The Swanson marginalia - a new interpretation?

[Jonathan H]

It's not that you are 'charging at windmills'.

It's that any opinion is the best you can do with available material but must always be a provisional opinion.

A lot of people cannot handle that.

If a new source or theory arrives the truly objective will have a good look at it.

For example, I discovered that Sims has frantic friends looking for the missing doctor. Actually we know that Macnaghten or Griffiths or both changed the Druitt family into 'friends'. Therefore this is really William Druitt trying to find his missing sibling as we know from one of the articles from early 1889.

This discoevry orke the paradigm that Macnaghten was familiar with PC Moulson' discovery of the body, but not the inquest report which would have povided him with accurate biog detail about his suspect.

In fact, Mac arguably did have access to such information as the detail about the concerned brother -- deployed fiteen years later -- and knew exactly who his suspect was but had carefully fictionalised him for public consumption.

[Phil H]

I still don't understand what Pirate is trying to say!!

[Jeff Leahy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sl29f

I'm trying to say that while I except people get facts wrong. I believe that the core story remains fairly strong in both written and oral history. And that peoples memories dont change the core story but may forget or make error with facts.

the link above has Betty Hughs arguing that the story of atlantis remained remarkably intact for hundreds of years before it was written down.

She then goes back and finds geologists to support her theory of a sunarmy event.

What I'm looking for is your sunarmy? evidence to support the theory.

All you seem to be building on is supersition. Mr X changes 'friend' from 'family' conclusion Mr Y must have changed 'cat' into 'dog'.

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

My undertanding of Pirate's p.o.v., which could be off-track, is that if you interpret material or try to make sense of it then this is sliding right into the realms of the imaginative.

Well, sometimes it is.

On the other hand, a source which goes against its expected bias is stronger, eg. more reliable, than one that does not. Anderson between 1895 and in the years ahead -- and Swanson, if it is the latter's opinion too -- tell a tale which makes them look better. That tale might be quite accurate, but an historian shoiuld be on their guard as human memory and egos begin to recast ****-ups into near-triumps, or blame others.

I had accpedted the paradigm of Mac as a police chief who did not know much about his preferred suspect. I found that this theory did not match his memoirs, nor his comments of 1913, nor what he fed Sims -- in my opinion.

For this image of Mac as an incompetent, and a blabbermouth, did not match a deeper examination of this chief's compassionate character, discreet personality, elephantine memory, and hands-onmanagerial m.o.?

The Old Etonian MP as the link between the sympathetic Druitt obits and his emergence in the propagandist and semi-fctionalised material Mac fed his cronies, eg. the frantic pals in Sims, leads me to the theorise that Mac knew everything about Druitt.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Phil H

My undertanding of Pirate's p.o.v., which could be off-track, is that if you interpret material or try to make sense of it then this is sliding right into the realms of the imaginative.

.

well partly. I have no problem with he imaginative. or theorizing. Its part and parcel of ripperology.

My worry is building subjective idea upon subjective idea makes a very shakey house of cards.

Betty Hughs forinstence goes back and looks for hard evidence to support her claim. Its dangerous of course, as soon as you start looking you might find round pegs to knock into square holes.

I have no problem with your re-avaluation of McNaughten, which is rather interesting.

Its the building on that that Swanson and Anderson must be self-serving gerryatrics, muddled and confused, that I see no evidence for?

But hey I've said my bit ....byee

[Phil H]

All I am doing - re the Swanson marginalia - is to apply the established academic "historical method" to the document.

Thus one interrogates it for physical and internal evidence of when and why it was written, what the intent of the writer might have been, what the text tells us about the writer's knowledge, sources etc.

would simply point out as perI'm trying to say that while I except people get facts wrong. I believe that the core story remains fairly strong in both written and oral history. And that peoples memories dont change the core story but may forget or make error with facts.

Pirate writes:

... people get facts wrong.

But it may be possible, by analysis and interrogation/comparison of source material, to ascertain why they did; what their views were based upon; whom they relied upon for information etc. There is nothing new in this, open any serious history book by a reputable author and you'll see it at work.

Pirate goes on:

I believe that the core story remains fairly strong in both written and oral history.

No one can question that, it is your personal belief or opinion, and you are entitled to that. However, the validity of that belief or opinion is only as good as the evidence you bring to support it.

And that peoples memories dont change the core story but may forget or make error with facts.

But since people's memories are not "facts" they have only relative usefulness. They are subjective and subject to the perspective of the person concerned. thus a PC on the ground in Whitechapel might be VERY useful and accurate on certauin matters, but NOT (except as an indication of opinion) about what was going on among senior staff at the Yard or in the Home Office.

