The Swanson marginalia - a new interpretation?

[Jeff Leahy]

You are, arguably, putting the cart before the horse. eg. Swanson's memory was unimpaired therefore the Marginalia is reliable -- except the bits where it is clearly not.

How about, the Marginalia is unreliable therefore this is the evidence of a fading and self-serving memory.

.

How about we dont know what , if any errors the Marginalia contain?

If he was talking about Aaron then he appears to have made an error about Kosminski dying in custody shortly after being committed.

McNaugten's errors far out weigh this. However the fact is we just don't know if Swanson was wrong about 1889. Kosminski could possibly have been sent in and out of a private asylum, we just do not know for sure.

Pirate

[Phil H]

Pirate - I'm not sure what exactly the thrust of your argument is. Could you summarise it for me please?

On Macnaghten's memoranda, I think there are a number of interpretations that (at least to my mind) are valid, including:

a) he was putting on file the arguments against Cutbush being the Ripper (exactly as he said in case they were needed). I am a Civil Servant and it is what we do). Errors could simply reflect Macnaghten's reliance on memory rather than the files;

b) the names he quotes which never seem to appear in the remaining investigation files (Kosminski, Druitt; Ostrog) could reflect a deliberate attempt to throw future enquirers off track and thus suggest a "political" motive in writing as he did - all three would be difficult/impossible to contact;

c) parallel with a and b above the memo may reflect genuine private information available to Macnaghten, or "gossip" as from the Dorset MP and be worth something or nothing;

d) there could be indications of "internal politics" within the Met in that MM's preference for druitt is on file, where Anderson's candidate - Kosminski - is given lower billing.

I am as yet undecided on which of these - or some other - to feel is correct. All might be!

I say this not to sidetrack the thread, but to contrast the motivations for writing the "official" memorandum with those of Swanson who was writing privately.

As have said, I do not believe we have any justification for dismissing what DSS wrote simply on grounds of "senility". He was clearly either setting down his recollections (however misremembered) or recording what someone else had told him.

The accusations against DSS's account have been (at least in part) that they require us to believe that some very odd processes and methods were used; dates seem at odds with what we now know, and the overall effect is that the marginalia just don't "add up".

There are at least two reasons why that may be the case - (1) that we don't have all the information now that was available to DSS, and if we did the scales would fall from our eyes at once; (2) that we are, somehow mis-reading the marginalia, which are very much a summary.

As an example of (1) above, we had no idea that Druitt or Kosminski were in any way in the Met's collective mind under the memorandum came to light. It may be that while we discuss Schwartz and Lawende as witnesses there are again other potential witnesses known in the 1880/90s but not recorded on existing/released files. (One possible reason for such secrecy could be a Special Branch/informer angle - a policeman doing duty in secret who had to be protected, for instance, or an informer.)

It is another option that I opened this thread to discuss, however, and that was that the mistakes/errors in the marginalia - and relate to Anderson. They came as much as a surprise to Sawnson as they do to us and provide a motive for his writing other than for posterity or as an idle pastime.

Thus DSS was ensuring that he had as much as possible of Anderson's story on record - and augmenting/explaining and giving context to what Anderson had made public. Swanson might have thought this was necessary in case there were future questions, enquiries etc and people came to him.

I don't see anything in the marginalias wording, positioning in the book, or what they say that cuts across this, But I am asking others whether they agree. This is a rather subjective, perceptual point after all.

Above all it explains that d way of leading up to the suspects name - it was as intriguing and as much a surprise to Swanson as it was to us!

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Pirate

You keep referring, I presume, to Mac's alleged errors about Druitt.

I am arguing that, regarding only the Polish Jew suspect -- if it was Aaron Kosminski -- then Macnaghten is a more reliable source than either Anderson and/or Swanson.

True, he places the Polish Jew suspect, or somebody who resembles him, with Eddowes -- supposedly seen by a beat cop -- but Mac completely drops this alleged resemblance in his memoirs.

Believing that a suspect is probably alive, as Mac does in 'Aberconway', is a lot closer to the truth than to believe that he was definitely dead soon after he was incarcerated -- which is also a self-servingly better tale.

To Phil

Yes, I agree with what you are considering.

I imagined a scene in 1910 where Swanson comes over for tea with Anderson, whom he respected -- even revered.

The retired Inspector brought up what the retired Commissioner had written about the Ripper, perplexed as he was by this Polish Jew suspect who had been positively identified by a Judas witness -- and whom he had never of?

Swanson was then stunned by an idiosyncratic rant from Anderson as he mixed it all up: the suspect was dead soon after the final murder (no, that's Druitt) a swinish Jewish witness (the co-operative Lawende) who had said 'yes' (but to Grant in 1895) when 'confronting' a suspect after the 'final' murder (Coles or Kelly?) and then 'no' (but to Sadler in 1891), the suspect had been sent to the Seaside Home (no, the suspect was dressed like a seaman according to the real Jewish witness) 'with difficulty' (always blaming others) and was housed with his brother (Aaron Kosminski at last appears) and was subsequently sectioned (Kosminski again).

Reaching home, a quietly embarrassed Swanson wrote all this down, and then finished with the remarkably flat line about this being only a 'suspect', not definitely the killer. It's a sober pull-back when the whole thrust of the marginalia's melodramatic pantomime is that this was the killer, no doubt about it -- does that not sound like Anderson? -- in which the insane murderer knows the witness knows that he knows, and we know that he knows that we know, and so on.

