New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Fleetwood Mac]

Clearly, there is a risk associated with anything.

The marginalia can never be proven absolutely to have been the notes of Swanson.

But, on the balance of probabilities, it looks very much like they were his notes.

In terms of whether or not he was relaying someone's beliefs: I think it is a stretch to suggest that in the event he didn't agree with those beliefs/held suspicions towards another suspect, that he simply would have repeated the story verbatim without adding a critical comment.

The idea that he repeated Anderson's views only holds water if you argue that Swanson had no knowledge of Kosminski nor the ID and it follows he was not in a position to agree nor disagree but simply complete the picture of that which he was told.

I find this aversion to Kosminski as a serious suspect to be illogical. Senior policemen were convinced of his guilt. To me, the trick is to piece together why, and when and where the ID took place, as opposed to arguing that since we can't answer these questions then Anderson/Swanson/The Marginalia is flawed in some way.

A more important question for me is this: could they have been convinced but wide of the mark? and it follows were they simply relying on the ID or did they have something else?

Logically, it would seem they had something else and the ID cemented the proposition because, assuming the only two possible witnesses were Schwartz and Lawende, a point upon which I'm not convinced, then it is difficult to see a scenario where the suspect could have been hanged on an ID parade years after the event; and, also, in the event that witness was Lawende then it is difficult to see how the suspect could have been hanged by virtue of seeing the suspect talking to someone who was possibily the victim.

[lynn cates]

good account

Hello Jonathan. Well put and well argued. That almost makes sense of what is otherwise senseless.

The Sagar and White stories contain elements in common with Anderson and Swanson. So it looks like another super suspect with many diverging lines.

And, yes, Kaminski seems to fit better than Kosminski--especially if one means Aaron.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

"The idea that he repeated Anderson's views only holds water if you argue that Swanson had no knowledge of Kosminski nor the ID and it follows he was not in a position to agree nor disagree but simply complete the picture of that which he was told."

Well, Fleetwood, he didn´t repeat Anderson, the way I see things - he spelt him out. Anderson never said the K-word, but Swanson did. Clearly, Anderson CHOSE not to say the K-word, attaching all that "the traditions of my old department would suffer" stuff.
Now, Anderson was going public with his memoirs. But scribbling in a book that was never supposed to go public was another thing altogether. That´s why I think that Swanson may well be laying the Anderson cards on the table, nothing much else.
And that does of course not preclude Swanson knowing beforehand about both Kosminski and the ID.

"I find this aversion to Kosminski as a serious suspect to be illogical."

Logical or not, I am not ascribing to any such thing myself. Of course Kosminski was a serious suspect at the time, and since we have no information to nullify that notion by, he must remain a serious suspect. Not to agree that he would have been the Ripper is another thing. I find the psychology and the physical stature of the man being in conflict with the picture I have of the killer, and therefore I do not think he was the man. Plus having been a suspect at the time does in no way mean that you were guilty of anything else than having become a suspect. It happened to more people than Kosminski, and we know that it did so on the loosest of grounds in many a case.

However, if I was to compile a list of the five best suspects to my mind, Kosminski would enter that list - not so much, though, owing to any useful evidence as to the relative lack of compelling challengers.

He would not top the list, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

piecing

Hello Mac.

"To me, the trick is to piece together why, and when and where the ID took place . . ."

Well put. It seems that SOMETHING happened and the historian's task is to make sense of it.

". . . as opposed to arguing that since we can't answer these questions then Anderson/Swanson/The Marginalia is flawed in some way."

Well, given that we must take the account and "piece it together" seems to indicate a "flaw in some way."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

condition of suspect Ripperology

Hello Christer.

"if I was to compile a list of the five best suspects to my mind, Kosminski would enter that list - not so much, though, owing to any useful evidence as to the relative lack of compelling challengers."

Is it REALLY that bad? Um, yes, I guess it is.

