Seaside Home?

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

"Here's a possible. The writer made it up just for fun."

Okay, but why? If it was DSS, why make marginal notes of this kind when the probability is that no-one will ever see them? If not DSS, it would be necessary to find someone, with access to his copy of Anderson's memory (so probably a relative) who was prepared to damage his distinguished reputation "just for jolly".

Isn't the need for "caveats, possibilities and presumptions", something which makes the marginalia more, not less, likely to be genuine? If you were going to invent a story, surely you'd come up with something more plausible than an ID at "the Seaside Home", City CID watching the brother's home in Whitechapel etc?

The marginalia are of little value in identifying JtR because they allude to a confrontation, the weakest of all identification (see earlier posts). At best it suggests a suspect who may have been considered at the time, but what of it? It's quite possible to be suspected and yet completely innocent.



Like you, I'm not sure that the marginalia makes a great deal of sense. Where I differ is in believing that the marginalia themselves, however jumbled the thinking behind them, are the work of DSS.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell,

Shakespeare's Sister's plugsocket again-

We cannot say the writer's intent. The writer may have been confused/age affected/ having a laugh for unknown reasons/ ad nauseum ad infinitum.
We just dont know.
What I would like to know is how many other items were given to Donald by retired policemen? And why wovld Fred give Donald Roberts biogaphy? If Swanson was a friend of Anderson, then it is normal to think the author wovld sign a copy and give it away. They were close mates werent they?

And why sell the story in the first place to the newspapers?

Perhaps others know? Why sell it? Not when- why?

Kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Nothing I ever say is meaningless I can assure you and especially on the topic of the ID parade, the marginlia, and Kosminski I think others dont agree with you.

That seems highly improbable to me.

As to your question in realtion to proving my view I have already stated what i belive to be some proof that nothing was ever in writing anywhere on this ID parade by reason of the silence from all quarters over the ensuing years that speaks volumes. As has been said something of this magnitude would not just have dissappeared into thin air

No, that isn't an answer to my question at all. That nobody ever blabbed about it is one thing, that there is no corroboration in the case papers is another, and you have been shouting loudly and often about people claiming that corroboration could have been in the missing files. You have ridiculed this suggestion and those who make it, and you have done so in no uncertain terms, but I have pointed out that the files have been severely culled, that they don't mention any suspects (even ones where we have every reason to suppose papers existed), and that it is therefore impossible to draw a conclusion based on what they don't contain. You have been asked to answer that very specific question. Please do so.

I have also mentioned that as far as police prodeures are concerned it goes against anything I have ever come across. The practical logistics dont even bear thinking about.

Fine. That fact has been widely recognised and the response is that Swanson probably wouldn't have come across it either, so he was either part of it and knew it happened, or he was told about it and corroborated it for himself. Or he swallowed without question or qualm something he'd been told,even though it fell utterly outside his experience, and, furthermore, wrote about it without expressing even a momentary doubt, in notes intended for himself. Or he'd never heard of it because the marginalia is a fake, which is what you claim but has, as yet, no substantiation whatsoever.

That all being said the police would have known in advance that the evidential value of any identification made three years after the event would be not just unreliable but almost worthless even if they had a witness who saw a suspect leaning over the body with a knife in his hand, and we know now as they did then that no witness ever came into that category. So I have to ask what would be the point in them going to all that time and trouble to go 50 miles with suspect. The police at no time ever disclosed that they had a prime witness.

Fine. Again it's a long recognised point. Do you think these questions haven't been asked a million times - by everyone! Do you think you are awfully clever for asking them? Do you imagine I am unaware of them? Well, apparently you do! Extraordinary. They've been answered else. Try reading. But basically, the marginalia is authentic, at least until you produce you evidence and it's peer reviewed and accepted, and therefore the story it tells is what Swanson believed. Your job is to explain that.

I have another question to ask. what was the witness being asked to make an identification on thats something if it happened you would have expected Anderson to comment on, and not just a general statement that the ripper was identified because up until then there had been a number of murders which even the police had doubts about them being committed by the same hand.

I don't find this comprehensible. You'll have to write it more clearly.

