There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Tecs]

Jonathan,

Yes, and if you add in that Anderson wasn't even in London for most of the murders, (unless he was taking part in Stephen Knight's conspiracy ) then you can understand Swanson's incredulity.

You can picture it :-

"What on earth is the old fellow on about? Ah well, I'd better put it all down anyway"

Regards

[Hunter]

It is telling, I think, that Swanson never went public to assist Anderson with his claims of a Polish Jewish chief suspect, nor did he apparently ever show the notation to family members and say: look here I have recorded the identity of the fiend [with a member then asking: really, and what was his first name ...?].

Maybe he was living up to that 'unwritten rule' that Anderson mentioned. He certainly underlined it for some reason.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, that is certainly possible.

And obviously anything Anderson said carried more weight both in terms of class and rank.

On the other hand, Swanson not telling a single memebr of his family, either verbally or via the annotation, strikes me as indicating its worth: eg. nothing.

Also, Swanson had 'broken' this old tradition in 1895 by briefing a reporter that, in the wake of the Grainger fizzer, he believed that the fiend was dead. If that meant Kosminski then his information was already hopelessly and self-servingly wrong.

A dead suspect, of course, might refer more logically to Druitt, though I doubt Swanson knew anything about that story.

[Hunter]

True, but he didn't publicly name a suspect as was done in the marginalia.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, that's true for sure.

I would also like to add that I think Anderson was a completely sincere figure, albeit egocentric and muddled -- and not an anti-Semite.

Whereas Macnaghten was sly and deceitiful, for the best of reasons he believed, though he made an effort to fess up at the end.

I realise that this is the exact reverse of the what is generally believed.

[Johnr]

Look! Its The New Jonathan H!

Well done Jonathan H,
Crisp, succinct explanations. Generous to others and more tempered too!
I think your readership will increase now.
Good On Yer!

JOHN RUFFELS.

[caz]

Hi All,

I wonder if this could be looked at in yet another way. Was Swanson wearing his good copper hat and acknowledging (albeit to himself) that while he understood Kosminski to be the chap Anderson was talking about, he would always only have suspect status at best, since the reluctant Jewish witness, however certain he may have appeared to be that the suspect was indeed the man he had seen back in 1888 at or near a murder site, with a woman he believed was the victim, had not actually witnessed a murder (as Stewart has pointed out more times than we've all had hot dinners), or even a knife being drawn.

As such, there could be no certainty that the suspect had gone on to kill anyone. In fact, that could be precisely why the witness 'declined to swear to him' (Anderson's words in Blackwood's), because a) he didn't know this feeble-minded Jew was guilty, and didn't particularly care to believe it, and b) he genuinely worried that Gentile justice would say "ta very much" and hang the poor wretch, without so much as a by-your-leave, whether he was fit to plead or not, and as circumstantial as the case was against him.

Swanson, at least, appears to have appreciated the weaknesses of a 'morally certain' verdict, and been true to himself about it when adding his notes to the mix. Again, his observation (regardless of its accuracy) that no more murders took place after Kosminski knew he had been recognised does not come across as anything stronger than a reflection of his personal opinion that this man could have been the one. Obviously no more ripper murders were going to take place if the murderer himself realised the game was up. And Swanson may have been misled into thinking he had died 'shortly afterwards'. Would he have questioned such information, or thought it his place or responsibility to check it?

It would have been so easy for Swanson - or anyone writing as him - to have stated as fact that Kosminski was the murderer, or at least declared his own moral certainty of that fact. But that's not what we have here at all. The closest it comes is with the reference to the witness believing that the 'murderer' (not the suspect this time) would be convicted and hanged if he testified. But this merely reflects the thinking and fears of the witness; not Swanson's, nor the reality. Swanson must have known what the chances were of getting Kosminski to stand trial, never mind to hang, purely on one witness putting him near a murder back in 1888. But he may have reasoned that the witness believed the man was the 'murderer' but just didn't want to grass him up (whereas I suspect a) and b) above to be nearer the truth). And of course Swanson fails to repeat the 'murderer' theme at the end, when noting that Kosminski was the name of the suspect.

Might this explain why Swanson could not, in all conscience, back up Anderson more publicly?

Think of Swanson as a Keith Skinner making two sets of notes, maybe many years apart, in his own copy of a Melvin Harris or Paul Feldman book, but without such a clear memory or command of the facts as Keith undoubtedly has.

Plausible?

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Hi Caz,
At first read through, it struck me in this way..

Swanson noted "Kosminski" just when he was actually saying..

" He (Anderson) is talking about Kosminski" sort of thing. ?? Not a confirmation of a killer, but confirmation of Anderson's suspect??

Then again, I have reservations about a the identification of a man.. whom I see as possibly being Sadler... But yes Caz, you could be right here... time for a think, methinks..:-) Yup, Plausible on first read through. :-)

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

well done

Hello Caz. Well done!