Cheers.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

I think the only way that Swanson could be describing someone other than Aaron would be if the man was recorded by another surname at his admission to Colney Hatch and at his death, and probably also in the workhouse records and in other records that have been searched by Ripperologists for Kozminskis. But in that case it is difficult to understand why the police would have referred to him as Kosminski at all.

This seems possible, especially in view of the fact that police went to great lengths to curb anti-semitism. If the suspect had changed his last name, along with his family, to something sounding more English, it may have been better to use that name in asylum records instead of his original name. "Cohen", for example, instead of "Kosminski."

[PaulB]

Mine is yet to come !

The problem, Trevor, is that you have been saying that for a very long time and your time never comes. We've been promised a devastating article in Ripperologist and a Ripper-world changing talk at York, and both were damp squibs. Your claim has worn rice-paper thin and whilst I totally and absolutely support your freedom to reveal your secrets when you are good and ready, your claim right now looks about as substantial as a light morning mist.

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem, Trevor, is that you have been saying that for a very long time and your time never comes. We've been promised a devastating article in Ripperologist and a Ripper-world changing talk at York, and both were damp squibs. Your claim has worn rice-paper thin and whilst I totally and absolutely support your freedom to reveal your secrets when you are good and ready, your claim right now looks about as substantial as a light morning mist.

Damp squibs hmmmmmmmmmmmm you keep thinking that you should take a day off and comeback into the real world.

You are so bogged down with what you term as historical facts that you cannot and will not have anyhthing said which goes to shatter your beleifs.

Historical facts are not to be accepted as gospel they are there to be challenged the sooner you accept that the sooner you will get a better understanding of this mystery and the introduction of new facts and new evidence which does challenge those historical facts you are so quick to rely on.

[PaulB]

Damp squibs hmmmmmmmmmmmm you keep thinking that you should take a day off and comeback into the real world.

You are so bogged down with what you term as historical facts that you cannot and will not have anyhthing said which goes to shatter your beleifs.

Historical facts are not to be accepted as gospel they are there to be challenged the sooner you accept that the sooner you will get a better understanding of this mystery and the introduction of new facts and new evidence which does challenge those historical facts you are so quick to rely on.

Yes, I've heard this drivel from you before. It's an old tune from the same tone deaf singer, and I know and understand that you have to try and save face somehow, but this stuff isn't going to work anymore. Not that it ever worked anyway. But I am trying to do you a favour here, Trevor: all the cards are on the table, except yours, and you can bluff and bluster as much as you like, but you didn't deliver in the Rip or at York and nobody really believes you have any cards to play anyway. You can plead otherwise, but the time really has come for you to show your hand or watch your already shattered credibility wash down the lavatory. The latter is neither a pleasure to experience nor to watch. But it's up to you what you do.

[John Bennett]

Historical facts are not to be accepted as gospel they are there to be challenged the sooner you accept that the sooner you will get a better understanding of this mystery and the introduction of new facts and new evidence which does challenge those historical facts you are so quick to rely on.

So, historical facts and historical evidence are not to be trusted and therefore challenged by the introduction of new facts and evidence. However, as this case is over 120 years old, any new facts or evidence worth their salt are going to be historical. But historical facts are not to be trusted, so....

???????

[m_w_r]

Historical facts are not to be accepted as gospel ...

From Trevor Marriott, Jack the Ripper: the 21st Century Investigation, John Blake, London, biographical material. Book published 2005:

• 'Trevor Marriott joined the Bedfordshire Police in 1970 ...'

From thestar.com (click for link). Article published September 2011:

• ‘Ever since he retired from the Bedfordshire County police homicide squad in 2002, Trevor Marriott has been researching what he considers the most famous cold case of all — the identity of Jack the Ripper.
  And now after almost a decade’s worth of research Marriott has come up with the name of the man he believes is the best likely candidate — a German merchant sailor — Carl Feigenbaum.’

