New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Fisherman]

Rob, I have a very wide definition of evidence. There is a lot of evidence surrounding and attached to the Kosminski affair on the whole.

What Anderson said is evidence, what Swansaon wrote in his book is evidence, what Smith said about Andersons claim is evidence and so on. But none of these things have it in them to conclusively tell us that Kosminski was suspected on good grounds, and that is why I am allowing myself to be slowly roasted over open fire. I happen to think that it is very important, see.

I claim that the only evidence that is of interest when it comes to placing Kosminski on a level - any level - of suspicion, is the evidence that was used to make a case against him.

Maybe that evidence included the knife-wielding against his sister, for example. We donīt know, but it COULD have been included. And if it was, then it belongs to the collection of evidence in which I am interested, since I mean that it is the only collection of evidence from which we may make a call about Kosminskiīs true viability as a suspect in the Ripper case.

Now, I hope that there was more than the knife bit, but to be perfectly honest, I donīt think there WAS much more. The insanity bit would have been counted in as would the convenient foreign extraction - at least I think so. Other than that, I really donīt know. Could have been lots of odds and ends, I guess.

I tend to think that Andersonīs follower on the commisioner chair, MacNagthen, was fully informed about the Kosminski file and all that belonged to it, the ID included. To me, it would be completely ridiculous not to inform him, and I think that his mentioning of Kosminski owes to this very information having been brought over to him. And since he tells us that there were many circs attaching to Kosminski, one has to think that Anderson et al were the ones who informed him of the circs in question, either in person or by simply handing over the material. To my mind, it would be utterly strange if the two did not discuss the Ripper case in detail many a time - but if we canīt tell, then we really canīt tell.
Either way, if, as I believe, MacNaghten was fully informed, and if there was something truly juicy in the information that he got, like, say, a sighting of Kosminski, knife in hand, attempting to attack a prostitute, or a report of him arriving home at 7 AM on November the 9:th, soaked in blood and with a strange pack of meat in his pocket, then MacNaghten would not have spoken merely of "many circs" - he would have come clean about incriminating facts like these.
Likewise, if I am wrong and he did NOT come clean about some truly incriminating evidence - then why would he opt for Druitt? It would make no sense.
Ergo, MacNagthen, having been informed about all the details in the Kosminski case (if I am correct) did not have anything at all of truly serious magnitude on Kosminski.

I think Kosminski was a bad case back then, mainly grounded in events not related to the murders and in prejudiced conceptions of what the Ripper would be. And before I see anything that tells us that I am wrong on this score, I am going to be very steadfast in my conviction that Aaron Kosminski, regardless of the status he held as a suspect back in the 19:th century, is but a weak suspect today.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

I don't think Rob suggesting he was a paranoid schizophrenic is a wild leap.

Hello Robert,

Does this evaluation also apply to Dr Sir John Batty Tuke, probably the foremost contemporary expert on the subject of the mentally impaired in asylums, who made a crystal clear evaluation, as far as I can see, unopposed, on the mental health and condition of the Whitechapel murderer?

Does this evaluation also apply to Dr Howden, the President of the Section (same subject as above) who refers to Dr Tuke in his evaluation of contemporary lunacy in asylums and the patients therein?

Nope..I don't think their comments were wild leaps either. And ignoring them just because their expertise and commentary obviously don't fit the Kosminski identikit picture is plain wrong. These people knew more about the lunatics, the insane, the mad, the feeble minded and every other type of patient in the asylum system in the UK...in the Late Victorian Period and spoke specifically in 1888 about exactly that. In Tuke's case, specifically about the murderer's mind.

I will ponder with you of one more thing. SRA was far from being an expert in the subject of asylum patients. He wasn't even a "qualified" policeman (I used the word advisedly), and had a non-police background..guess what..it wasn't medical insanity he aced in either. So if his comments were qualified, he gives us no indication that the evaluation of the Polish Jew was professionally based. We can only use what we have, and without reference or hint at one, we must read SRA's words as his own, from his own mind..i.e. his opinion.

