The Swanson marginalia - a new interpretation?

[TomTomKent]

Except for this:

If the tale originates with Swanson then it is not entirely private.

Sure the finer details about the Seaside Home and so on -- the desperate pantomime by the suspect and witness -- and that the suspect was deceased, but it is still self-serving for the public as it was disseminated via Anderson since 1895.

With the tale adding a positive i.d. in 1910, without which 'Kosminski', probably Aaron Kosminski, was an harmless imbecile who was not sectioned until over two years after the Kelly murder and yet a few days before the Coles murder.

Arguably Evans and Rumbelow provide a compelling theory as to how the witness i.d. came about, and it did not involve Kosminski being 'confronted' by anybody.

Which, arguably, leaves the Polish Jew suspect at the same status as his non-appearance in Mac's memoirs -- as nothing.

The story being from another source does not mean the notes were anything but entirely private. If they are accurate or not they were written as only a short aid to memory and we have no evidence on which to base the assumption that any particular detailis wrong.we have simply no way of knowing what memory was intended to be jogged. Your speculation that Evans and Rumblow are correct is no more or less likely than, for example Mr Fido suggesting that all the details are correct except the name and Cohen was the man.

When I scribble notes on books for training courses or the like, i do not expect anybody to read those notes and see the full picture I am holding in my head. They are an aid to kickstart the grey cells, no more. We can be sure Swanson had a reason, correct or not, for making the notation, but can not pretend they are more useful than that. We can only state that a self serving lie makes little sense.

[mariab]

whereas the French police could hold on to a suspect almost indefinitely whilst they conducted their investigations.

Of this I'm obviously aware.

Thank you so much, Mr. Begg, for clarifying the context of this quote by Anderson.

[PaulB]

Oh, and it was the New York police who apparently said that they'd have caught Jack the Ripper, which was just hot air and I suspect Anderson would have known it.

[PaulB]

So it was Anderson then who said that the case would have been solved if investigated by the French police? In The Lighter side of my official life? (Which I've perused but not really read yet.) And yet he kept comparing the American police system unfavorably to the British one?

No, Maria. He was remarking that the British police were often unfavourably compared to foreign forces like the French police, but that critics forgot that the British worked within far tighter constraints than their foreign counterparts, most particularly if they arrested a suspect they had to bring charges before a magistrate within a specific period or release the suspect, whereas the French police could hold on to a suspect almost indefinitely whilst they conducted their investigations. In both cases the police would have made an arrest in the belief that the man was guilty, and the French police could have held on to the suspect while they worked up a case, whereas the British police had to release their suspect, who could then do a runner. be certified, kill themselves, or other put themselves beyond their reach. The British police therefore looked less successful than their foreign counterparts.

[mariab]

So it was Anderson then who said that the case would have been solved if investigated by the French police? In The Lighter side of my official life? (Which I've perused but not really read yet.) And yet he kept comparing the American police system unfavorably to the British one?

[Jeff Leahy]

Right. I feel really bad for dis-remembering, but who was it who allegedly said that the Ripper crimes would have been solved if committed in France? A police official? Many apologies for asking.
.[/B]

Do you mean apart from Anderson?

Pirate

[mariab]

from the police who did not have police-state laws which still lingered in the French republic.

Right. I feel really bad for dis-remembering, but who was it who allegedly said that the Ripper crimes would have been solved if committed in France? A police official? Many apologies for asking.
PS.:
Quote SPE:
It may well be imagined how {Anderson} received the contemporary press reports from American sources that stated if the Ripper was operating in the USA he would have soon been caught.

[Jonathan H]

Anderson may have removed it because Anderson dimly realized he was getting himself into a hopeless pickle.

A suspect who was already sectioned could not be arrested, let alone charged. A witness identification, more-over a 'confrontation' rather than a line-up, was very dodgy.

What did it matter that the witness refused to testify if this is Ripper who was already in a madhouse. What did it matter if he acted as if he had been recognized. In fact, what did it matter if he confessed ...?

I have always thought that the phrase used, 'safely caged', is a slip that the Polish Jew was safe from the police who did not have police-state laws which still lingered in the French republic.

Yet Anderson's 'mistake' brings his self-serving tale, for the first time, closer to the timeline of the real Kosminski who was not sectioned until Feb 1891, and, within a short time a Ripper suspect (Sadler) was 'confront'ed' by a Jewish witness who refused to affirm (see: Evans and Rumbelow, 2006)

[mariab]

One other point that may or may not be significant - Anderson's reference to an identification taking place when the suspect was "caged in an asylum" is only in the Blackwood's Magazine serialisation, not the book version (which of course is what Swanson annotated).

Wow, I had forgotten about this! Curious to see how it's discussed in Rob House's book (which I suspect arrived at my post office, as I received a notification yesterday).

