The Swanson marginalia - a new interpretation?

[Phil Carter]

Evidence is not necessarily required to be “paperwork“

Just a quick one, Phil, as I really need to be working right now, plus we're highjacking the thread away from Swanson.

When Martin Fido published his book about Kozminski having been a mixup with Cohen/Kaminsky, did you come forward to protest about “replacing names“? ;-)
As for Druitt, the evidence and the subsequent research (from several Ripperologists, including Jonathan Hainsworth) proves that Macnaghten was undoubtedly referring to Montague Druitt.


There are NO “exact details“ whatsoever fitting for Ostrog to have been mentioned in the MM, but there are such for Le Grand. Evidence is not necessarily required to be “paperwork“, Phil, though I've been going through enough French paperwork while researching this matter, looking for more evidence. You are correct though that I should have avoided recurring to the word “obvious“ (although it's obvious to me) at this stage. It'll be discussed in length in future publications.
With apologies to all for the highjacking.

Hello Maria,

Respectfully,
Yes, I did say at the time it was replacing names re the Fido book actually. and as I was then a newbie, as we mostly all were, and as I didn't have contact with anybody within the community (as very few actually did before internet) before the early to mid 1990's.. it wasn't heard. However, I DO maintain that changing names is pure speculation without proof. Have you any that shows Mac having "mixed up" Le Grand for Ostrog?

I was actually showing the simplicity of changing names when I referred to Druitt and Kosminsky Maria, and am well aware of what Mac wrote, Jonathan's knowledge and the history of the MM.

You used the words "exact details" "obvious" and "mixed up" ...not me.. in your post. I highlighted them. (infact "very obvious") Thats a very bold statement.

Do kindly tell me what sort of evidence in a cold case 123 years old there can be if it isn't written down in paper form, either in archives, police files, or newspapers, or photographic form? We can't use DNA, we have no material of clothing, no murder weapon and fingerprinting wasn't available.... so what evidence is there apart from written evidence somewhere? Mac never had any photos of his suspects with his document either.

Without proof of this "very obvious" statement, you can hardly expect people to take these words as serious. That it may come in a future publication is as may be... but I maintain that the statement is staggeringly bare without a jot of evidence to back it up.

I, and the whole community, would be delighted to see it. Otherwise it is pure conjecture and supposition at this current moment in time, I respectfully opine.

Back to Swanson, apologies to all for responding to these off topic comments in full.

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Just a quick one, Phil, as I really need to be working right now, plus we're highjacking the thread away from Swanson.

if you are going to start replacing names in the MM, then Druitt could have been someone else who drowned somewhere else at another time, and Kosminsky could have been any Polish Jew that Mac didnt remember the "exact details" about as well.

When Martin Fido published his book about Kozminski having been a mixup with Cohen/Kaminsky, did you come forward to protest about “replacing names“? ;-)
As for Druitt, the evidence and the subsequent research (from several Ripperologists, including Jonathan Hainsworth) proves that Macnaghten was undoubtedly referring to Montague Druitt.

Well without the slightest dot of paperwork evidence that Mac actually not being aware of the "exact details" in a lengthy summarizing of things, and nothing whatsoever in mention of Le Grand by this man ever, including his own biographical work later, surely it is merely pure speculation that Mac meant Le Grand instead of Ostrog? (...) You really need proof of this before saying that it is obvious.

There are NO “exact details“ whatsoever fitting for Ostrog to have been mentioned in the MM, but there are such for Le Grand. Evidence is not necessarily required to be “paperwork“, Phil, though I've been going through enough French paperwork while researching this matter, looking for more evidence. You are correct though that I should have avoided recurring to the word “obvious“ (although it's obvious to me) at this stage. It'll be discussed in length in future publications.
With apologies to all for the highjacking.

[Chris]

Thankyou for that Chris.
May I ask, the time window you offer, is this because records are not available prior to January 1890 or subsequent to March 1891?

Thanks, Jon S.

Correction:
Sorry, Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch Feb 1891.
However, whoever the policeman was he was surely admitted to the Seaside Home before Kosminski 'could' have been brought, hence, sometime prior to 1890?

I don't quite understand the last bit, but I searched that range of dates because the Seaside Home at Clarendon Villas was opened in March 1890 (and, as you suggest, because Aaron Kozminski was admitted to Colney Hatch in February 1891, and Swanson places the identification before that).

