1981 when James Swanson agreed to sell the story to The News of The World, the story was to be written by reporter Charles Sandell. His typewritten article has been found and published and in that he makes no mention of that last line in the marginalia “Kosminski was the suspect.” I find that strange as that last line is the most important part of the marginalia because it names the suspect, and I would have expected it to have been included in his article.

Now I have to ask why it was not. Was it an omission on Sandell's part, or was it a case that the last line was not there in the marginalia at that time? If that was the case it might explain why The News of The World article never got published, because the name Kosminski was already in the public domain. In the 1987 article published by The Telegraph, the line “Kosminski was the suspect was mentioned as being part of the marginalia.

In another document, which Sandell sent to his news editor prior to him formulating his intended article, he does include a line which reads, "The Yard Detective names the man as Kosminksi, a Police Jew”In the absence in his final article of the all-important "Kosminski was the suspect," Sandell can only have been told that Donald Swanson said, "he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski," for there is nothing else in Charles Sandell's transcription of the marginalia to substantiate such a claim.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh dear Trevor still confused.

We have a document written by Sandell, written in April 1981, which gives the name Kosminski. That's 6 years before it's eventual publication or the book by Martin.

The name is clearly mentioned in a memo dated 15th April 1981, only 5 weeks after Jim Swanson first contacted the the paper.

The day AFTER this memo Robert Warren confirmed the deal with Swanson, with final agreement being made 22nd April. On 23rd Swanson informed the Sunday Express , who jad also spoken to that the story had been sold. Payment was made 14th May 1981.

Such clearly shows that the name Kosminski was mentioned at a VERY early date, before an exclusive agreement had been either offered, agreed and signed.
That such does not appear in another document is a red herring. To suggest as you do that he was told this verbally is pure invention on your part.

If the name was not included in the original Marginlia as seen by Sandell, it's inconceivable that the News of the World would pay out for what amounts to "I know who jtr was, but I'm not saying"

That would be no more than Anderson said back in 1910. The only reason the paper would be interested, is that a name was mentioned. However, the paper decided that without further research, of at least equal to that carried out by Martin Fido, there was no story.

Nevin gave that as the probably reason in 1987, 6 years after the story was sold to the News of the World.

Yet you do not accept it.

I have explained what I was told by Bob Warren, why the News of the World did not run with the story.

Yet you do not accept that.

So you claiming that Robert Warren was mistaken or told me an untruth ?

The implied suggestion that the name Kosminski was added, because of Fido's work is a non starter, unless we believe in time travel.

That you previously said the News of the World was offered the story in 1987, is highly disingenuous, i note you have NOT even acknowledged that "mistake "

Your rejection of the Marginlia is not based on a reasoned argument, but on bias, clearly not supported by the facts.
I seem to recall that very similar claims, brought us all into disrepute some years ago.

It's seems some people never learn.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear Trevor still confused.

We have a document written by Sandell, written in April 1981, which gives the name Kosminski. That's 6 years before it's eventual publication or the book by Martin.

The name is clearly mentioned in a memo dated 15th April 1981, only 5 weeks after Jim Swanson first contacted the the paper.

The day AFTER this memo Robert Warren confirmed the deal with Swanson, with final agreement being made 22nd April. On 23rd Swanson informed the Sunday Express , who jad also spoken to that the story had been sold. Payment was made 14th May 1981.

Such clearly shows that the name Kosminski was mentioned at a VERY early date, before an exclusive agreement had been either offered, agreed and signed.
That such does not appear in another document is a red herring. To suggest as you do that he was told this verbally is pure invention on your part.

If the name was not included in the original Marginlia as seen by Sandell, it's inconceivable that the News of the World would pay out for what amounts to "I know who jtr was, but I'm not saying"

That would be no more than Anderson said back in 1910. The only reason the paper would be interested, is that a name was mentioned. However, the paper decided that without further research, of at least equal to that carried out by Martin Fido, there was no story.

Nevin gave that as the probably reason in 1987, 6 years after the story was sold to the News of the World.

Yet you do not accept it.

I have explained what I was told by Bob Warren, why the News of the World did not run with the story.

Yet you do not accept that.

So you claiming that Robert Warren was mistaken or told me an untruth ?

The implied suggestion that the name Kosminski was added, because of Fido's work is a non starter, unless we believe in time travel.