Local memory, oral history or whatever can add colour but may easily be distorted by rumour, misinformation, bias etc. There are many examples of this: Tonypandy; Mancini's account of the usurpation of Richard III; Kennedy assassination etc. People see part of a picture not the whole (or rarely); misunderstand. To quote (or at least paraphrase) the Duke of Wellington; "a battle is like a ball, people only see the part of it in which they are personally involved".

My questioning of the Swanson marginalia is simply that - to try to determine who's views are represented, Swanson's or Anderson's; the physical evidence remains for others to interpret as they will.

ON A SEPARATE ISSUE, Pirate's example of the "story of atlantis" remaining remarkably intact for hundreds of years before it was written down, is something I would challenge. The origin of the story is PLATO, we simply don't know whether he made it up or drew on "lost" sources. The assumptions about Thera/Santorini and a tsunami are simply that ASSUMPTIONS!! The events may have occured exactly as archaeologists now contend, but was Thera ever Atlantis? I doubt we'll ever know. So how can we say the story has remained "intact"? If people all drew on Plato, then it would, wouldn't it?

But the statements ignore all the Ignatius Donelly; Edgar Cayce, Helena Blavatsky theories so is selective. Those views do not align with the Thera hypothesis.

She then goes back and finds geologists to support her theory of a sunarmy[sic] event.

This is the flaw of much Biblical archaeology - it starts out by looking for proof, rather than (correctly) evaluating the physical evidence and then reaching conclusions. It is BECAUSE the biblicists/fundamentalists approach is now being challenged by scientific archaeology that the fiormer has lost so much repute.

What I'm looking for is your sunarmy? evidence to support the theory.

Then you are looking in the wrong place. Putting chicken before egg or even trying to speak French while thinking in English. It cannot be done.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Pirate

In 'Aberconway' Mac gets Druitt's age wrong, his profession wrong, and the timing of his suicide wrong.

Quite a hatrick.

But he correctly remembers a tiny, titchy, detail: that on Druitt's water-logged, rotting corpse was found a season rail pass which took him into the heart of the city.

This put the mad, middle-aged physician, who allegedly lived with family at Blackheath, within striking distance of the East End

Paul Begg argued elegantly and cogently in 'The Facts' that getting this detail correct, but so much else wrong, suggests that Macnaghten must have at least had access to PC Moulson's Report, which mentioned what was found on the deceased's body -- but obviously not his age, not his vocation, and not the exact date of his suicide.

(Yet PC Moulson's report would also have told Macnaghten that the body was recovered in Chiswick?! Was 'Dr D' supposed to have staggered all that way the same morning as the Kelly atrocity, covered in blood, 'shrieking' and 'screaming' without anybody noticing? Did Mac really believe that? In his memoirs he kept the incorrect date of death but dropped the unlikely Thames detail altogether)

At the inquest William Druitt testified that he had been trying to find his troubled brother, who was missing from his legal chambers and perhaps had also been dismissed, whilst alive, from his teaching job.

The detail about the family, the brother, turned into 'friends' in Griffiths, and searching for Montie is not in 'Aberconway'.

Yet there is this detail appearing in 1903 and 1907, deployed by Mac crony Sims.

therefore stripping back the mythical overlay, Mac is also correct here too.

For Mac to know that, about the brother's search, he would have to have known correct biog. details about Druitt, even if only from the newspaper articles on the inquest into his untimely death.

Sims also claims that these 'friends' were in touch with the police.

Therefore I put the data together like this: in 1891, eg. 'some years after' as Mac puts it in 1914, the Chief Constable met with William Druitt -- or a Druitt -- and learned the horrible truth, as he and they perceived it, about their dead member, eg. 'certain facts' led to a 'conclusion' and his 'belief'.

You say that there is a 'core' story regarding Swanson et. al.

I agree about Anderson and Kosminski; that there could be not only a core but that Anderson was correct after all -- this was the fiend.

If you strip away the Polish suspect's redaction into 1888, and strip away the self-serving merging of the Sadler-Lawende-Coles elements with the Polish Jew, then what you have is a sectioned madman, a poor local, one perhaps protected only by his suspicious and fearful family, and thus not his whole ethnic subgroup.

That the real 'witness' was familial not a random stranger.

That this hot information came to Swanson and/or Anderson, but it was too late, and this excruciating too-late timing ate away at one, or both mens' memories.

We arguably see a glimpse of this anguish behind the pomposity with Anderson's 'mistake' that the i.d. took place after Kosminski was 'safely caged' in an asylum in the magazine version.

That would be 1891.