I realise it's been suggested that it might have been an earlier seaside home used by the police, but I think in that case it might just as well have been a home unconnected with the police (not that I'm particularly convinced by the argument that it must be Clarendon Villas anyway).

As Stewart says, the idea of Smith being the Seaside Home witness is problematic in any case, which would probably require Swanson to have confused two witnesses. My own thought is that the police may have (with difficulty, and presumably with the cooperation of family members) sent Kozminski to a seaside home as a patient in order to attempt an identification without making it obvious to the world at large that he was a suspect.

[Phil Carter]

Good morning Phil,
Macnaghten also got Druitt's profession and the date of his suicide death all wrong. It's not a matter of misremembering, but of not being aware of the exact details. (Compared to Macnagthen, Swanson's “Kozminsky was the suspect.“ might have been a case of re-remembering.) Ostrog (and Le Grand) were known by about half a dozen con names, and the evidence shows that the police wasn't even sure of their nationality and age. I'm even more aware of this, as I've been researching it in the criminal records.

I'm about to get going (I got up 2 hours too late!), so apologies if I don't post for a while.

Hello Maria,

Well without the slightest dot of paperwork evidence that Mac actually not being aware of the "exact details" in a lengthy summarizing of things, and nothing whatsoever in mention of Le Grand by this man ever, including his own biographical work later, surely it is merely pure speculation that Mac meant Le Grand instead of Ostrog?

Another thing.. if you are going to start replacing names in the MM, then Druitt could have been someone else who drowned somewhere else at another time, and Kosminsky could have been any Polish Jew that Mac didnt remember the "exact details" about as well.

Please dont misunderstand me, as you know I doubt much of the MM for varying reasons.. but changing names because another "fitted suspect" is "to a 't' " really is putting the cart before the horse.

You really need proof of this before saying that it is obvious.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Police Witness

...
Precisely so, in my opinion. In fact I think it is for this very same reason that the Aberconway version referenced the 'PC witness in Mitre Square'.
There was no such PC witness in the Eddowes case (a city PC at that!), but PC William Smith was a witness in the Stride case.
Hence, for the longest time I have assumed the Swanson reference to taking Kozminski to the Seaside Home (for Met. policemen), to be identified, was precisely because the witness was a policeman.
The fly in the ointment to that conjecture is finding evidence that PC Smith was ever convalescing at any of the (3 different?) Seaside Homes used from 1888 to 1893.
...
Regards, Jon S.

I have always tended to think that the 'City P.C.' witness reference was a confusion of 'City Police witness' (i.e. Lawende). But the confusion idea that you suggest is possible.

The idea that the witness was a police constable has to overcome several obstacles not least of all that he would have to be a Jew and he could not, of course, refuse to bear testimony. I feel that PC Smith can be rejected merely by reference to Swanson's 19 October 1888 report which shows that Smith's sighting would prove nothing other than the suspect was seen talking to Stride some 25 minutes before the body was found.

[mariab]

Good morning Phil,
Macnaghten also got Druitt's profession and the date of his suicide death all wrong. It's not a matter of misremembering, but of not being aware of the exact details. (Compared to Macnagthen, Swanson's “Kozminsky was the suspect.“ might have been a case of re-remembering.) Ostrog (and Le Grand) were known by about half a dozen con names, and the evidence shows that the police wasn't even sure of their nationality and age. I'm even more aware of this, as I've been researching it in the criminal records.

I'm about to get going (I got up 2 hours too late!), so apologies if I don't post for a while.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Maria,

Good morning.

You state..

"Ostrog didn't fit the “profile“ at all, he's a very obvious mixup with Le Grand, as the description of Ostrog's MO in the MM fits Le Grand to a t. Ostrog used the con name “Dr. Grant“, and both Le Grand and Ostrog were criminally active in France. I'm currently searching for more evidence pertaining to this in the Paris criminal/tribunal records. "

Are you actually saying that Mac actually not only made mistakes of remembering details, but also MIS-remembered the name of the suspect he was referring to in this all important document?

I am a little staggered and apologise, but find that quite a jump of conclusion if it is.

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

I remember the acrimonious. I fully agree that the Swanson annotations are authentic but written at a different time frame, as I've dealt with several similar cases where the exact thing has happened in my line of work.
I'm pretty sure that Rob House has come to the same conclusion.

[Stewart P Evans]

Acrimonious

Yes, I totally remember this from other threads, and the little discrepancies are visible even in the pictures posted on casebook (though I was never able to have a “satisfying“ view of the document in its entirety, esp. in physical form). Somehow I've heard that this part (along with the Anderson matter) is not prominently discussed in Rob House's book.

