The Swanson Marginalia

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392675]

With the greatest of respect this suggestion is something which you cannot establish, it is utterly unsustainable to suggest that Swanson intended these notes to be seen.

You mention letters, those are documents sent from once source to another, notes in a private book are a completely different issue

I note you do not address several points because one assumes you don't like the answers you see:

1. when were the notes written?

At least 20 years after the event.

Hi Steve,

To start with, I am not interested in the marginalia. And what do you mean by "event"?

2. Would writing such notes between the publication date of "The lighter side of my official life" and Swanson's death, have had any effect on the public’s view of the 1888 crimes.

Certainly not, how could it, if it were not public.

Impossible question. A "would-have" question. "Would have an effect on". X>Y. We have no data.

3. When did they become public?

The first notice i see of them is in the early 1980's finally being made public 100 years after the event.

Depends on what you mean by "public". Other people may have seen it before this, we do not know.

4. Could such publication have helped to hide the true identity of the killer?

Unlikely as you claim he has not been named before, although it does support the case for Kosminski.

But a Kosminski lived until 1919, didnīt he?

5. Is there reasonable support that Swanson somehow planned for these notes to be made public?

It seems unlikely that if Swanson was planning this, it would wait some 60 years after his death.

In addition there are no known sources which suggest this.

It is an historical fact that we do not know what he did with the book, isnīt it?

6. Could the name kosminski, in the notes be a later addition, and indeed a fake?

This has been raised by several over the years, while I personally do not think this is the case, there are many who do.

You have completely failed to address this issue, but I am not surprised at all.

Who knows.

This hypothesis as you want to call it is based on nothing but a belief you have, which fits your overarching theory.

Steve

What hypothesis do you mean? There are many. But no hypotheses without sources, so you are wrong.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

That is no problem really. We are used to think in terms of published items but in the past it was not as common. People wrote texts without printing them and if they were public or official people, their writings may be looked upon as important writings that had a public value. A good example is letters. So what Swanson wanted to do, and did, was to point out a Kosminski as a suspect. He also wanted to connect a Kosminski and a set of data about a Kosminski to the "Seaside home".

That seems to be hypothetically possible to establish as an historical fact.

Best wishes, Pierre

With the greatest of respect this suggestion is something which you cannot establish, it is utterly unsustainable to suggest that Swanson intended these notes to be seen.


You mention letters, those are documents sent from once source to another, notes in a private book are a completely different issue



I note you do not address several points because one assumes you don't like the answers you see:


1. when were the notes written?

At least 20 years after the event.



2. Would writing such notes between the publication date of "The lighter side of my official life" and Swanson's death, have had any effect on the public’s view of the 1888 crimes.

Certainly not, how could it, if it were not public.



3. When did they become public?

The first notice i see of them is in the early 1980's finally being made public 100 years after the event.



4. Could such publication have helped to hide the true identity of the killer?

Unlikely as you claim he has not been named before, although it does support the case for Kosminski.




5. Is there reasonable support that Swanson somehow planned for these notes to be made public?

It seems unlikely that if Swanson was planning this, it would wait some 60 years after his death.

In addition there are no known sources which suggest this.



6. Could the name kosminski, in the notes be a later addition, and indeed a fake?

This has been raised by several over the years, while I personally do not think this is the case, there are many who do.

You have completely failed to address this issue, but I am not surprised at all.




This hypothesis as you want to call it is based on nothing but a belief you have, which fits your overarching theory.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.

What strikes me as unusual is, the Whitechapel murderer was the bane of Scotland Yard, so why did they let the City Police watch over the comings and goings of their prime suspect?
If anything was the responsibility of the Yard, it was to watch this particular suspect. We do know the forces worked together, and the Met. did allow City detectives to interview the Goulston St. residents where the apron was found. Rightly so, Eddowes was a City murder case.
So, why are they now watching Kozminski?

If the City Police were watching Kozminski, then I think it's because he was a City Police suspect. Swanson uses the phrase "sent by us", and I think we have assumed he means Scotland Yard specifically, but he may have meant the authorities in general (ie; City & Met. working together).

I don't see a problem with the wording (you hi-lite in bold). Swanson keeps his opinion impartial, he is relating Anderson's view not his own.

The I.D. witness may have been a Met. witness, but the suspect was a City suspect, and Anderson buy's into his culpability, Swanson is non-committal.
Therefore, Kozminski was not Scotland Yard's Prime suspect, he was probably a City Police Prime suspect.

he was probably both

[Wickerman]

Hi HB (and Wick)

"...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"[


Although Swanson dosnt say it explicitely, I think its rather obvious he was tacitly agreeing with Anderson that he thought Kos was the killer., not just clarifying.

Note those statements (in bold). repeated twice-suspect KNEW he was IDed.Its a statement one can only make if you think suspect is guilty.

and saying no other murders occurred after also points to swanson thinking this was their man.

Hi Abby.

What strikes me as unusual is, the Whitechapel murderer was the bane of Scotland Yard, so why did they let the City Police watch over the comings and goings of their prime suspect?
If anything was the responsibility of the Yard, it was to watch this particular suspect. We do know the forces worked together, and the Met. did allow City detectives to interview the Goulston St. residents where the apron was found. Rightly so, Eddowes was a City murder case.
So, why are they now watching Kozminski?

If the City Police were watching Kozminski, then I think it's because he was a City Police suspect. Swanson uses the phrase "sent by us", and I think we have assumed he means Scotland Yard specifically, but he may have meant the authorities in general (ie; City & Met. working together).