Anderson is almost right. That is when, I think, Aaron Kosminski came to police attention -- or maybe just very senior police attention -- around the time of the failed 'confrontation' between Seaman Sadler and the Hebrew Lawende.

To Phil

I have always subscribed to the theory that Atlantis was a mythical, cautionary tale by Plato, but that it had, nevertheless, a loose, historical basis.

In the sense that it was inspired by the wonderful Minoan civilization, by Crete, with its bull-jumping rites, and its abrupt and tragic ruination due to the mega-explosion of a nearby volcanic islet: Thera.

[PaulB]

I believe that the core story remains fairly strong in both written and oral history.

No one can question that, it is your personal belief or opinion, and you are entitled to that. However, the validity of that belief or opinion is only as good as the evidence you bring to support it.

It is generally the case that every story has a reason for existence – the purpose or core or whatever. The best known (not by any means necessarily the best) examples are often Biblical where the details about one of Jesus’s miracles can change, but the point of the story (such a feeding an awful lot of people from very little) remains.

[Phil H]

I think the explanation of Macnaghten's mistakes (for the moment discounting the possibility of any intention to mislead or ulterior motive) is what he himself said: he relied on his memory (of which he may have been over-proud) rather then referring to files.

Hence I think, as can happen with the best of us in similar circumstances, he had total recall of comparatively minor details - the ticket - but misremembered things like Druitt's age, profession and the timing of his suicide.

On the other hand, MacM got those facts broadly right (he was out by 10 years in the age, a montn in the date, and knew Druitt was a member of the professional class but got the profession wrong. None of that was necessarily relevant to his purpose in writing.

However, I have been influenced by the views of others in factoring in the influence of the MP - was there something deliberate in MacM distorting the facts just enough to divert attention from MJD?

The apparent "pulling from the air" of three names mentioned no where else in the remaining case papers also puzzles me: not least Ostrog, of whom the known details do not suggest any reason for suspicion (he was NOT a murderous lunatic for instance). Were the three chosen at random simply because they could not be followed up being either dead or incarcerated?

Such an action could have had as its motive either:

1) to protect Cutbush's uncle; or

2) more sinisterly to cover up something "political" (I have in mind the Special Branch registers) though I would not want to push that too far.

I am also puzzled by the differing use of Kosminski by MacM (just one of three candidates) and Anderson (the "proven Jack"). Are we seeing differences at the top of the Met here; a deliberate refutation of Anderson? indications that there were changes in thinking at the Yard? or something else?

Thus, while at heart I would like to think MacM a man of honour and the memorandum a simple document involving honest lapses of memory, I cannot rule out other interpretations and readings as once I might.

Phil

[Phil H]

Paul, you wrote:

It is generally the case that every story has a reason for existence – the purpose or core or whatever. The best known (not by any means necessarily the best) examples are often Biblical where the details about one of Jesus’s miracles can change, but the point of the story (such a feeding an awful lot of people from very little) remains.

If as you assert, every story has a reason for existence: how do you make a distinction between the New Testament stories and (say) the Greek myths. When does a "story" become a "legend"? All could be considered stories.

Note, I am a committed Christian (need I say that?) and I am not attacking the gospel stories, but you must be aware that there are those who claim that Jesus is a wholly invented figure - that the miracles etc are as fictional as the parables. The "prodigal son" may have existed and been known to Jesus for all I know, but we could never prove it.

Similarly, where is the archaeological record of feeding a lot of people for little. Medieval man accepted that churches held relics including basket full of fragments, bits of clothing, shrouds, foreskins and much else. Would we now accept their authenticity?

Germane to this discussion is the fact that biblical scholars have deduced a common source for the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) known as Q - which may have been a collection of "Sayings of Jesus". This is, I believe, in some measure supported by discoveries in Egypt of early papyrii versions of Christian writings.

So if such a deduction of a non-existant source is allowable in biblical academic study, it is surely allowable here?

Back to the gospels - quite apart from the four "canonical" gospels (there's a term Ripper studies has borrowed!) - there are masses of so called "apocryphal" gospels - Philip, Thomas, Mary etc. An early Christian conference (Nicaea?) determined which should be included in the "Bible" and which should not? Surely this was a subjective decision - based on which orthodoxy was current - so "gnostic" writings were excluded. Should they have been?

My readings in some of the "excluded" gospels makes me wonder why they were kept out - the words of Jesus and the philosophy/theology seems OK.

Turning this to Ripper-studies, if we have two accounts of testimony from a single person - Hutchinson and Schwartz come to mind - one in police files and one in the papers, which should we give precedence to? I seem to recall reading on Casebook that some posters now prefer the press coverage to the police records?