If there was ever a specific suspect file how come all the remaining details of suspects that remain and came to notice were not in that file would you not think it logical for them all to be listed and kept together because from a practical viewpoing i ceratinly would yet they are not as I said yesterday the remainder are scattered about in various files relating to all and sundry.

No they are not. There are some papers referring to Pizer and Issenschmidt, and a passing reference to the three medical students, but that's about it. There's nothing about anyone else, not even Tumblety, who was a suspect at the time and according to Littlechild a very likely one. He barely got his name in the British newspapers (which is an example of how there could be a major suspect without anyone blabbing about it; not all secrets get broken, it would seem). Furthermore, we know there was a suspects file of sorts because Stephen Knight saw it and transcribed some of it.

Take a look at the SB regsiters where the new names are recorded they are separatley indexed now would you not have thought they would have all been under one suspect file.

I think you should go and sit quietly in a dark room and really give all of this some proper thought because you obviously cannot see the wood from the trees.

I have to leave this post now as my grandson need his alphabet box back. I have to go deal with Mr Leahy again who is obviously suffering mentallly from not being nominated for an oscar for his last film which should have been titled "Amateur Night at Dixie" to which you are obviously upset about not being nominated for best supporting actor where you played the part of Catherine Eddowes bras.

And after briefly heaving yourself from the gutter to ask some old and obvious but not altogether unreasonable questions, but not to answer any of the questions put to you, you quickly sink back into the mire and resort to insults and rudeness. Pillock. And, noticeably, you have still failed to give examples of Martin back-peddling, or explained what theories I have or Monty has, or how and why Phil Hutchinson is a hypocrite. And a critical opinion of The Definitive Story from somebody whose own stage show was pretty unprofessional and inaccurate, hardly counts, though, as said, you are a confident and personable performer. Pity it's a performance. As ever, I await without expectation of receiving answers to those questions.

[Bridewell]

Further to my last post on the whole Kosminski thing:

There's also (1891 census again):

Phillip Koshminski, aged 33, Boot & Shoe Maker, born in Poland & residing on Gun Street* with his wife and four children. Has he ever been looked at? If not, I'll do a bit of digging. Who knows, he may even have had a leather apron! (Cue maniacal laughter at the futility of it all!).

Regards, Bridewell.

*Gun Street bisects Brushfield Street & runs almost exactly North - South.

[PaulB]

Hi Jeff,

I obviously have to back-track somewhat. I've just done a quick check on Ancestry of the 1891 census and found four male London-based Kosminski's:


NAME:
Martin Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Augusta Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1844 - Carlish, Poland
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

NAME:
Charles Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1873 - Marylebone, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Maurice Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Rebecca Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1863 - Poland, Russia
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Israel Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1884 - St George in the East, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England

Only two of the four were old enough, so I concede the point. (Just shows you should never rely on memory).

Mea culpa. Sorry Trevor.

Regards, Bridewell.

I compiled a complete list of Kosminski's and variants from the registers back in 1988/9 - it took a long time without the likes of Ancestry! Martin, for example, was a furrier who went bankrupt. But we are given other information which points to the identification: he was committed to an asylum, for example, and not only did Martin's search of the asylum records fail to throw up any other "K-something-ski", the search of the death registers didn't throw up anyone except Aaron who had died in an asylum. That doesn't mean there isn't another Kosminski "out there", and, indeed, it would be great if there was and he resolved a number of the problems presented by Aaron, but there doesn't appear to be.

[Jeff Leahy]

Further to my last post on the whole Kosminski thing:

There's also (1891 census again):

Phillip Koshminski, aged 33, Boot & Shoe Maker, born in Poland & residing on Gun Street* with his wife and four children. Has he ever been looked at? If not, I'll do a bit of digging. Who knows, he may even have had a leather apron! (Cue maniacal laughter at the futility of it all!).

Regards, Bridewell.

*Gun Street bisects Brushfield Street & runs almost exactly North - South.

Hi Bridewell

If you go to Suspects-kosminski there are quite a few threads that might be useful on Kosminski's. Remember the family used Abraham and moved shortly after Aaron went into the asylum.

Chris Scots book Ripper in Ramsgate picks up the family history

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

That seems highly improbable to me.



