The Swanson Marginalia

[spyglass]

Sorry for bringing up an old thread (in case an apology is needed). But I'm in the camp which believed Swanson's writing may not necessarily indicate his certainty of Kosminski's guilt. Although "Kosminski was the suspect" sounds pretty definitive, it would have sounded even more definitive if he had written "Kosminski was the murderer". I think Swanson was simply reporting on what he saw. The fact that he was a suspect was simply an observation. His belief that the witness refusing to identify Kosminski because he was a fellow Jew could also be Swanson's way of grasping at straws and ending up succumbing to prejudices at the time. It could simply be that the witness refused to identify Kosminski because he didn't think he was the killer. All we know is that Swanson believed Kosminski was the killer, but "believed" may also mean "didn't really know".

Hi,
Exactly...many people assume " suspect and murderer " are the same thing.
The same goes with " helping police with their inquiry's " meaning they got their man.
Even Tumblety only came to light as a " likely suspect".

Regards

[Wickerman]

Swanson's notes read to me like he was only putting a name to Anderson's suspect, not his own.
We don't know who Swanson suspected.

[GUT]

Swanson's notes read to me like he was only putting a name to Anderson's suspect, not his own.
We don't know who Swanson suspected.

My reading too.

[Howard Brown]

Originally Posted by YomRippur
Sorry for bringing up an old thread (in case an apology is needed). But I'm in the camp which believed Swanson's writing may not necessarily indicate his certainty of Kosminski's guilt.

The Marginalia doesn't give an indication either way. It's meant to clarify what Anderson hedged at.

Although "Kosminski was the suspect" sounds pretty definitive, it would have sounded even more definitive if he had written "Kosminski was the murderer".

That's true....but all the witness was asked to do was merely affirm that he saw the person in question with the victim ( most likely Eddowes ).

I think Swanson was simply reporting on what he saw.

Unless something has materialized recently, we do not know that Swanson OR Anderson were at the actual identification attempt in person. What both state may well have been told to them.

The fact that he was a suspect was simply an observation. His belief that the witness refusing to identify Kosminski because he was a fellow Jew could also be Swanson's way of grasping at straws and ending up succumbing to prejudices at the time.

You're confusing Anderson ( who stated that the witness refused to identify the man under scrutiny because he was a Jew) with Swanson here, YK.
It would be prejudicial if Jews were an insignificant (numerical) entity in the neighborhood, but they weren't. One can argue ( and I would ) that the hysteria over Pizer and Leather Apron ( created ,I might add, by a liberal left wing newspaper, The Star...go figger....) was based on base prejudice...but I would dispute this in the case of the man Anderson is talking about.


It could simply be that the witness refused to identify Kosminski because he didn't think he was the killer. All we know is that Swanson believed Kosminski was the killer, but "believed" may also mean "didn't really know".

Again, Swanson's end notes are a clarification of what Anderson wrote....not his opinion....unless something new has materialized.

Cheers
HB

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Swanson's pencillings on Page 138 more or less filled-in what Anderson had written in Blackwoods Magazine but omitted from the collected volume TLSOMOL.

Regarding the endpaper notes, I would like to know the reason why the concluding line, "Kosminski was the suspect," did not appear in Charles Sandell's 1981 typewritten article for the News of the World.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by YomRippur
Sorry for bringing up an old thread (in case an apology is needed). But I'm in the camp which believed Swanson's writing may not necessarily indicate his certainty of Kosminski's guilt.

The Marginalia doesn't give an indication either way. It's meant to clarify what Anderson hedged at.

Although "Kosminski was the suspect" sounds pretty definitive, it would have sounded even more definitive if he had written "Kosminski was the murderer".

That's true....but all the witness was asked to do was merely affirm that he saw the person in question with the victim ( most likely Eddowes ).

I think Swanson was simply reporting on what he saw.

Unless something has materialized recently, we do not know that Swanson OR Anderson were at the actual identification attempt in person. What both state may well have been told to them.

The fact that he was a suspect was simply an observation. His belief that the witness refusing to identify Kosminski because he was a fellow Jew could also be Swanson's way of grasping at straws and ending up succumbing to prejudices at the time.

You're confusing Anderson ( who stated that the witness refused to identify the man under scrutiny because he was a Jew) with Swanson here, YK.
It would be prejudicial if Jews were an insignificant (numerical) entity in the neighborhood, but they weren't. One can argue ( and I would ) that the hysteria over Pizer and Leather Apron ( created ,I might add, by a liberal left wing newspaper, The Star...go figger....) was based on base prejudice...but I would dispute this in the case of the man Anderson is talking about.


It could simply be that the witness refused to identify Kosminski because he didn't think he was the killer. All we know is that Swanson believed Kosminski was the killer, but "believed" may also mean "didn't really know".

Again, Swanson's end notes are a clarification of what Anderson wrote....not his opinion....unless something new has materialized.

Cheers
HB

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.

[Elamarna]

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

tend to agree with you, I think be was both adding stuff Anderson had omitted, and trying to hint rather than categorical state himself.

of course he was writing for an audience of just himself. so we probably have to say that there was no need to say he was the killer.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392482]

Hi Abby

tend to agree with you, I think be was both adding stuff Anderson had omitted, and trying to hint rather than categorical state himself.

Hinting by signing the statements.

of course he was writing for an audience of just himself. so we probably have to say that there was no need to say he was the killer.

Writing for just himself by signing the statments.


Regards, PIerre

[Bridewell]

because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged

This is troublesome. All the witness (assuming it was either Lawende or Schwartz) could have done was to identify (in confrontation) a man seen with, respectively, Eddowes or Stride shortly before her demise. A half-competent barrister would have torn this ID process to pieces (even by the standards then pertaining). This evidence would not, indeed could not be the means of the person thus identified being hanged. There would still be no proof that the man seen was the actual killer. For this to be the case the witness would need to have witnessed the fatal attack for the chain of evidence to be complete. IMHO either Swanson was over-egging the pudding or the witness was someone else - perhaps the "City PC that was (on) a beat near Mitre Square" (Aberconway version of the MM). I don't buy this as a reference to Lawende.

[Bridewell]

Hinting by signing the statements.

Writing for just himself by signing the statements.

Regards, 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.

[Bridewell]

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!).

[Robert]

He wasn't a policeman, if the ID occurred after July 89.

[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

[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

[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