So, to conclude, I don't think I can agree with your statement that the point of every story somehow remains true. My approach is that that does not happen and stories change and varyfor all sorts of reasons and are often open to deliberate manipulation, distortion and change.

We can only reach reliable conclusions by rigorous scrutiny of the written sources, careful study of the physical evidence; cautious reference to the oral testimony and by comparison between them. That done with sufficient rigour might well challenge many cherished assumption about the Whitechapel murders.

Phil

[Hunter]

Macnaghten got basic facts about the case wrong. There would be no logical explanation to do so for any reason except, he apparently was relying on memory and second hand information. He confused the Berner St. Murder and the Mitre Square murder by stating that 3 Jews found Stride's body. In reality, the 3 Jews were the witnesses that saw Eddowes with a man at the entrance to Church Passage.

I see no evidence of deceit on Macnaghten's part. His report was an internal document. His addition of Ostrog may seem strange to us, but Macnaghten had interest in him as soon as he became Assistant Chief Constable, having made queries about Ostrog's whereabouts. Ostrog had been sought after during the murders themselves after failing to report to the authorities. He fit the 'profile' of what some of the police thought the killer might have been. The fact that there was no real evidence against him just exposes how weak the suspect list probably was a couple of years after the murders had ceased.

On Swanson and his 'marginalia'... The somewhat repetitious nature of the annotations... the continuous use of the word 'suspect' and such, is the way a policeman would write... and he signs it with his initials, not 'My old master said'. He signed other annotations with his initials and they were his opinions, not anybody else's. That he goes into detail with this section of Anderson's book suggest his involvement in the process. One of Swanson's primary jobs throughout his career was interrogating suspects and disseminating witness information.... something that the non-career officials above him rarely did.

In Littlechild's copy of the 1889 book 'Police!', Littlechild does the same thing with his annotations relevant to subjects in the book that he was involved in... including signing his initials and side marking pertinent (to him) paragraphs. A file copy of that book was sent to Stewart, Paul and myself by a mutual friend that shows there is a pattern of annotating, consistent with each other, between two different police officials.

[Phil H]

I'm not sure that I would see the "method" of annotation as significant - people may have been taught that approach (rather as in the 30s people tended to learn "Pitman's" shorthand).

I am, however, grateful Hunter, for your views on the "annotations" themselves. This is what I was really looking for when I started the thread - a bit of creative tension challenging my proposal.

I don't think I see the signing of the annotations as necessarily showing that the views were Swanson's own. The DSS could be just his way of showing that he had personally written the notes.

Had the annotations reflected Swanson's personal views and experience, I think I might have expected a few more references to "I" (are there any?). Also, while one might, as with MacM accept some forgetfulness of detail, the marginalia do more than that - they seem to cut across usual police practice and even logic. Surely DSS might have been expected to say more about that had this been his personal recollection? He had space on the end-papers did he not?

I am perfectly happy, at the end of the day, to accept that the marginalia represent Swanson's personal "gloss" on Anderson based on his own additional
knowledge. That is what I have believed, after all, since the late 80s or so.

But looking at it again, that no longer quite ruings true, hence my checking out the reaction of others.

Thanks for your thoughtful response,

Phil

[PaulB]

Paul, you wrote:

It is generally the case that every story has a reason for existence – the purpose or core or whatever. The best known (not by any means necessarily the best) examples are often Biblical where the details about one of Jesus’s miracles can change, but the point of the story (such a feeding an awful lot of people from very little) remains.

If as you assert, every story has a reason for existence: how do you make a distinction between the New Testament stories and (say) the Greek myths. When does a "story" become a "legend"? All could be considered stories.

Note, I am a committed Christian (need I say that?) and I am not attacking the gospel stories, but you must be aware that there are those who claim that Jesus is a wholly invented figure - that the miracles etc are as fictional as the parables. The "prodigal son" may have existed and been known to Jesus for all I know, but we could never prove it.

Similarly, where is the archaeological record of feeding a lot of people for little. Medieval man accepted that churches held relics including basket full of fragments, bits of clothing, shrouds, foreskins and much else. Would we now accept their authenticity?

Germane to this discussion is the fact that biblical scholars have deduced a common source for the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) known as Q - which may have been a collection of "Sayings of Jesus". This is, I believe, in some measure supported by discoveries in Egypt of early papyrii versions of Christian writings.

So if such a deduction of a non-existant source is allowable in biblical academic study, it is surely allowable here?