From trevormarriott.co.uk (click for link). Site created April 2007:

• ‘In 2003 using all his knowledge and expertise he decided to re-investigate these horrific murders and the mystery surrounding this fearsome killer.’

From bbc.co.uk (click for link). Article last updated November 2004:

• 'Mr Marriott, who has spent more than a decade researching the killings since his retirement in 1988, said he had sympathy for the officers who had failed to catch the killer.'

From Public Radio International (PRI), video hosted on YouTube (click for link). Video uploaded August 2011:

• ‘My name is Trevor Marriott and I’m a retired British murder squad police detective, and since 2007 I’ve been reinvestigating the Whitechapel murders which were attributed to a killer known as Jack the Ripper, whose identity to this day still remains a secret. During the course of my long and protracted investigation …’

From bedfordshire-news.co.uk (click for link). Article published (and updated?) June 2011:

• 'The unsolved mystery of the Jack the Ripper murders in 1888 has tickled the inquisitive taste buds of men, women and children across the world for decades.
  One hundred and twenty three years later the truth behind the series of murders in Whitechapel, London, is still being sought.
  And one such seeker of the truth is former Bedfordshire Police Officer of 15 years Trevor Marriott.'

From standard.net (click for link). Article published September 2011:

• 'As a police officer in Bedfordshire, north of London, Marriott maintained a cursory interest in the Ripper case but was more preoccupied with the murders he was investigating as a homicide detective.
  He retired in the mid-'80s. Eight or nine years ago, in search of a hobby, he figured he would try his hand at the one riddle that ruled them all.'

From foxnewsinsider.com (click for link). Video uploaded April 2011:

• ‘Well, after doing a long, protracted investigation since 2002 …'

[Ally]

So, historical facts and historical evidence are not to be trusted and therefore challenged by the introduction of new facts and evidence. However, as this case is over 120 years old, any new facts or evidence worth their salt are going to be historical. But historical facts are not to be trusted, so....

???????

Well isn't it obvious? You pull stuff out your orifices (orifi ?) and make it up entirely as you go along! All hail "modern" Ripperology.

[Steve S]

You can't have a "new fact"..It's always been a fact whether known or not..What you can have is a new interpretation.........Which is normally to support a theory.Sadly that leads to "cherry-picking" of what supports it,and poo-poing of what doesn't.
OK,I feel picky and I'm stating the obvious,but I always get slightly miffed when the normal disciplines of historical research are held to not apply to this case.........Which is probably why I don't post a lot..............

[Supe]

Trev,

You once more display your ignorance of the historical method. As it is, all facts are historical in the sense that a fact is an immutable, verified happening. It may have occurred but once, like the discovery of a mutilated body in Miller's Court on November 9, 1888, or it may be a continual happening, like the laws of physics on Earth.

Any honest historian, however, will admit that aside from verifiable happenings in the past -- facts -- all the rest is conjecture, theory, speculation, whatever you want to call it and the historical method insists that we weigh all aspects of the ensuing theory -- who is promulgating it, the provenance and probablity of their adduced evidence and so on -- and then accept or reject the theory.

From the example cited above, it is fact (unless we live in some fantasy world) that a mutilated body was found in Miller's Court at the date cited. It is not fact, though imbued with a very high degree of probability, that the body was discovered by Thomas Bowyer; he swore to it, it was reported in countless contemporary publications and there seem no other claimants for that dubious honor.

Of a lesser degree of probability, but still accepted by most students, is that the body was of a woman known as "Mary Jane Kelly." Of still lesser probability is that this woman was a victim of that person called "Jack the Ripper," and on we go into theories of lesser and lesser historical probability. That a mutilated body was discovered, however, is fact.

As a former policeman you are quick to cast aspersions on others and their notions of what constitutes evidence. As a former card-carrying historian (shame of it all) I would suggest you learn more about the historical method.

Don.

[Jenni Shelden]

All facts are by definition gospel.
Otherwise they are not a fact.

My name is Jennifer Shelden, fact.

yes?