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

[Elamarna]

Swanson's grandson said in relation to the marginalia:

My grandfather used to make copious notes in books that he read

Does that seem like the comment of someone who only discovered that years later?

What it says, is that the books Donald Swanson read, he made annotations in. That seems to be an accepted fact by most.

Jim Swanson was born in 1912, and thus would have been only 12 at the time of his grandfather's death.
The books and other papers ended up with Jim's aunt, Donald's daughter Alice.
Apparently although the family had been told the killer had been known, they had never been given a name.
It was only with the death of Alice in 1980, that the name in the Marginlia became known to the family. Jim and his brother Donald, being the executors of Alice's will.


Whether or not Swanson's grandson, Jim, actually witnessed Donald making Notes, or was told by other members of the family, it seems clear he, nor any other member of the family had seen the name, or the Marginlia before the the death of Alice in 1980.
I would therefore suggest that Donald Swanson did not write the Marginlia or any comments in his books with the intention of them being read by anyone else.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What it says, is that the books Donald Swanson read, he made annotations in. That seems to be an accepted fact by most.

Jim Swanson was born in 1912, and thus would have been only 12 at the time of his grandfather's death.
The books and other papers ended up with Jim's aunt, Donald's daughter Alice.
Apparently although the family had been told the killer had been known, they had never been given a name.
It was only with the death of Alice in 1980, that the name in the Marginlia became known to the family. Jim and his brother Donald, being the executors of Alice's will.


Whether or not Swanson's grandson, Jim, actually witnessed Donald making Notes, or was told by other members of the family, it seems clear he, nor any other member of the family had seen the name, or the Marginlia before the the death of Alice in 1980.
I would therefore suggest that Donald Swanson did not write the Marginlia or any comments in his books with the intention of them being read by anyone else.

I was already familiar with the history of those marginalia and their discovery.

I was referring to Swanson's habit of producing marginalia in general and his grandson's remarks suggesting that he was known to have been in the habit of writing them.

I suggest that Swanson wrote them for posterity.

He evidently did not intend to take them with him when he departed, which means he expected them one day to be read by someone else.

[Elamarna]

I was already familiar with the history of those marginalia and their discovery.

I was referring to Swanson's habit of producing marginalia in general and his grandson's remarks suggesting that he was known to have been in the habit of writing them.

I suggest that Swanson wrote them for posterity.

He evidently did not intend to take them with him when he departed, which means he expected them one day to be read by someone else.

I repeat, that he was known to write such notes in his books, is not an indication that the intention was for them to be read by anyone but himself.

That you wish to believe otherwise is your choice.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I repeat, that he was known to write such notes in his books, is not an indication that the intention was for them to be read by anyone but himself.

That you wish to believe otherwise is your choice.

And he was so unconcerned about whether anyone would ever read them that he specified that the identification took place at the Seaside Home and not just 'a seaside home' or 'a home at the seaside'?

[Elamarna]

And he was so unconcerned about whether anyone would ever read them that he specified that the identification took place at the Seaside Home and not just 'a seaside home' or 'a home at the seaside'?

Your interpretation of the meaning of Swanson's comments and his intention.
Nothing more, nothing less than that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your interpretation of the meaning of Swanson's comments and his intention.
Nothing more, nothing less than that.

And I’d have to say that if someone is simply ‘making something up’ it’s always an advantage to be less specific. If I was in Swanson’s or Anderson’s position, suggesting an invented ID, I’d have just said that the “suspect was taken for an ID where he picked out…” Also, with all of the resources available to Anderson (and Swanson) he could have found some violent criminal/lunatic who died after the murders? “ Mr X was someone that was brought to the attention of Swanson and myself. Swanson assigned an officer to look into the man and discovered some facts that made him a likely suspect, but just as we had got enough evidence to arrest him he died.” He could even have left him unnamed: “to protect the family who knew nothing about it.” By naming Kosminski, Swanson was leaving himself and his old boss open to be seriously embarrassed by someone discovering, for example, that Koz couldn’t have killed Chapman because he was found to have been elsewhere.

No one would suggest that people don’t lie but I’m always wary of it being the fall back position to prove or disprove a particular preconception Steve. Likewise ‘stupidity.’ Clearly neither Anderson or Swanson wouldn’t have got where they were by being stupid.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think it is likely that Aaron Kosminski, like John Pizer, had alibis for at least some of the murders, but it is hardly likely that Swanson could have been embarrassed by their revelation.

Swanson would make no public statement and, with the passage of time, it necessarily becomes harder and harder to establish an alibi.

I reiterate that he must have expected his marginalia ultimately to be made public.

Anyone who says otherwise should explain why he named Kosminski.

Their position so far seems to be that Swanson was merely having a conversation with himself.

That is not credible.