Back to the gospels - quite apart from the four "canonical" gospels (there's a term Ripper studies has borrowed!) - there are masses of so called "apocryphal" gospels - Philip, Thomas, Mary etc. An early Christian conference (Nicaea?) determined which should be included in the "Bible" and which should not? Surely this was a subjective decision - based on which orthodoxy was current - so "gnostic" writings were excluded. Should they have been?

My readings in some of the "excluded" gospels makes me wonder why they were kept out - the words of Jesus and the philosophy/theology seems OK.

Turning this to Ripper-studies, if we have two accounts of testimony from a single person - Hutchinson and Schwartz come to mind - one in police files and one in the papers, which should we give precedence to? I seem to recall reading on Casebook that some posters now prefer the press coverage to the police records?

So, to conclude, I don't think I can agree with your statement that the point of every story somehow remains true. My approach is that that does not happen and stories change and varyfor all sorts of reasons and are often open to deliberate manipulation, distortion and change.

We are not talking about the truth of the story or its provability, we are talking about the point of the story, its raison detre. The Prodigal Son may or may not have existed, but the point of the story is the son’s redemption. The story can be changed, the son could become a daughter, the location could be moved to Mars, the date changed to the future. It doesn’t matter how much the story is altered, the point of the story, the sons redemption, would remain the same.

Miracle stories and Biblical parables are bad examples because they are serving an illustrative purpose, often without pretense of being true or historical, but whether they are fact or fiction, instructive or entertainment, a story generally has a purpose, a reason for being told.

The point is that a person - or generations of people - can embroider a story almost beyond recognition, but the core remains. For example, you mentioned Schwartz - and no, press reports do not take precedence over police reports - who told a story which differs in detail between the versions we possess, but the point of the story, that he saw a woman assaulted outside the Club, is the same. That is the point, the core.

We can only reach reliable conclusions by rigorous scrutiny of the written sources, careful study of the physical evidence; cautious reference to the oral testimony and by comparison between them. That done with sufficient rigour might well challenge many cherished assumption about the Whitechapel murders.

No argument with that.

[Phil H]

With respect you cited the feeding a multitude example!!

So far as the point of a story not changing - what if the story was made up to start with? It's point is irrelevant?

I cited on another thread a day or two ago, an old Guardian (UK newspaper) ad of some years ago.

It showed a "punkish" youth apparently pushing a middle aged man for no reason. Then the camera pulled back to show that the youth was selflessly pushing the man out of the way of a falling object that might have injured him.

So, what if Schwartz saw only the first image - the point of his story might have been how violent and terrible young people are today. If he saw the second he might praise an heroic action and a brave man!

Both might have been right, the first story might have been told over years by friends to support a contention that modern youth is awful. But it was never true and the "point" however consistently maintained was always false.

Phil

[Hunter]

Hi Phil,

It is good to challenge what is normally accepted. This case is full of loose ends. When it comes to the writings of the major officials involved in the case, it is, indeed, striking that they all get some things wrong. Abberline, Sager, Cox... etc.. were incorrect in details as well as Swanson and Macnaghten.

Jonathan's theory about Macnaghten and Druitt is an excellent example of thinking out of the box and I have enjoyed discussing it with him and putting his thesis to the test. He is a deep thinker and an excellent writer.

Had the annotations reflected Swanson's personal views and experience, I think I might have expected a few more references to "I" (are there any?). Also, while one might, as with MacM accept some forgetfulness of detail, the marginalia do more than that - they seem to cut across usual police practice and even logic. Surely DSS might have been expected to say more about that had this been his personal recollection? He had space on the end-papers did he not?

Actually, Swanson does say that the suspect was 'taken by us with difficulty' to the Seaside Home for the ID attempt.

I don't know what more Swanson should have said. He was writing the annotations for his own purpose to clarify what Anderson was talking about. Of course, we wish he had written more. I wish he had written a published document about the murders, but he wasn't that way. Unlike some of his superiors who had played the patronage game and reveled in their own self importance, Swanson was a policeman that earned his way through the ranks. In his application for a job with the Met, he stated that he wasn't so much worried about the pay as he was to just be given a chance to prove his mettle. That he retired as a Superintendent, with many credits on his record is an indication that he conducted himself in a professional manner. Unlike Anderson, he usually confined his experiences on the force to private notations. The one exception being the Pall Mall Gazette article on Grant in 1895 where Swanson supposedly states that he believed the murderer to be dead. For some reason, he reiterates that belief about Kozminski in the marginalia written in Anderson's book.

Swanson's claim that no more murders of that kind took place after Kozminski fell under police attention seemed to be a common thread with several officers who promoted a certain suspect. Though he personally investigated the Coles murder, it is likely that he thought (as Macnaghten did) that Sadler was her killer.