Some of the discussions on this aspect became rather acrimonious and it remains a contentious subject. However, the main point is that all the annotations should be accepted as written by Donald Sutherland Swanson and analysed accordingly. However, they should not be accepted at face value.

[mariab]

Without wishing to start a lengthy debate about authenticity, (authenticity shouldn't be doubted) I think it is worth noting that the expert examination of the Swanson annotations revealed that it is possible that there might be a considerable time lapse between the writing of the two sets of annotations. In my own opinion I feel that the endpaper annotations were written considerably later than the original marginalia. And it is in the endpaper annotations that we find the anomalies and most controversial points, such as 'the Seaside Home'.

Yes, I totally remember this from other threads, and the little discrepancies are visible even in the pictures posted on casebook (though I was never able to have a “satisfying“ view of the document in its entirety, esp. in physical form). Somehow I've heard that this part (along with the Anderson debate) is not prominently discussed in Rob House's book.

[Stewart P Evans]

Annotations

Without wishing to start a lengthy debate about authenticity, (authenticity shouldn't be doubted) I think it is worth noting that the expert examination of the Swanson annotations revealed that it is possible that there might be a considerable time lapse between the writing of the two sets of annotations. In my own opinion I feel that the endpaper annotations were written considerably later than the original marginalia. And it is in the endpaper annotations that we find the anomalies and most controversial points, such as 'the Seaside Home'.

[mariab]

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.

Precisely.

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.

Ostrog didn't fit the “profile“ at all, he's a very obvious mixup with Le Grand, as the description of Ostrog's MO in the MM fits Le Grand to a t. Ostrog used the con name “Dr. Grant“, and both Le Grand and Ostrog were criminally active in France. I'm currently searching for more evidence pertaining to this in the Paris criminal/tribunal records.

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. (...)
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.

Fascinating, Hunter! I've always suspected that the constant “D.S.S.“ was a cop's reflex. I constantly work with autograph sources by composers/librettists/minor playwriters etc., and they almost NEVER sign their materials. (I know of only 1 case where a source is signed similarly to the Swanson marginalia. Unless, of course, they dedicate an autograph score to someone, which is an entirely different situation.)

[Stewart P Evans]

Teacher

Well, I don't really, of course. I was trying not to sound like a teacher walking up the aisle saying, '"sent by us", Jones. Fifty lines...'

I really don't think that anyone would have thought that Paul. You must surely have the status of a teacher on this topic anyway. Interesting thoughts, I'm off to write my lines.

[Stewart P Evans]

Memory

Anderson wrote his The Lighter Side of my Official Life articles and book in 1909-10 when he was 68 years old. Swanson was seven years younger.

We have seen references in this thread as to Anderson's mental faculties at that time. Although he had been referring to his 'safely caged in an asylum' theory for many years, most notably in 1901 and 1907, it was not until the 1910 publication that the 'Polish Jew' and 'definitely ascertained fact' enlargements were made. Anderson's claim that the identity of the murderer was known to the police might lead you to think that this would be the consensus of opinion amongst the police officers involved. Unfortunately, as we all know, this is not the case. The only support we have is Swanson's annotations. True Macnaghten mentions 'Kosminski' in 1894 but that carries the qualifiers that 'no one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer' and 'no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one'.

H. L. Adam noted that Anderson 'was sometimes rather mysterious' and noted that 'His memory also apparently began to fail him, and he fell into the error of mixing cases. For instance, in reference to the Penge murder which I was discussing with him, he said, or rather wrote, "I am too tired to-night to recall it. But I think it was a nightdress that the officer was put to watch - its hiding place having been discovered, and when he awoke it was gone, carried off, they supposed, by Alice Rhodes." He was clearly mixing up the Penge case with that of the Road murder, in which a woman's nightdress figured prominently.'

This might have been a bad example for Adam to use given the fact that Anderson was self-admittedly tired and recalling cases that had not fallen under his purview. But the point remains that Adam had noted that Anderson's memory had begun to fail at that time. These are all considerations that should be taken into account.

[PaulB]

That is not being 'nit-picky' that is called being accurate, and the wording conveys a different meaning. It's interesting to see that you regard being accurate as being 'nit-picky'.

Well, I don't really, of course. I was trying not to sound like a teacher walking up the aisle saying, '"sent by us", Jones. Fifty lines...'