The Swanson marginalia - a new interpretation?

[PaulB]

I really don't think that anyone would have thought that Paul.

I don't know. I hardly ever play here.

When Martin Fido published his book about Kozminski having been a mixup with Cohen/Kaminsky, did you come forward to protest about “replacing names“? ;-)

Hi Maria. Martin didn't really replace names. He searched for a K-something-ski but didn't find one because he reasonably didn't extend his search to 1891, but believing that Anderson would not have lied about the Polish Jew asylum inmate he concluded that he would have to be in the records somewhere, albeit under another name and he settled on "David Cohen" as the most likely. On discovering Aaron Kosminski, he concluded that he was just a harmless imbecile and dismissed him, theorising that the two had been confused. So, whilst Martin changed one suspect for another, but only because the other couldn't be found. I knw what you mean though.

[mariab]

{By being 'nit-picky'} I was trying not to sound like a teacher walking up the aisle saying, '"sent by us", Jones. Fifty lines...'

That's precisely how I understood it too, as a simple figure of speech.

[mariab]

Hi Maria. Martin didn't really replace names. He searched for a K-something-ski but didn't find one because he reasonably didn't extend his search to 1891, but believing that Anderson would not have lied about the Polish Jew asylum inmate he concluded that he would have to be in the records somewhere, albeit under another name and he settled on "David Cohen" as the most likely. On discovering Aaron Kosminski, he concluded that he was just a harmless imbecile and dismissed him, theorising that the two had been confused. So, whilst Martin changed one suspect for another, but only because the other couldn't be found. I know what you mean though.

Hi Mr. Begg. Neither do I see it as Mr. Fido having “replaced names“. As for Ostrog/Le Grand, if there's anything pertaining to an arrest in Paris (a known fact for the former, unknown for the latter) I hope to find it, as I've already found something in the archives of the French Police Museum which might pertain to Le Grand, but it's still completely unclear and I'll be researching it for a while).

[Stewart P Evans]

Reason

That's precisely how I understood it too, as a simple figure of speech.

But you probably didn't understand my reason for the response I gave. When I make such corrections I am accused, by some, of 'nit-picking'.

[mariab]

But you probably didn't understand my reason for the response I gave. When I make such corrections I am accused, by some, of 'nit-picking'.

There might have been background reasons, but I'm supposed to be a newbie, and not know about them. (Carefully phrased.) :-) And I happen to believe that “nit-picking“ is not the wrong approach to research and scholarship. I guess I could end up accused of “nit-picking“ for having said this.

[Wickerman]

...
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....

Thankyou Stewart, may I offer a suggestion?

Anderson writes:
"...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".

Swanson annotates (at foot of same page):
"..because the suspect was also a Jew",... etc, etc.

I believe Swanson has provided a footnote concerning the same witness, the same suspect, the same identification.

However, on the endpapers Swanson refers to a another identification:

"..After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home", etc, etc.

Dare I suggest that Swanson's brief notes concern two separate identification procedures?

Not that Swanson confused two separate occurances into one, but that is what 'we' have done in our desperation to elicit as much info as we can with so few facts available.
We have just assumed there was only one identification, yet one took place at an Asylum with one witness, the second at a Police Convalescent Home with a differnt witness?

Unfortunately I can only offer this without seeing the actual original pages with notes to be sure of the context.

Incidently, I would not argue that PC Smith is a good witness, but I am at a loss to think of a better one with such a lack of information.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Jeff Leahy]

T

Incidently, I would not argue that PC Smith is a good witness, but I am at a loss to think of a better one with such a lack of information.

The problem with Smith is that he claims he saw Stride at 12.30.

Another suggestion has been made however PC Harvey was very close time wise to the killer in Mitre Square and some have suggested he may have seen something. Speculation as far as I'm aware, but one cant help but wonder if he would have been better than PC Smith?

Pirate

[Wickerman]

The problem with Smith is that he claims he saw Stride at 12.30.

Another suggestion has been made however PC Harvey was very close time wise to the killer in Mitre Square and some have suggested he may have seen something. Speculation as far as I'm aware, but one cant help but wonder if he would have been better than PC Smith?

Pirate

I understand the dilemma Pirate, but the scenario proposed is that both Harvey & Smith are patrolling on beats that take them to both murder scenes on regular timing 15-30 mins?
Yet both PC's gave evidence at their respective inquests and neither PC admitted to seeing a man at, or within minutes of the respective murders.

Whether Harvey could have seen the Mitre Sq. murderer, and withheld his statement to that effect is no different to Smith having also seen a man at or near 1:00 am, while on his same beat, and held his statement for the same reason. Whatever that reason may be conjectured to be.

I think the argument is the same.

As to my previous post:

Unfortunately I can only offer this without seeing the actual original pages with notes to be sure of the context.

If I had looked forward in Rob's book to page 238 I would have seen a photo of said pages & notes


Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

I want to thank Paul for the correction of my error in quoting Swanson. I was writing from memory instead of having the actual quote in front of me (paraphrasing, if you will)... and this, despite the fact that I have read the marginalia countless times. There is a demonstrable difference from being 'taken' than from being 'sent'. Correcting the facts is not being 'nitpicky'... its being prudent.

Now... what were we saying about the memories of certain police officials? Maybe I, unintentionally, proved a point.

Jonathan's explanation as to why Macnaghten made so many errors in the case evidence itself will be addressed later... and maybe on a more appropriate thread. As for now, the notice of my own error is good enough.