I don't see a problem with the wording (you hi-lite in bold). Swanson keeps his opinion impartial, he is relating Anderson's view not his own.

The I.D. witness may have been a Met. witness, but the suspect was a City suspect, and Anderson buy's into his culpability, Swanson is non-committal.
Therefore, Kozminski was not Scotland Yard's Prime suspect, he was probably a City Police Prime suspect.

[spyglass]

That is no problem really. We are used to think in terms of published items but in the past it was not as common. People wrote texts without printing them and if they were public or official people, their writings may be looked upon as important writings that had a public value. A good example is letters. So what Swanson wanted to do, and did, was to point out a Kosminski as a suspect. He also wanted to connect a Kosminski and a set of data about a Kosminski to the "Seaside home".



That seems to be hypothetically possible to establish as an historical fact.

Best wishes, Pierre

Hi,
Yep!
Just to add to all the other red herrings and smoke screens thrown about by those officials involved.
Isn't it strange that all police officers and high ranking officials who wrote or were interviewed years later, all have a different idea on who the killer was.
There doesn't seem to be anyone working from the same song sheet.

regards

[Pierre]

The problem with this approach Pierre is that the marginalia was not made public until the 1980's

If Swanson wanted to make people think it was someone else, why write notes on it some 20 years after the murders?
Notes which were private and which were not made public until 50 years after his death.

Despite the feeble attempts earlier to say it was all planned by Swanson, you have NOTHING to support this idea.

Steve

That is no problem really. We are used to think in terms of published items but in the past it was not as common. People wrote texts without printing them and if they were public or official people, their writings may be looked upon as important writings that had a public value. A good example is letters. So what Swanson wanted to do, and did, was to point out a Kosminski as a suspect. He also wanted to connect a Kosminski and a set of data about a Kosminski to the "Seaside home".

That seems to be hypothetically possible to establish as an historical fact.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392594]

And just because i know alot about it, and all the problems it presents, it does not mean I am "so interested in" it.

i just see it as one more possible pierce of the puzzle.

However it seems you want to attack so go ahead.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I am sorry if it sounded as if I wanted to "attack". I was just curious.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I know what they are. They are out there to see for anyone. Call them what you will. They do contain statements since they are formalized, i.e. written down and signed.

They are not signed, they are initialled.
do you not know the difference?

They are private notes, you still fail to show any supporting data to suggest otherwise.

in addition you completely overlook the possibility, considered by some to be a real probability, that the name of Kosminski was added some time after Swanson's death.

steve

[Elamarna]

My hypothesis is that the police did ID a man at a seaside place, and the press heard about it, and some officers in the police force knew about it, and afterwards Swanson wanted to make people think it was another suspect. And it was easy to pick one of the known ones.

The problem with this approach Pierre is that the marginalia was not made public until the 1980's

If Swanson wanted to make people think it was someone else, why write notes on it some 20 years after the murders?
Notes which were private and which were not made public until 50 years after his death.

Despite the feeble attempts earlier to say it was all planned by Swanson, you have NOTHING to support this idea.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;392577]

Hi Steve,

Why are you so interested in the marginalia?

Regards, Pierre

And just because i know alot about it, and all the problems it presents, it does not mean I am "so interested in" it.

i just see it as one more possible pierce of the puzzle.

However it seems you want to attack so go ahead.

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;392577]

Hi Steve,

Why are you so interested in the marginalia?

Regards, Pierre

Why not?

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

These are not statements; they are marginal annotations in his copy of Anderson's book followed by a one sentence inscription on the end paper. Neither is 'signed', although the initials that appear (DSS) are Swanson's.

I know what they are. They are out there to see for anyone. Call them what you will. They do contain statements since they are formalized, i.e. written down and signed.

[Pierre]

If the "Seaside Home" was indeed the Police Convalescent Home in Brighton, why was Kosminsky/Kaminsky or whoever "sent" there? I can see how the police might have wanted the ID process to be done away from the prying eyes of the press, but surely that wouldn't have necessitated sending a troublesome suspect as far away as Brighton? Is it not more likely that he was sent there because that's where the witness was?

I would suggest Harvey as he was a Sussex lad originally, but he was on the City Force and I believe they had their own arrangements (& he probably wasn't a Jew!).

Hi Bridewell,

I donīt think it was that place, but I think it was by the sea at a resort at another place.

Anyway, to add more questions to your questions, which are good questions, why "send" (?) a young jewish man from the lower classes to such at place for identification - why not just go and get him and take him to a police station? That was standard procedure.

So what was so specific about that man that they could not apply standard procedure on him?

My hypothesis is that the police did ID a man at a seaside place, and the press heard about it, and some officers in the police force knew about it, and afterwards Swanson wanted to make people think it was another suspect. And it was easy to pick one of the known ones.

There must have been a source or sources where the identification at a seaside place was described and that source or those sources are with high probability lost.

On the other hand, there are sources showing that someone was at such a seaside place.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392553]

Yes hints and writing for himself, because you think there is a conspiracy of some sort, does not mean there was and of course we have no source to back up your ideas, just your opinion!

Bridewell rights points out, not signed but initialled, and certainly not statements or any proven intention that these notes would be make public some 90 = years after the events.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Why are you so interested in the marginalia?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;392530]

Hinting by signing the statements.


Writing for just himself by signing the statments.


Regards, PIerre

Yes hints and writing for himself, because you think there is a conspiracy of some sort, does not mean there was and of course we have no source to back up your ideas, just your opinion!

Bridewell rights points out, not signed but initialled, and certainly not statements or any proven intention that these notes would be make public some 90 = years after the events.


Steve