That you previously said the News of the World was offered the story in 1987, is highly disingenuous, i note you have NOT even acknowledged that "mistake "

Your rejection of the Marginlia is not based on a reasoned argument, but on bias, clearly not supported by the facts.
I seem to recall that very similar claims, brought us all into disrepute some years ago.

It's seems some people never learn.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the documents you refer to?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never mentioned a Seaman's home I simply referred to an ID as mentioned in the newspaper

As to a time-lapse you forgot to mention the time lapse in the marginalia - and that is that Swanson could not have made that entry before 1910, 22 years after the murders, so how good was his memory after that period of time?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You say you "never mentioned a Seaman's home" so how do you explain the mention of a Seaman's home in this sentence from your #246?

"There is no information to tell us where or when this identification procedure took place but it is believed to have taken place at a "Seamans Home""

As for the time lapse, yes sure, Swanson's memory might have been muddled when he wrote the marginalia but that's very different from challenging the authenticity of the marginalia.

Nevertheless, as to the muddle, we have Anderson in 1910 publicly saying a Polish Jew had been identified as JTR while MM had privately recorded in a memo 16 years earlier that Kosminski, a Polish Jew, was one of 3 prime suspects. So there is good reason to think that Swanson's memory was accurate.

[rjpalmer]

So the actual quote was NOT Swanson saying"The Whitechapel Murders were the work of a man who is now dead" as Trevor claims. It was no more than a summary of Swanson's supposed belief (expressed in the past tense, so I'm not really sure where it came from).

Hi Herlock.

To me, what the PMG is saying is that previous to Grainger, Swanson believed the murderer was dead. No great mystery there; it's a clear statement. He might still believe the murderer is dead. Nonetheless, Swanson was willing to investigate Grainger--trace his movements at the time of the other murders (he was in Banstead at the time of the Coles murder, the article states) and even had a witness--presumably Lawende--have a look at him in an attempt to identify Grainger as the man near Mitre Square.

That tends to make mincemeat of Sir Robert Anderson's later claim that Kosminski was conclusively identified and there was "no doubt whatsoever," since the investigation of Grainger took place after Kosminski was already sent to Colney Hatch. Earlier, there was an investigation of Sadler, and there was evidently an investigation of Cutbush, etc.

Isn't that the bigger picture?

I also don't share your confidence that Swanson was 'clearly' referring to Aaron Kosminski as being dead by 1895, considering that he wasn't. Why can't he be referring to someone else? Even if you believe Swanson was agreeing with Anderson in 1913 (or whenever he wrote the marginalia) can't a man change his mind after two decades? The suspect who was dead in 1895--and mentioned in the memo the previous year--was M.J. Druitt.

Is it impossible that Macnaghtnen had convinced Swanson, but Swanson later reverted back to Anderson's theory?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

To me, what the PMG is saying is that previous to Grainger, Swanson believed the murderer was dead. No great mystery there; it's a clear statement. He might still believe the murderer is dead. Nonetheless, Swanson was willing to investigate Grainger--trace his movements at the time of the other murders (he was in Banstead at the time of the Coles murder, the article states) and even had a witness--presumably Lawende--have a look at him in an attempt to identify Grainger as the man near Mitre Square.

That tends to make mincemeat of Sir Robert Anderson's later claim that Kosminski was conclusively identified and there was "no doubt whatsoever," since the investigation of Grainger took place after Kosminski was already sent to Colney Hatch. Earlier, there was an investigation of Sadler, and there was evidently an investigation of Cutbush, etc.

Isn't that the bigger picture?

I also don't share your confidence that Swanson was 'clearly' referring to Aaron Kosminski as being dead by 1895, considering that he wasn't. Why can't he be referring to someone else? Even if you believe Swanson was agreeing with Anderson in 1913 (or whenever he wrote the marginalia) can't a man change his mind after two decades? The suspect who was dead in 1895--and mentioned in the memo the previous year--was M.J. Druitt.

Is it impossible that Macnaghtnen had convinced Swanson, but Swanson later reverted back to Anderson's theory?

Hi Roger,

I don't see it stated anywhere in the PMG article of 7 May 1895 that "Swanson was willing to investigate Grainger". It says that "the police" had been busy investigating Grainger but no mention of Swanson specifically. How do we know that Swanson was still working on the Whitechapel case at Scotland Yard in 1895? According to the Times, the prosecution of Grainger in 1895 was carried out by H Division (under Supt Dodd).