[Chris]

One other point that may or may not be significant - Anderson's reference to an identification taking place when the suspect was "caged in an asylum" is only in the Blackwood's Magazine serialisation, not the book version (which of course is what Swanson annotated).

It may be that he realised this was incorrect when he revised the account, or there may have been another reason for removing the reference (though no obvious alternative explanation springs to mind at the moment).

[Chris]

First, the Clarendon Villas address was not the first location for a police convalescent home. My point was this police witness (whoever he was) may have been admitted prior to 1890, he was already convalescing before Kosminski was brought to see him.
There were other P.C.'s in Berner St. who arrived at the murder scene before William Smith returned on his beat. I don't like to limit the scope to one specific PC, it's just that Smith is the obvious choice, then there's PC Lamb, PC Collins.
And yes, it could even be PC Harvey on the City force.

As far as I know, there was no earlier institution for which it could be argued (as it is argued for Clarendon Villas) that when a police officer wrote "Seaside Home" he must have meant that institution.

Regarding the possibility of the officer's convalescence beginning earlier than 1890, I think he would still have to show up in these records, because detached sick leave was recommended for an initial period and then periodically extended as required (2 months is the longest I have noted either for the initial period or for an extension).

I did make a list of all the officers for whom sick leave was recommended (or extended) during this period; if anyone is interested to have a copy I can send them one. There is no mention of Lamb or Collins either. Unfortunately only Metropolitan Police officers are covered, not those from the City of London Police.

[Jonathan H]

Except for this:

If the tale originates with Swanson then it is not entirely private.

Sure the finer details about the Seaside Home and so on -- the desperate pantomime by the suspect and witness -- and that the suspect was deceased, but it is still self-serving for the public as it was disseminated via Anderson since 1895.

With the tale adding a positive i.d. in 1910, without which 'Kosminski', probably Aaron Kosminski, was an harmless imbecile who was not sectioned until over two years after the Kelly murder and yet a few days before the Coles murder.

Arguably Evans and Rumbelow provide a compelling theory as to how the witness i.d. came about, and it did not involve Kosminski being 'confronted' by anybody.

Which, arguably, leaves the Polish Jew suspect at the same status as his non-appearance in Mac's memoirs -- as nothing.

[TomTomKent]

So what do we know about the marginalia? It was written as an annotation, and was not shared with anybody. That is it.

We can make some assumptions, which are possible or probable, but not proof; if the comments are self serving then they serve only as an aid to memory. A selfserving lie would be of no use and make little sense.

Any mistakings are far from being "glaring" because that would assume we knew what prompted the jotting, or indeed what memory it was meant to prompt. It is as likely that all details are correct except the name of Kosminski, as it is that the name is correct and every other detail blunderingly wrong. Alternatively there may be a Kosminski unknown to us locked away in mental institution (or home?) outside of the expected destinations for a Whitechappel madman (somewhere by the sea?) That may never be discovered.

All speculation is equally flawed to anybody but swanson.

[mariab]

Below, is a link to a thread started by AP Wolf, who found and posted Littlechild's annotations on these boards in 2005.

It's interesting that Littlechild BOTH signs and initializes. Thank you so much for the link to the old thread, Hunter.
As for Wickerman's idea about a policeman plus a Jew as the witnesses in question, I wonder what SPE and Paul Begg will have to say about this suggestion. (I've pulled an all nighter, finishing 3 projects and working on a 4th, and I don't think I'm in a state to ponder about another matter presently.)

[Wickerman]

The Hint..

The first of two hints that made me suspect two different identifications had taken place was when I read Macnaghten's comments originally put on paper in 1894 where we read with respect to Kosminski,
"This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C., near Mitre Square".
(This eventually became known as the Aberconway draft).

Apparently, Sir Robert Anderson's friend Major Arthur Griffiths offered an opinion in 1899 which could possibly have come from Anderson, with reference to a contemporary suspect to the effect that;
"This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police constable in Mitre Court"
The possibility exists that Griffiths source was Macnaghten, but as Griffiths was a close friend of Robert Anderson, we cannot be too sure of his source.

Using the terms 'glimpse' and 'resembled' tends to suggest a degree of uncertainty which the police might regard as a secondary witness.
In both cases however this secondary witness was described as a policeman.


The second hint came directly from Anderson in 1910 where he references this identification but with a greater degree of certainty.
"I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow Jew he declined to swear to him".
Blackwoods Magazine, 1910.

When comparing these suggestions I take 'glimpse' and 'good view' to be as contrary as 'resembled' and 'at once identified him', including that one witness was a 'police constable' as opposed to 'a fellow Jew'.

I had to wonder if there were not two separate identifications, one where the witness was a Jewish citizen, the other a policeman.
Add to this we have Swanson referring to a Police Convalescent Home as opposed to an asylum, which only lends support to the possibility.

Certainly it's open to debate, but as yet I have not read of anyone making the same observation.

Regards, Jon S.