[PaulB]

I want to thank Paul for the correction of my error in quoting Swanson. I was writing from memory instead of having the actual quote in front of me (paraphrasing, if you will)... and this, despite the fact that I have read the marginalia countless times. There is a demonstrable difference from being 'taken' than from being 'sent'. Correcting the facts is not being 'nitpicky'... its being prudent.

Now... what were we saying about the memories of certain police officials? Maybe I, unintentionally, proved a point.

Jonathan's explanation as to why Macnaghten made so many errors in the case evidence itself will be addressed later... and maybe on a more appropriate thread. As for now, the notice of my own error is good enough.

I'll explain: by quoting what he said about the suspect going to the Seaside Home as a consequence of actions by "us", you were responding to a claim that Swanson's account lacked references to himself. It was a valid and correct observation, to which my interjection was irrelevant and diversionary, hence my admission that I was being nit-picky being an apology for the correction.

To move on... :-)

[Hunter]

By the way the "sent by US" quote is interesting - why not say "I"? The grammar does not rule out a direct quote by Anderson to Swanson, simply being recorded - that's why I said earlier that I don't think my perspective on the marginalia does violence to the text or grammar.

Hi Phil,

Why not say "I" instead of "us"? Because, despite the fact that Donald Swanson was retired, he was still writing in somewhat 'official' terminology from habit. Even if it was he who organized the process, he would have written "us", meaning the Central Office or CID. It would also denote that there was authorization to do so.

In other words, Anderson might have said: "After you'd moved on to pastures new, Donald, the suspect was sent by us to..." and DSS simply recorded that. "Or even we sent him to..." which Swanson wrote down as representing his old loyalty as "us". I prefer the former.

I regard it highly unlikely that such an event would have occurred without Swanson's knowledge and probably his participation. His records show that he was involved in other cases after 1889, but the remaining files suggest that he was still in charge of the WM investigation. He was the one who compiled the now famous list of victims in the WM - from Emma Smith to Francis Coles - that list being found in his surviving personal papers.

Warren's September, 1888 directive to have all files and reports on the murders forwarded to Swanson's desk appeared to still be in effect as late as 1896 when another 'Ripper letter' was received by police on Oct 14 of that year. The letter, along with a report submitted through H division was sent to Swanson, which was signed by him and passed onto Commissioner Bradford. Chief Inspector, Henry Moore - who had taken over the ground investigation after Abberline left in March 1889 - wrote a report on the letter offering his opinion on it. When Moore compared it to the Goulston St. Grafitto, Swanson wrote a correction to Moore's interpretation in the margin and initialed it DSS - imagine that!... and at the end of the report (now Superintendent) Swanson expressed his regret that the letter had been circulated around the various Divisions at all.

If there was any single individual who knew and had access to the most information on police activities regarding the WM it was Donald Sutherland Swanson. Whatever information Anderson may have possessed in formulating his 'theory' that Jack the Ripper had been 'safely caged' would have come from the actual man in charge... Donald Swanson. Anderson heavily relied on career officers such as Swanson and 'Dolly' Williamson - before the latter's death in 1889.

Had Swanson known it I might have expected him to say what the difficulties encountered were etc.

Swanson was recalling that there was 'difficulty' in getting the 'suspect' (this policeman never said murderer) to the said location. He apparently didn't feel the need to remind himself what the details of that difficulty encompased... as much as we would, now, like to know.

Swanson wrote "Kosminski was the suspect"... He never wrote that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

[mariab]

I want to thank Paul for the correction of my error in quoting Swanson. I was writing from memory instead of having the actual quote in front of me (paraphrasing, if you will)... and this, despite the fact that I have read the marginalia countless times. (...)
Now... what were we saying about the memories of certain police officials? Maybe I, unintentionally, proved a point.

Sweet...

[Wickerman]

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....

Thankyou Chris.
It does appear Macnaghten's memory failed him as to the exact dates of Kosminski's admittance to the Asylum. Not March of 1889, but July of 1890.
Mile End Old Town Workhouse did include an Infirmary, Casual Ward & Imbecile wards. So the detention in Mile End can be generically termed an Asylum.

http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?MileEndOldTown/MileEndOldTown.shtml

So no issue here..

I suspect it was at this Asylum/Mile End that the first identification took place.
This is where either Lawende or Schwartz may have been brought and identified the inmate yet refused to swear to the identification.
I cannot see any legal objection to the police bringing a witness to see an inmate face-to-face.

This situation may have necessitated a further identification but with a 'second-choice' witness, a policeman.

[note: to explain the 'last bit' in my previous post which confused you.
I understood you to say that you looked in "Police Orders for January 1890-March 1891." for a William Smith.
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.]

This subsequent witness apparently could not be moved from the Convalescent Home which caused the authorities some difficulty (family consent?) in transporting a Mile End inmate to a Police Convalescent Home (wherever it was).
The police only need to accompany the Infirmary personnel who had charge of the inmate, it need not be a full police escort as the inmate was still not under arrest.
Obviously nothing was official as the inmate was eventually returned to Mile End, and subsequently to his family's care.

This is obviously conjectural and requires further research but it outlines my thoughts on the matter, as tentative as they are.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

In a previous post, I mentioned Littlechild's similar annotations in his copy of the book "Police".

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

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4924/22237.html

[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.