As for your certainty that Swanson was referring to Druitt in 1895, isn't that just a guess? Unlike Trevor, I assume you will see the significance of Swanson having written in his marginalia that Kosminski died "shortly after" having been transferred to Colney Hatch, which we know for a fact happened in February 1891.

When I used the word "clearly" it wasn't in the context you state, and I didn't claim that "Swanson was clearly referring to Kosminski as being dead by 1895" as you summarize me. What I said was this:

"I know that Kosminiski didn't die until 1919 but Swanson clearly believed that his suspect, who he named as Kosminski, died shortly after April 1894. That is reflected in his much earlier quote in the 1895 article. It's all consistent."

The date of "April 1894" should be corrected so that I meant to say:

"I know that Kosminiski didn't die until 1919 but Swanson clearly believed that his suspect, who he named as Kosminski, died shortly after April 1891. That is reflected in his much earlier quote in the 1895 article. It's all consistent."

In other words, what I was saying is that Swanson clearly believed that Kosminski died shortly after being transferred to Colney Hatch, which was in February 1891. That is clear from his marginalia. And I was saying that this is consistent with what he was reported to have said in 1895.

But I never said that Swanson clearly believed that Kosminski died before 1895. Just that "shortly after [February 1891" is consistent with a death by 1895. All I was doing was responding to Trevor who was trying to make a positive point about the 1895 "quote" (which wasn't in fact a quote!) to suggest that Swanson couldn't have been talking about Kosminski in that "quote". I'm not making a positive point about that "quote", simply saying that it's not actually inconsistent with what Swanson wrote in his marginalia.

Trevor, of course, will never understand this but I have no doubt that you will appreciate what I'm saying immediately.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear Trevor still confused.

We have a document written by Sandell, written in April 1981, which gives the name Kosminski. That's 6 years before it's eventual publication or the book by Martin.

But the name Kosminski had been in the public domain since the 1960`s via Robin Odell but no Christian name was ever mentioned and that's the rub of the green all through this ID fiasco no Christian name is ever mentioned by anyone. Now for such a prime suspect who the police went to great lengths to identify it seems no one knew his Christian name, and no officers who were directly involved in the investigation knew of this mythical ID parade or any identification of a suspect named Kosminski

The name is clearly mentioned in a memo dated 15th April 1981, only 5 weeks after Jim Swanson first contacted the the paper.

The day AFTER this memo Robert Warren confirmed the deal with Swanson, with final agreement being made 22nd April. On 23rd Swanson informed the Sunday Express , who jad also spoken to that the story had been sold. Payment was made 14th May 1981.

Such clearly shows that the name Kosminski was mentioned at a VERY early date, before an exclusive agreement had been either offered, agreed and signed.

It may have been mentioned but did it form part of the marginalia at that time?

That such does not appear in another document is a red herring. To suggest as you do that he was told this verbally is pure invention on your part.

If the name was not included in the original Marginlia as seen by Sandell, it's inconceivable that the News of the World would pay out for what amounts to "I know who jtr was, but I'm not saying"

But they paid out and didn't publish it I have to ask why with such an important revelation?

That would be no more than Anderson said back in 1910. The only reason the paper would be interested, is that a name was mentioned. However, the paper decided that without further research, of at least equal to that carried out by Martin Fido, there was no story.

But in 1981 Fido had not discovered Aaron Kosminski but he had in 1987 when the second paper decided to publish it with the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" included

Nevin gave that as the probably reason in 1987, 6 years after the story was sold to the News of the World.

Yet you do not accept it.

No I dont

I have explained what I was told by Bob Warren, why the News of the World did not run with the story.

Yet you do not accept that.

Unconfirmed

So you claiming that Robert Warren was mistaken or told me an untruth ?

And all of this time while this debate has been ongoing on this topic you only thought fit to mention it now?

The implied suggestion that the name Kosminski was added, because of Fido's work is a non starter, unless we believe in time travel.

I am not implying that, what I am suggesting is that when the marginalia was first offered to the paper in 1981 the last line was not present and that is the reason for it not being published. This smokescreen you have invented as to why they didn't publish it doesn't stand up.