No, that isn't an answer to my question at all. That nobody ever blabbed about it is one thing, that there is no corroboration in the case papers is another, and you have been shouting loudly and often about people claiming that corroboration could have been in the missing files. You have ridiculed this suggestion and those who make it, and you have done so in no uncertain terms, but I have pointed out that the files have been severely culled, that they don't mention any suspects (even ones where we have every reason to suppose papers existed), and that it is therefore impossible to draw a conclusion based on what they don't contain. You have been asked to answer that very specific question. Please do so.


Fine. That fact has been widely recognised and the response is that Swanson probably wouldn't have come across it either, so he was either part of it and knew it happened, or he was told about it and corroborated it for himself. Or he swallowed without question or qualm something he'd been told,even though it fell utterly outside his experience, and, furthermore, wrote about it without expressing even a momentary doubt, in notes intended for himself. Or he'd never heard of it because the marginalia is a fake, which is what you claim but has, as yet, no substantiation whatsoever.



Fine. Again it's a long recognised point. Do you think these questions haven't been asked a million times - by everyone! Do you think you are awfully clever for asking them? Do you imagine I am unaware of them? Well, apparently you do! Extraordinary. They've been answered else. Try reading. But basically, the marginalia is authentic, at least until you produce you evidence and it's peer reviewed and accepted, and therefore the story it tells is what Swanson believed. Your job is to explain that.



I don't find this comprehensible. You'll have to write it more clearly.



No they are not. There are some papers referring to Pizer and Issenschmidt, and a passing reference to the three medical students, but that's about it. There's nothing about anyone else, not even Tumblety, who was a suspect at the time and according to Littlechild a very likely one. He barely got his name in the British newspapers (which is an example of how there could be a major suspect without anyone blabbing about it; not all secrets get broken, it would seem). Furthermore, we know there was a suspects file of sorts because Stephen Knight saw it and transcribed some of it.



And after briefly heaving yourself from the gutter to ask some old and obvious but not altogether unreasonable questions, but not to answer any of the questions put to you, you quickly sink back into the mire and resort to insults and rudeness. Pillock. And, noticeably, you have still failed to give examples of Martin back-peddling, or explained what theories I have or Monty has, or how and why Phil Hutchinson is a hypocrite. And a critical opinion of The Definitive Story from somebody whose own stage show was pretty unprofessional and inaccurate, hardly counts, though, as said, you are a confident and personable performer. Pity it's a performance. As ever, I await without expectation of receiving answers to those questions.

I dont have to do anything you tell me to I have answered twice already on here on the Fido issue I am not going to keep repeating myself if you are so blinkererd and obsessed with you crazy notions that you are not reading the posts thoroughly.

I have made valid posts but for the life of me I fail t see why you cannot comprehend.

You keep doing excatly what I stated yesterday quoting "Probabaly,maybe, coud have" etc etc keep to the what is known dont make the answers up as you go along with those words.

What was said to Phillip Hutchinson is between me and him and no concern of you.

I think you are now like Leahy resorting to desparate measures to prop up your theories you cant win by fair means so let discredit the man by highlighting things he has said about people hmmmmmmmmmmmmm cheap shot.

You are also mistaken there are many others suspect names in the files besides them. with evidence atcahed to them to show why they were looked upon as a suspect which is more than can be said for Kosminski. Not a titter anywhere in anyhting if that doesnt say something to you then you are even more blinkered than I thought.

Without the margainalia you are Leahy are dead in the water hence the desparate attempt you are making to pour water on the results of my examination.

One thing I wil say in relation to my examination is that I used as a significant control handwriting sample of swanson from 1894. Handwriting that was six years older than the sample Dr Davies had to work with originally. If I am correct Dr Davies raised an issue with his control sample and the marginalia stating that between 1888-whenever it was swanson wrote the annotations his handwriting had detoriated. Well a sample 8 years older than the original is a much better sample for comparison purpose would you not agree. Ties it down even more

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree that it would be worthless in terms of evidential value, especially three years after the event. However, the marginalia don't allude to a date, so where does the "three years" aspect come into play? It's valid if an assumption is made that the Kosminski referred to by DSS is the same one as referred to by MacNaghten, but how can we be sure of that? All he gives us is a surname and it's not as though Kosminski was a particularly unusual surname at that time.