If he wanted to have a conversation with himself, he could have done so without writing anything down.

Now, to get back to the matter originally under discussion.

Swanson must have meant the Police Convalescent Seaside Home, which is why he used a definite article and capital letters.

To say that is just an interpretation is really not good enough.

The alternatives mentioned by Elamarna do not stand up.

Someone's personal home in a seaside location would not require a definite article nor capitals.

The Home, suggested by Adam Wood, was spelled with a lower case h by Elamarna in an earlier post.

It may be near Dover, but where is the word Seaside with a capital S in its name?

Why would a policeman use the definite article about such a place unless it had some connection with the police?

The endless speculation about what Swanson meant by the Seaside Home is, in my submission, quite unnecessary.

Since the Seaside Home did not open until March 1890, it is quite clear that Swanson's claim that the identification coincided with the cessation of the murders is unsustainable.

So far as I can remember, Swanson's supporters cannot answer this point.

[Elamarna]

I think it is likely that Aaron Kosminski, like John Pizer, had alibis for at least some of the murders, but it is hardly likely that Swanson could have been embarrassed by their revelation.

Swanson would make no public statement and, with the passage of time, it necessarily becomes harder and harder to establish an alibi.

I reiterate that he must have expected his marginalia ultimately to be made public.

Anyone who says otherwise should explain why he named Kosminski.

Their position so far seems to be that Swanson was merely having a conversation with himself.

That is not credible.

If he wanted to have a conversation with himself, he could have done so without writing anything down.

Now, to get back to the matter originally under discussion.

Swanson must have meant the Police Convalescent Seaside Home, which is why he used a definite article and capital letters.

To say that is just an interpretation is really not good enough.

The alternatives mentioned by Elamarna do not stand up.

Someone's personal home in a seaside location would not require a definite article nor capitals.

The Home, suggested by Adam Wood, was spelled with a lower case h by Elamarna in an earlier post.

It may be near Dover, but where is the word Seaside with a capital S in its name?

Why would a policeman use the definite article about such a place unless it had some connection with the police?

The endless speculation about what Swanson meant by the Seaside Home is, in my submission, quite unnecessary.

Since the Seaside Home did not open until March 1890, it is quite clear that Swanson's claim that the identification coincided with the cessation of the murders is unsustainable.

So far as I can remember, Swanson's supporters cannot answer this point.

A few answers to the questions that people cant answer according to your post.

The suggestion that Kosminski likely had an alibi for some of the murders takes us from reasoned speculation to pure invention.


That you wish to believe that Swanson intended his notes to become public is also simply a personal opinion.

One could ask, did he therefore expect any of the comments and notes he made in other books to likewise become public?
Did such happen?

You suggest making Notes for oneself is NOT CREDIBLE, the reality is many people do just that every day.

On to the ID

Your contention that Swanson could only have meant the Home at Hove is again simply your opinion.
That you are unwilling to accept that you may be wrong speaks volumes.

The insistence that ONLY this location fits is an example of the same thinking, as the supporters of suspect X or Y , who insist ONLY their suspect is possible as the killer, ONLY they are CORRECT.

With regards to why Swanson used capitals, one might suggest that he was talking of a certain place, which HE was aware of, and where the ID took place.
He could very well have meant the Home in Hove, but such is NOT the only possibility.

If the ID occurred in late 88 or early 89, as proposed by those supporting Cohen as Anderson's suspect, then clearly the reference CANNOT be refering to that establishment.


Swanson says, that after the ID, no more murders of this type occurred, he does not say when the last murder occurred in relation to the murders stopping, just that no more occurred after the ID took place.

For many who like AK as Kosminski, we could say this last murder was possibly McKenzie in mid 89.
For those people, the ID may have taken place in Mid 90, during the time Aaron is supposedly at the workhouse before being released to his brother.

Such however is speculation, it is based on the fact that Aaron is out of circulation for a period that would allow the moment to the Seaside Home, and his return is as per the Marginlia.
It is however. Speculation, and is presented as such. It is not presented as the ONLY interpretation.

For those who prefer an unknown Kosminski , they may suggest Coles was the last murder and that the ID occurred sometime after her death .

Such again could be supported by several arguments. Firstly that Coles is included on the list of possible victims, and is the last in the file.
Secondly that in 1890, Anderson is hinting that the identity of the killer is still unknown, but by 92, he is indicating the killer is known.

Both of those murdrrs are completely in order for the ID taking place in Hove, either in 90 or 91.

It is very clear, that you have made your mind up on several issues.

1.That the Killer could not be Jewish, a totally unrealistic standpoint, to rule out a large proportion of the local population.

2. That Anderson and Swanson lied, and knowingly lied. Such is simply your personal opinion.

There seems to be little point in debating with you, debate is meant to explore the possibilities, and be ready to concede that one may be incorrect.
Such is never going to occur with you PI, you are so convinced your opinion is not only correct, but the only opinion precludes meaningful debate.