That you previously said the News of the World was offered the story in 1987, is highly disingenuous, i note you have NOT even acknowledged that "mistake "

Your rejection of the Marginlia is not based on a reasoned argument, but on bias, clearly not supported by the facts.
I seem to recall that very similar claims, brought us all into disrepute some years ago.

I have no agenda other than to seek the truth and highlight the flaws which I see

It's seems some people never learn.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the documents you refer to?

I should also make mention that just to make the chain of events clear to one and all. James Swanson having the newspaper not publish the marginalia in 1981, saw an article published by The Daily Telegraph on Oct 3rd 1987 by reporter Charles Nevin titled "Kosminski Jack the gripping tale" which names Kosminski, so where did Nevin get the name Kosminski from? perhaps the MM after all it was in the public domain by then so a forger to make the marginalia more financially viable could have added the last line

This led James Swanson to approach the telegraph and would you believe the marginalia did contain the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" this article was published under the title of "Has this man revealed the real jack the Ripper"
which was published on the 19th Oct 1987

So the $64.000 dollar question is did the marginalia contain the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" in 1981 when the News of the World struck a deal with James Swanson to publish it, and then didn't, or was that last line added between 1981-1987 to make it more appealing?


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the documents you refer to?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Such are documented in Swanson by Adam Wood, i suggest if you are disputing these dates, you provide evidence of such.
I am surprised given your interest in this subject that you are not aware of these dates.
Of course such requests from you, are simply a very weak attempt to deflect from the grossly disingenuous nature of your posts Trevor.

[rjpalmer]

As for your certainty that Swanson was referring to Druitt in 1895, isn't that just a guess?

Hi Herlock.

Where did I say I was 'certain'? I offered it as a possibility, especially considering that Druitt (unlike Kosminsk) WAS dead. I am merely stating that the 'Ripper is dead' could apply to more than one person, so it is merely an assumption that it refers to Aaron Kosminski--and this based on nothing more than what Swanson would write in the margin of a book nearly twenty years later in a statement that we know does not apply to Aaron Kosminski.

Here's one of the problems I have with your suggestion.

We know from the MEPO files that Scotland Yard kept tabs on the movements of their suspects. Swanson personally made an effort to keep tabs on Sadler. We know that Macnaghten sent requests to Banstead, asking to be notified when Ostrog was transferred or released.

Asylums weren't one-way streets. Patients--even dangerous patients--were released and Anderson told his friend Griffiths his theory that the Ripper was someone who had been 'temporarily' released from an asylum. The police were well aware that released lunatics could go on to commit crimes.

With this in mind, your suggestion that Scotland Yard, and specifically Swanson himself, didn't even know whether Kosiminski--aka Jack the Ripper--was alive or dead inside the asylum is an odd one. It almost sounds like you are accusing him of incompetence. Here is Kosminski--the most dangerous man in the UK--and yet by 1895 he has already lost track of him?

As for Swanson 'investigating' Grainger, the article clearly suggests that Swanson was in the loop. Perhaps this was a wrong assumption on the part of the PMG's journalist, on the other hand it has always seemed to me that what the Anderson theorists are proposing or implying is a borderline conspiracy theory. That a small number of people at Headquarters knew the Ripper's identity yet didn't bother to notify their subordinates or the divisional detectives, who continued to waste police time and resources by investigating other suspects. At no time did they feel the need to clue them in?

It's far easier for me to believe that Sir Robert Anderson was greatly exaggerating the case against the Polish Jew. It is very difficult for me to accept that the suspect had been positively identified and everyone from Reid to Abberline to Dodd to Race were entirely unaware of this seminal fact.

[Elamarna]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the documents you refer to?

I should also make mention that just to make the chain of events clear to one and all. James Swanson having the newspaper not publish the marginalia in 1981, saw an article published by The Daily Telegraph on Oct 3rd 1987 by reporter Charles Nevin titled "Kosminski Jack the gripping tale" which names Kosminski, so where did Nevin get the name Kosminski from? perhaps the MM after all it was in the public domain by then so a forger to make the marginalia more financially viable could have added the last line

This led James Swanson to approach the telegraph and would you believe the marginalia did contain the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" this article was published under the title of "Has this man revealed the real jack the Ripper"
which was published on the 19th Oct 1987

So the $64.000 dollar question is did the marginalia contain the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" in 1981 when the News of the World struck a deal with James Swanson to publish it, and then didn't, or was that last line added between 1981-1987 to make it more appealing?