In 1975, Don Rumbelow argued that Anderson was partly misremembering the Pizer debacle and I think that opinion stands. For Pizer was a suspect in 1888 unlike, I think, Aaron Kosminski.

[Phil H]

The alternative to your scaenario Jonathan, is to discount the "rant" from Anderson (which is actually an invention built on a supposition) and to ponder the implications of Anderson telling his former subordinate about real events of which Swanson had been hitherto wholly unaware.

Thus he hears that the Yard has done things that could be regarded as professionally, if not legally, improper - using a City Police witness; holding confrontational identifications etc.

Now, what if Anderson withheld the name of his suspect during the "discussion" leaving Swanson perplexed and intrigued. Shortly after he has elicited this information from Sir Robert, therefore, he approaches serving officials at the Yard - perhaps Melville Macnaghten - and is told "yes, there was a suspect", Anderson is talking about a man called "Kosminski".

This might again explain why the suspect is appended to the marginalia in that slightly odd way - it was a slightly later addition and a further gloss on the original notes.

The danger with all this is that it is supposition piled on supposition without a shred of supportive evidence. Please, therefore, take this with a pinch of salt. That said, I still believe that my overall hypothesis re swanson recording Anderson's more detailed views, might hold water.

Phil

[Steven Russell]

I agree, Phil. It seems to me entirely possible that Swanson is saying merely that Anderson suspected Kosminski and NOT that he (Swanson) necessarily agreed.

But it is impossible to be absolutely objective about these things. For example, to me the Macnaghten Memorandum seems to be a document designed to exonerate Cutbush. Sir MM throws out the names of three better suspects to rubbish the Cutbush theory. But by the end of the document, he has become a confirmed Druittist.

I'm really looking forward to reading Rob House's book as it must surely address all of these questions.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil H]

Steve

I'm really looking forward to reading Rob House's book as it must surely address all of these questions.

I am told that it should be with UK-Amazon buyers next week!! I share your sense of anticipation.

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

I agree, Phil. It seems to me entirely possible that Swanson is saying merely that Anderson suspected Kosminski and NOT that he (Swanson) necessarily agreed.

.

Unless of course its the other way around (which makes some sense)

Swanson was after all in charge of the investigation.

It simply makes more sense that the story is Swanson's and he is correcting and expanding on Anderson.

As suggested by Stewart Evans at the Wolverhampton conference.

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

To Pirate

It is because Swanson was in charge, and seems to have all his faculties in 1910, that I theorize that the glaring and self-serving errors in the Marginalia are not his (the tale is not entirely private if it originates with Swanson as he is disseminating it to the public via Anderson).

To Steven

I don't quite follow what you mean about Macnaghten?

He wrote two versions of the same Report.

In the one disseminated to the public, via literary cronies, Druitt is almost everything and that is how they reported it -- especially George Sims.

In the other, Druitt is hardly anything, except a better bet than Cutbush who was certifiably insane, demonstrably violent, and permanently incarcerated -- if that makes any sense.

In his memoirs, Macnaghten, working from the publicized version, not only backs the un-named Druitt as the fiend but he reveals that he was a posthumous suspect found only 'some years after' he had taken his own life.

This embarrassing element is veiled in both versions of his Report.

[Jeff Leahy]

I theorize that the glaring and self-serving errors in the Marginalia are not his .

The problem is that the the wording 'Glaring' and 'Self-serving' are in themselves not only highly speculative. But also glaring and self-serving on your part.

Do you have any hard factual evidence to support these claims?

(the tale is not entirely private if it originates with Swanson as he is disseminating it to the public via Anderson).

Its simply impossible to tell or say. We just don't know.

But Anderson was Swanson's superior, surely it was his job to pass on information to his superior? Without knowing when..its simply impossible to draw conclusion or criticism.

Pirate

[Phil H]

It is because Swanson was in charge, and seems to have all his faculties in 1910, that I theorize that the glaring and self-serving errors in the Marginalia are not his (the tale is not entirely private if it originates with Swanson as he is disseminating it to the public via Anderson).

Pirate,

in this case i'm afraid I agree with Jonathan, indeed, I'd probably argue the case more strongly than he does.

Of course, I recognise that taking a different line to SPE and you is akin to heresy, but I feel like Luther tonight!!

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry to be confused Phil H but you appear to quote Jonathon and address the Pirate?

[Phil H]

Well spotted - exactly my intent!

I'm concurring with Jonathan in his response to you and raising the bidding.

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh right? I'm still confused.

Are you claiming you do have evidence for these claims and are willing to share that evidence?

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

If you mean historical 'evidence', eg. the contradictory and fragmentary sources, some inevitably self-serving and thus potentially unreliable, then that is what myself and the Phils have been arguing about.

It's all right in front of you.

If you mean evidence like the polce or the courts mean, ahh, well you're on a hdhiing to nothing pal.

The discipline of historical analysis is despised by some people as they regard it as too provisional, and too contingent, and too subjective. People who want a straight-line between A and Z, not some lateral zig zag which is only as convincing as the next book -- which argues the complete opposite point of view.

[Jeff Leahy]

If you mean historical 'evidence', eg. the contradictory and fragmentary sources, some inevitably self-serving and thus potentially unreliable, .

Its the ambibuity of the meaning of 'self-serving' that is problematic...

From a point of view almost anything could be argued as being such..

thus, by your reasoning, everything is unreliable....

we are left charging windmills

Pirate