[Trevor Marriott]

And I’d have to say that if someone is simply ‘making something up’ it’s always an advantage to be less specific. If I was in Swanson’s or Anderson’s position, suggesting an invented ID, I’d have just said that the “suspect was taken for an ID where he picked out…” Also, with all of the resources available to Anderson (and Swanson) he could have found some violent criminal/lunatic who died after the murders? “ Mr X was someone that was brought to the attention of Swanson and myself. Swanson assigned an officer to look into the man and discovered some facts that made him a likely suspect, but just as we had got enough evidence to arrest him he died.” He could even have left him unnamed: “to protect the family who knew nothing about it.” By naming Kosminski, Swanson was leaving himself and his old boss open to be seriously embarrassed by someone discovering, for example, that Koz couldn’t have killed Chapman because he was found to have been elsewhere.

No one would suggest that people don’t lie but I’m always wary of it being the fall back position to prove or disprove a particular preconception Steve. Likewise ‘stupidity.’ Clearly neither Anderson or Swanson wouldn’t have got where they were by being stupid.

It is more of a case of what they did after they retired and how good their memories were

Anderson retired in 1901 9 years before his book was published
Swanson retired in 1903 7 years at least before he could have written the marginalia

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is more of a case of what they did after they retired and how good their memories were

Anderson retired in 1901 9 years before his book was published
Swanson retired in 1903 7 years at least before he could have written the marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we can all misremember details Trevor. Even on things that occurred just days before.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Their position so far seems to be that Swanson was merely having a conversation with himself.

That is not credible.

As Steve has said, this is simply your opinion. It’s not a fact. Can you really be suggesting that it’s not credible for someone to simply make notes for their own use in a book? If that’s the case then I’d suggest that you watch Frank Skinner & Denise Mina’s excellent programme about Pope and Swift. Every one of his own copies of poetry books that Frank Skinner reads from is covered in pencilled notes. These are purely for himself. Haven’t you ever bought a book online and when you’ve received it you find notes written by a previous owner? This is perfectly normal PI, so I really can’t see why you feel that this is worth adding to your ‘points against’ list?

[Trevor Marriott]

The books and other papers ended up with Jim's aunt, Donald's daughter Alice.
Apparently although the family had been told the killer had been known, they had never been given a name.

I find it hard to believe, surely if Swanson had told the family the killer had been identified as per the marginalia in later years and the killer was dead, surely it is a natural reaction for the family to ask the name and how the killer came to be identified especially being told that by a close family member. It doesn't bode well for corroboration of the marginalia, and after they received the marginalia and the name what did they do, it seems nothing until James Swanson in 1987 saw £ signs and decided to attempt to cash it in, but as we know the first attempt failed and why did it fail?

Whether or not Swanson's grandson, Jim, actually witnessed Donald making Notes, .

And so ends any additional corroboration to the authenticity of the marginalia

I would therefore suggest that Donald Swanson did not write the Marginlia or any comments in his books with the intention of them being read by anyone else.

But out of all the contents in Anderson's book die he write annotations about other unconnected matters?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my reply below.

The suggestion that Kosminski likely had an alibi for some of the murders takes us from reasoned speculation to pure invention.


I am surprised you should so blatantly misrepresent an opinion of mine as pure invention.

I did not think any author would write something like that.


I wrote in # 757:


I think it is likely that Aaron Kosminski, like John Pizer, had alibis for at least some of the murders


It is quite obvious that I was expressing an opinion.


How can you possibly accuse me of inventing anything?

[Trevor Marriott]

But we can all misremember details Trevor. Even on things that occurred just days before.

Yes, we can I can still recall my first arrest, and I can still recall other significant cases I was involved in. If I have have been involved in the Ripper case I would have remembered all things connected to it for many years to come. So why are there so many inconsistencies in the senior police officers accounts? We have many who say on record that the identity of the killer was unknown, then we have two and only two trying to make us believe that the killer was identified when there is sweet FA as far as corroboration to what they say.

Insp Reid is a clear example of a police officer remembering in detail a case he was directly involved in years later the Mary Kelly murder!

We have MM who was Swansons boss telling us that Kosminski was a suspect in some way and then he exonerates him. MM was Swansons boss but he never makes mention of an ID parade in relation to Kosminski.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But out of all the contents in Anderson's book die he write annotations about other unconnected matters?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your continuous claims that the name was not present when first offered have been rebutted many times.
An internal memo from Charles Sandell to the News of the World’s News Editor dated 15th April 1981, clearly says the book contains the name Kosminski.

You have been told many times, why the article was not published, but simply refuse to accept such could indeed be the case.