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I see nothing new in your comment, just the same old disingenuous nonsense.

Its not a 64 k question, Sandell mentions the name in his memo 15th April that memo clearly indicates it is present in 1981.

The memo says

"Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew. Mr. James Swanson only recently discovered the book while examining the property of his Aunt who died a few months ago. He had also discovered the original document ordering the Yard detective to investigate the Ripper case. This in itself is unique. The document shows nine murders and one attempted murder. I have twice visited Mr. Swanson and I am convinced of his authenticity."

That reads very clearly , the detail is in the book, contained in the 200 or so words Sandell mentions.


You have been told why it was not published, without a first name, it was not a new story, not one that would sell.

You claim that the first name was not known, is again simply your bias interpretation, no first name was used by Swanson, because there was no need for it, it was written by him, for him. He knew who he meant.

Pardon, smokescreen does not stand up?

Its not a smokescreen , it's the truth.
If you are implying I am lying, please be very careful

That you continue to peddle these claims, brings nothing but shame on you. Your views become more idiosyncratic by the day Trevor, I really do feel sorry for you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Such are documented in Swanson by Adam Wood, i suggest if you are disputing these dates, you provide evidence of such.
I am surprised given your interest in this subject that you are not aware of these dates.
Of course such requests from you, are simply a very weak attempt to deflect from the grossly disingenuous nature of your posts Trevor.

Its not for me to show them you are the one that mentioned them !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I see nothing new in your comment, just the same old disingenuous nonsense.

Its not a 64 k question, Sandell mentions the name in his memo 15th April that memo clearly indicates it is present in 1981.

The memo says

"Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew. Mr. James Swanson only recently discovered the book while examining the property of his Aunt who died a few months ago. He had also discovered the original document ordering the Yard detective to investigate the Ripper case. This in itself is unique. The document shows nine murders and one attempted murder. I have twice visited Mr. Swanson and I am convinced of his authenticity."

That reads very clearly , the detail is in the book, contained in the 200 or so words Sandell mentions.


You have been told why it was not published, without a first name, it was not a new story, not one that would sell.

You claim that the first name was not known, is again simply your bias interpretation, no first name was used by Swanson, because there was no need for it, it was written by him, for him. He knew who he meant.

Pardon, smokescreen does not stand up?

Its not a smokescreen , it's the truth.
If you are implying I am lying, please be very careful

That you continue to peddle these claims, brings nothing but shame on you. Your views become more idiosyncratic by the day Trevor, I really do feel sorry for you.

Dont feel sorry for me, and you ignore what I have said in that previous post, that the last line in the marginalia could have been made any time after 1910 and before Oct 1987.

maybe you should show the memo you refer to

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

One further point, the draft article which you say made no reference to Kosminski did actually say this

"Somewhere at Scotland Yard there must be a file on Kosminski for his name, and any papers referring to him, have been omitted from the papers available at the Public Records Office. The known facts about him are sketchy. He had a great hatred of women and according to Macnaghten, he had committed many crimes. He particularly hated prostitutes. Macnaghten’s report says: “This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices and he was removed to a lunatic asylum in 1889.” This substantiates Swanson’s comments. Kosminski lived in Whitechapel and consorted with prostitutes until he caught a venereal disease which may have led to his insanity. He certainly knew all the small alleyways in Whitechapel and he was known to have strong homicidal tendencies."


It seems clear that the name Kosminski did have some significance on the draft article. Despite what you imply.

[Elamarna]

Its not for me to show them you are the one that mentioned them !!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No one asked you to show them.
Only to show evidence you think disputes such.
I am simply surprised that you are not aware of such?

I pointed out where the references to each date are to be found.
If you do not believe such exist just say so.

[Elamarna]

Dont feel sorry for me, and you ignore what I have said in that previous post, that the last line in the marginalia could have been made any time after 1910 and before Oct 1987.

maybe you should show the memo you refer to

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have quoted the majority of the memo above, but if you wish to play these silly infantile games carry on.