Regards, Bridewell.

i have only ever come across one direct confrotation used in an ID issue and that was in the 1970`s, pre PACE it was used as a last resort at police stations, simply because the police knew it had virtually no evidential value on its own and it was though that the suspect might suddenly confess.

Now we have PACE to control how ID parades are conducted. because ID issues in this day and age are looked at carefully. The Crown Prosecution Service will now order an ID parade to be conducted just for recognition purposes. For example witness sees crime being carried out, Witness knows the offender by name and has done so for the past 10 years. An ID parade will be conducted in order that the witness can positivley say that the man he picks out in the ID parade is the man he knows as X and has known him for 10 years.

The old style line ups are now almost obsolete under PACE. Its all done as a rule by video where a the prisoner has a 30 second video clip made. He then selects from a database at least 8 other voulnteers who look like him his video clip is then mixed up with the others. The Witnesses then goes to a room and are shown the clip of each person including the suspect and they are asked to make a positive identification. The defence would argue that if a witness stated "I think its number 6" then that might not be construed as a positive ID

Over the past 10 years I have attended police stations all over the country to assist and advise prisoners on ID issues. I have to say that most police forces are generally only to pleased to see fair play being carried out by allowing the prisoner to select his own volunteers from the database.

The Metropolitan Police I would say are the worst as when you attend one of their ID suites with a view to putting togther a parade you are confronted with a selection of volunteers who have been pre selected some of which for varying reasons are not acceptable. despite making represenations they fall on deaf ears. Of course this only makes matters more worse at a later stage if the suspect does get identified and goes to trial then the defence wil argue that it was not a fair parade and try to get it not admitted as evidence quoting my representations.

The other side of the coin is that the CPS will not normally charge anyone on the evidence of Identification when Identification is the only evidence. Corroboration wil be looked for. This sometimes can be in the form of several witnesses who make a positive identification

There is no need to use direct confrontation nowadays if a prisoner refuses to paratke in an ID procedure then the police have the option of still carrying out a street identification if that is feasable or they can put together a covert video parade. This is quiet simple they would simply use a photograph of the prisoner from files and select their own 8 volunteers and put it together that way and show it to the witnesses. Obvioulsy the defence at a later stage would be made aware of this and would be entitled to have a copy but would be entitled to know when it was beinfg shown to the witnesses and be given the opportunity of having a legal advise present when it is shown to the witmesses, although when this happen with regards to consentual parades when a legal adviser is not present then the whole proceedure would be videoed with sound.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff,

I obviously have to back-track somewhat. I've just done a quick check on Ancestry of the 1891 census and found four male London-based Kosminski's:


NAME:
Martin Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Augusta Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1844 - Carlish, Poland
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

NAME:
Charles Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1873 - Marylebone, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Maurice Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Rebecca Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1863 - Poland, Russia
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Israel Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1884 - St George in the East, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England

Only two of the four were old enough, so I concede the point. (Just shows you should never rely on memory).

Mea culpa. Sorry Trevor.

Regards, Bridewell.

No need to be sorry just be happy that you are involved in changing the face of ripperology

[harry]

What Trevor and I are insisting,is that an identification parade,if it was fact,whether positive or negative,would have been the subject of written reports that would have been entered on file.Such reports seem not now to exist.and the possibility,or probabity in my estimation,are that they never did.Suggestions have been made that such documentation could have been lost or stolen.Argueably,I would say,if that is the solution,and it seems the only one that is repeatedly thrown up, then it must have happened before June 1913.

But that is not all we have said,and Trevor saying most, has argued his case from a position of police training and experience,and that counts.I have not been a policeman,but I understand the value of provenance,and to date there has been no provenance that an identification took place.Trevor is correct on that.

Like Trevor,I get irritated when someone tells me what I should believe and what I should enter on these threads.

[Monty]

Tea choker warning for Mr Marriott

Harry and Trevor,

Sit down Trevor, I've some bad news.

I completely agree with you and Harry. There should be some documentation noting the event. However having been through police records, I can understand if it has gone missing. I've experienced big gaps in records where ist been obvious they have been destroyed.

That said, as Trevor points out, there would have been more than just Anderson and Swanson party to this information, though I question if ALL parties involved knew the real reason why.