(Or, as I prefer to put it, "Och, Lassie, 'tis well doon!")

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting

Interesting observations Caz. All of which, if correct, still leaves such questions as - Who was the witness? When did the identification take place? Where was the identification conducted? Why does no other source mention such a prima facie important identification? There are other considerations, of course, but I didn't want this to get too complicated.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Plausible?

If Kosminski was the Ripper, or merely suspected of being the Ripper, then how, just a week after his commital to Colney Hatch, could the police have even momentarily considered Frances Coles to be a "Ripper" victim?

If the police believed the Ripper was still at large, logic dictates that he couldn't have been Kosminski.

Regards,

Simon

[jason_c]

Hi All,

I wonder if this could be looked at in yet another way. Was Swanson wearing his good copper hat and acknowledging (albeit to himself) that while he understood Kosminski to be the chap Anderson was talking about, he would always only have suspect status at best, since the reluctant Jewish witness, however certain he may have appeared to be that the suspect was indeed the man he had seen back in 1888 at or near a murder site, with a woman he believed was the victim, had not actually witnessed a murder (as Stewart has pointed out more times than we've all had hot dinners), or even a knife being drawn.

As such, there could be no certainty that the suspect had gone on to kill anyone. In fact, that could be precisely why the witness 'declined to swear to him' (Anderson's words in Blackwood's), because a) he didn't know this feeble-minded Jew was guilty, and didn't particularly care to believe it, and b) he genuinely worried that Gentile justice would say "ta very much" and hang the poor wretch, without so much as a by-your-leave, whether he was fit to plead or not, and as circumstantial as the case was against him.

Swanson, at least, appears to have appreciated the weaknesses of a 'morally certain' verdict, and been true to himself about it when adding his notes to the mix. Again, his observation (regardless of its accuracy) that no more murders took place after Kosminski knew he had been recognised does not come across as anything stronger than a reflection of his personal opinion that this man could have been the one. Obviously no more ripper murders were going to take place if the murderer himself realised the game was up. And Swanson may have been misled into thinking he had died 'shortly afterwards'. Would he have questioned such information, or thought it his place or responsibility to check it?

It would have been so easy for Swanson - or anyone writing as him - to have stated as fact that Kosminski was the murderer, or at least declared his own moral certainty of that fact. But that's not what we have here at all. The closest it comes is with the reference to the witness believing that the 'murderer' (not the suspect this time) would be convicted and hanged if he testified. But this merely reflects the thinking and fears of the witness; not Swanson's, nor the reality. Swanson must have known what the chances were of getting Kosminski to stand trial, never mind to hang, purely on one witness putting him near a murder back in 1888. But he may have reasoned that the witness believed the man was the 'murderer' but just didn't want to grass him up (whereas I suspect a) and b) above to be nearer the truth). And of course Swanson fails to repeat the 'murderer' theme at the end, when noting that Kosminski was the name of the suspect.

Might this explain why Swanson could not, in all conscience, back up Anderson more publicly?

Think of Swanson as a Keith Skinner making two sets of notes, maybe many years apart, in his own copy of a Melvin Harris or Paul Feldman book, but without such a clear memory or command of the facts as Keith undoubtedly has.

Plausible?

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent post.

[jason_c]

Hi Caz,

Plausible?

If Kosminski was the Ripper, or merely suspected of being the Ripper, then how, just a week after his commital to Colney Hatch, could the police have even momentarily considered Frances Coles to be a "Ripper" victim?

If the police believed the Ripper was still at large, logic dictates that he couldn't have been Kosminski.

Regards,

Simon

You've pretty much answered your own question.

[mariab]

Very-very lucid what you're saying here, Caz (if this doesn't sound too partonizing coming from a total newbie!). Still, observing a suspect in conversation with a victim very shortly before the victim was murdered in 1888 is a whole ANOTHER situation than observing a suspect in conversation with a victim very shortly before the victim was murdered TODAY, as the investigation procedures have changed significantly.
SPE wrote:
Who was the witness? When did the identification take place? Where was the identification conducted?
I'm worried that everyone's gonna jump and hit me if I dare suggest the (remote) possibility that the witness might have possibly been Joeph Hyam Levy instead of Lawende and the suspect Jacob Levy instead of Kozminski?!
Simon Wood wrote:
If Kosminski was the Ripper, or merely suspected of being the Ripper, then how, just a week after his commital to Colney Hatch, could the police have even momentarily considered Frances Coles to be a "Ripper" victim?
If the police believed the Ripper was still at large, logic dictates that he couldn't have been Kosminski.
Precisely. The problem, in my opinion, is that different police officials considered different suspects at the time. (Exactly like Ripperologists do today!)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mariab,

Why, exactly, would different police officials have considered different suspects at the time?

Regards,

Simon