Here is the full, text

15th April 1981

Re Letter to the Editor about Jack the Ripper Scotland Yard’s files on the original Jack the Ripper case have remained a secret. The name of the man who murdered and mutilated five prostitutes in the late 1880s has been a matter of speculation for decades. One author named the Duke of Clarence as the Ripper, another said the killer was a homicidal doctor named Pedachenko, while a third said he was a barrister named Montague John Druitt. Now the grandson of the Scotland Yard detective, who was ordered to investigate the Ripper murders, believes he has stumbled on the true identity of Jack the Ripper. Mr. James Swanson, a 69-year-old retired Tannery director and general manager, who lives in Peaslake, near Dorking, Surrey, believes he has discovered the Ripper’s identity and the reasons why he was not brought to justice. Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former head of the C.I.D. at Scotland Yard. The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew. Mr. James Swanson only recently discovered the book while examining the property of his Aunt who died a few months ago. He had also discovered the original document ordering the Yard detective to investigate the Ripper case. This in itself is unique. The document shows nine murders and one attempted murder. I have twice visited Mr. Swanson and I am convinced of his authenticity. The Yorkshire Ripper trial is bound to stimulate interest in the original Jack the Ripper and it seems an appropriate time to run a story. Mr. Swanson originally asked for £1,000 but he has come down to £750."

Attached to this memo was the 12 page draft article number jack1- jack12.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

Where did I say I was 'certain'? I offered it as a possibility, especially considering that Druitt (unlike Kosminsk) WAS dead. I am merely stating that the 'Ripper is dead' could apply to more than one person, so it is merely an assumption that it refers to Aaron Kosminski--and this based on nothing more than what Swanson would write in the margin of a book nearly twenty years later in a statement that we know does not apply to Aaron Kosminski.

Here's one of the problems I have with your suggestion.

We know from the MEPO files that Scotland Yard kept tabs on the movements of their suspects. Swanson personally made an effort to keep tabs on Sadler. We know that Macnaghten sent requests to Banstead, asking to be notified when Ostrog was transferred or released.

Asylums weren't one-way streets. Patients--even dangerous patients--were released and Anderson told his friend Griffiths his theory that the Ripper was someone who had been 'temporarily' released from an asylum. The police were well aware that released lunatics could go on to commit crimes.

With this in mind, your suggestion that Scotland Yard, and specifically Swanson himself, didn't even know whether Kosiminski--aka Jack the Ripper--was alive or dead inside the asylum is an odd one. It almost sounds like you are accusing him of incompetence. Here is Kosminski--the most dangerous man in the UK--and yet by 1895 he has already lost track of him?

As for Swanson 'investigating' Grainger, the article clearly suggests that Swanson was in the loop. Perhaps this was a wrong assumption on the part of the PMG's journalist, on the other hand it has always seemed to me that what the Anderson theorists are proposing or implying is a borderline conspiracy theory. That a small number of people at Headquarters knew the Ripper's identity yet didn't bother to notify their subordinates or the divisional detectives, who continued to waste police time and resources by investigating other suspects. At no time did they feel the need to clue them in?

It's far easier for me to believe that Sir Robert Anderson was greatly exaggerating the case against the Polish Jew. It is very difficult for me to accept that the suspect had been positively identified and everyone from Reid to Abberline to Dodd to Race were entirely unaware of this seminal fact.

Hi Roger,

The certainty I detected came from your statement that "The suspect who was dead in 1895--and mentioned in the memo the previous year--was M.J. Druitt" which I read as you saying that Druitt was "The suspect" being referred to by Swanson in 1895 but fair enough if you weren't saying that. I'm pleased you accept then that Swanson wasn't necessarily referring to Druitt in 1895.

The marginalia shows that Swanson was indeed keeping tabs on Kosminski. If you allow for confusion between the Stepney and Mile End workhouses in the marginalia, he was aware about 20 years later that Kosminski had been sent to an East End workhouse and from there to Colney Hatch.

Do you dispute that he must have been referring to Kosminksi?

That being so, it's hardly a stretch to believe that he had been misled into thinking that Kosminski had died shortly after 1891, as stated in the marginalia. Whatever you think about "incompetence" or "the most dangerous man in the UK", mistakes and misunderstandings do happen. It's just a fact of life. With Kosminski safely locked away in a lunatic asylum, Swanson wouldn't have needed to think about him again. If he was under the mistaken impression that Kosminski had died, possibly because of something someone had told him, he definitely wouldn't have needed to think about him again!

Littlechild thought that Tumblety might be Jack the Ripper yet also believed he committed suicide and was never heard of again after leaving for Boulogne, blissfully unaware that this "most dangerous man" lived another fifteen years in the US.