Monty

[PaulB]

What Trevor and I are insisting,is that an identification parade,if it was fact,whether positive or negative,would have been the subject of written reports that would have been entered on file.Such reports seem not now to exist.and the possibility,or probabity in my estimation,are that they never did.Suggestions have been made that such documentation could have been lost or stolen.Argueably,I would say,if that is the solution,and it seems the only one that is repeatedly thrown up, then it must have happened before June 1913.

But that is not all we have said,and Trevor saying most, has argued his case from a position of police training and experience,and that counts.I have not been a policeman,but I understand the value of provenance,and to date there has been no provenance that an identification took place.Trevor is correct on that.

Like Trevor,I get irritated when someone tells me what I should believe and what I should enter on these threads.

You state that in your estimation the paperwork concerning the identification never existed. Fine, but on what evidence do you base that personal estimation? Now, as explained several times, it is not being claimed that the documentation has or could have been stolen or lost, but that one cannot conclude that it never existed because it isn't in or otherwise corroborated in the case papers. Most of the case papers no longer exist. We don;t know what was in them. They might have contained corroboration of the identification or they might not have. Nobody can say. As for provenance, it is essentially a line of existence from the originator to the present. An event, such as an identification, therefore doesn't have provenance. What the identification story lacks is not provenance but independent corroboration, but it is far from uncommon to have uncorroborated or contradictory stories in history and historians have developed techniques for dealing with these. Let's not forget that history is a discipline, a craft that is taught. If you feel these techniques are wrong or faulty or have been wrongly applied in this case then you are free to explain why. Whether or not police training in and of itself qualifies someone to be a historian is up to you and others to decide, but I don't see historians being called in to assess a crime or policemen being asked to offer their opinions on how Edward II died or whether the Pelagian heresy played a role in sub-Roman British politics. And with over 100 years separating us from Jack the Ripper, we're dealing with history here. However, what we should all be doing is trying to establish the facts and as far as the current argument is concerned, when there is a lack of documentation, as with the case papers, it isn't possible to draw conclusions about what the lost papers did or didn't contain. You are, of course, at liberty to say why that isn't the case.

[Trevor Marriott]

You state that in your estimation the paperwork concerning the identification never existed. Fine, but on what evidence do you base that personal estimation? Now, as explained several times, it is not being claimed that the documentation has or could have been stolen or lost, but that one cannot conclude that it never existed because it isn't in or otherwise corroborated in the case papers. Most of the case papers no longer exist. We don;t know what was in them. They might have contained corroboration of the identification or they might not have. Nobody can say. As for provenance, it is essentially a line of existence from the originator to the present. An event, such as an identification, therefore doesn't have provenance. What the identification story lacks is not provenance but independent corroboration, but it is far from uncommon to have uncorroborated or contradictory stories in history and historians have developed techniques for dealing with these. Let's not forget that history is a discipline, a craft that is taught. If you feel these techniques are wrong or faulty or have been wrongly applied in this case then you are free to explain why. Whether or not police training in and of itself qualifies someone to be a historian is up to you and others to decide, but I don't see historians being called in to assess a crime or policemen being asked to offer their opinions on how Edward II died or whether the Pelagian heresy played a role in sub-Roman British politics. And with over 100 years separating us from Jack the Ripper, we're dealing with history here. However, what we should all be doing is trying to establish the facts and as far as the current argument is concerned, when there is a lack of documentation, as with the case papers, it isn't possible to draw conclusions about what the lost papers did or didn't contain. You are, of course, at liberty to say why that isn't the case.

You have hit the nail on the head you are looking at all of this as an historian I and others are looking at it from a police perspective which you agree are as different as chalk and cheese.

As an historian you argue issues about corroboration and use the marginalia and Andersons book as your own personal corroboration.

My corroboration from my own police perspective for suggesting it didnt take place is,

1. No records or files or entries in any official document or documents.

2. Nothing written recorded or said anywhere at the time or in the ensuing years
from any police official, convalescent home official, or asylum official as I
have said previous something of this magnitude done under this scale would
have resulted in someone talking then and one or some of their relatives
talking in the interim time. This suggests to me that Para 1 in itself
corroboartes the suggestion that it didnt take place.

3. There is nothing to corroborate what Anderson wrote in his book other than
perhaps the marginlia.

4. With regards to the marginlia because of the doubt there is in my mind at this
time I personally cannot rely on its autheticity to corroborate any of the
above as far as my own personal investigation is concerned which I have been
conducting from a police persepctive.

There have been so many theories discussed about this Komknski issue and the "
difficulty involved and the question where he was taken from his home or an asylum. If it be the latter I think you can rule that out because if he had been in an asylum it is unlikley that the doctors whose care he was under would have allowed him to be removed, especially if he was as mad and homicidal as is suggested. The more likely scenario would have been to go and bring the witness to London and conduct an ID parade either at a room in the asylum or at a police station. If he had have been removed from the asylum he would have been taken straight back to the asylum not to his brothers house

I seem to recall in the case of Ischensmidt that the doctors would not allow the police to do something with him whilst he was under their care.

I think we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree and let those who want to look at it from an historical viewpoint agree with you and those who want to look at it from a police perspective agree or disagree with me.

You ask what corroboration there is to show that the documents never existed I would ask if they did as you suggest then what happned to them, there are only three answers lost stolen or destroyed, yet you say these are not options worthy of consideration what do ou say happened to them ?

There is no point in continuing to constantly argue the same points over and over again at the end of the day what will be will be.

[Jonathan H]

Swanson Marginalia

Values:

- A primary source by the operational policeman in charge of the Whitechapel murders, one renowned for integrity, diligence and competence.
- An entirely private notation, and therefore nothing to prove to anybody. It's candour can thus be assumed to be 100%. Potentially free of self-serving bias.
- Essentially supports his chief, Anderson, about the controversial story the latter told in his memoirs and therefore is confirmation of the Polish Jew as the fiend. 'Kosminski' becomes the only suspect who is backed by two senior policemen, arguably the two key senior cops of the case.

Limitations:

- A late primary source in which a fading memory might come into play (the flyleaf section may have been written even later, by an even more aged Swanson?)
- Potentially biased and self-serving as the Ripper case was a public failure, but now it's a secret success?
- Entirely private and therefore not only not official, but not even an opinion tested in the public arena. He can write what he likes.
- Not definitive if this is Swanson's opinion or the replication of his ex-chief's and therefore maybe repetition rather than confirmation of Anderson's tale?

[DVV]

If the marginalia is authentic, then the only corroboration of Anderson are some few, personal and private words, quickly scribbled on a slow day.

[PaulB]

Swanson Marginalia

Values:

- A primary source by the operational policeman in charge of the Whitechapel murders, one renowned for integrity, diligence and competence.
- An entirely private notation, and therefore nothing to prove to anybody. It's candour can thus be assumed to be 100%. Potentially free of self-serving bias.
- Essentially supports his chief, Anderson, about the controversial story the latter told in his memoirs and therefore is confirmation of the Polish Jew as the fiend. 'Kosminski' becomes the only suspect who is backed by two senior policemen, arguably the two key senior cops of the case.

Limitations:

- A late primary source in which a fading memory might come into play (the flyleaf section may have been written even later, by an even more aged Swanson?)
- Potentially biased and self-serving as the Ripper case was a public failure, but now it's a secret success?
- Entirely private and therefore not only not official, but not even an opinion tested in the public arena. He can write what he likes.
- Not definitive if this is Swanson's opinion or the replication of his ex-chief's and therefore maybe repetition rather than confirmation of Anderson's tale?

There is nothing much to add to that, except, of course, that fading memory may or may not have come into play, but we have no evidence to support it and memories of Donald Swanson in later life, for whatever value they have, are of a man who was nimble minded and retained his faculties. Also, other marginal writings by Swanson can and have been checked for accuracy and there is the fact that Anderson also refers the same event. It was potentially self-serving, but the marginalia is a personal document so who is Swanson kidding. Yes, entirely private, but that works in favour of the authenticity of what Swanson is saying. As for the last point, the story is an extraordinary one and one which it is difficult to imagine that a man of Swanson's intelligence would have accepted without question. Common sense alone dictates that one must suppose that Swanson would have asked questions of himself and others and to have indicated uncertainty in the marginalia if there had been any. Whether Swanson was reporting first-hand experience or Anderson's account or someone else's account, if there was any doubt in his minds why didn't he express it clearly?