The desription of the Polish Jew suspect doesn't look like it came from an expert in the field of the insane, imho.

Just my thoughts.

best wishes

Phil

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

By the way, if you got a copy of Robīs book that describes Aaron Kosminski as a homicidal maniac, knocking the asylum people around at his leisure, then you may want a word with your book dealer...! (Itīs that irony again - I donīt know WHAT to do with it...!)

Why not read the book you are commenting on? That is frequently a good start for a discussion.

Kosminski's asylum records, spotty as they are, don't paint a portrait of a quiet little lamb but someone easily agitated, occasionally violent, and in need of constant attention. He heard voices, and had visual hallucinations as well.

I don't think Rob suggesting he was a paranoid schizophrenic is a wild leap.

[robhouse]

Rob:

"This is not a trial. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" here. We are assessing historical information. The main reason he is a strong suspect today, is because he was considered a strong suspect then, by people who knew a hell of a lot more about him than we do now. And because, as I argue, many circumstantial facts support his "candidacy" as possibly being the Ripper. If you cannot understand that, then I cannot help you."

I am not in any need of "help" at all. It would seem that you are, though - you have a suspect about whom you know not a iota when it comes to the evidence that MADE him a suspect - and so you help his candidacy along by promoting him to a strong suspect since he was a strong suspect back then - on grounds you know nothing about.

Itīs more circular than the sun.

To top things off, you tell me that "this is not a trial" - claiming that since we deal with "history", we may safely look away from trifles like this.

Well, Rob , I at least agree with you on one score: we should try and learn from history, not least the history of epic mistakes and premature conclusions.

That much a simple soul like me DOES understand.

All the best,
Fisherman

How are you defining evidence? Does Anderson's statement count as evidence?

RH

[Fisherman]

I of course form it since it fits best with my theory on Lechmere, nothing else. Otherwise no, donīt listen to what I am saying.

People will read things in different manners, Robert, that all I am saying now that Iīve had a chance to impress you with my sense of irony. And yes, I think that this may well be what we are looking at. I donīt see any figthing spirit in Swansonīs annotations; to me itīs as if he has quietly sat down, glasses on his nose, offering the odd sigh as he filled in the blanks.

By the way, if you got a copy of Robīs book that describes Aaron Kosminski as a homicidal maniac, knocking the asylum people around at his leisure, then you may want a word with your book dealer...! (Itīs that irony again - I donīt know WHAT to do with it...!)

The best,
Fisherman

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Iīve answered that TOO before - my impression is that Swanson may well be reminiscing the old fighting days and a battle lost.

And you get this impression from the Marginalia??

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert:

"Do you think after all those years that Swanson was still somehow under the spell of Anderson when he took his pencil out in his study to make those marginalia ??"

Iīve answered that TOO before - my impression is that Swanson may well be reminiscing the old fighting days and a battle lost. For I think there were such days, days when people publically criticized Anderson and Swanson for what they believed to be a wrongful accusation against Kosminski. Furthermore, I think that Littlechild, MacNagthen, Smith and Abberline were all familiar with the accusations against Kosminski - I donīt think there was any cover-up of it. And if thatīs correct, much of the ground for the accusations fall. Then we have seasoned policemen looking at the proceedings - and dissing them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert Anderson:

"Dismissing Swanson as Anderson's Tonto ain't historically accurate. "

Maybe so - but who did?

"You've read Rob House's book and all the extant records he reproduces?"

If you move back ever so gently along the posts, you will find that I have answered that question already.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rob:

"This is not a trial. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" here. We are assessing historical information. The main reason he is a strong suspect today, is because he was considered a strong suspect then, by people who knew a hell of a lot more about him than we do now. And because, as I argue, many circumstantial facts support his "candidacy" as possibly being the Ripper. If you cannot understand that, then I cannot help you."

I am not in any need of "help" at all. It would seem that you are, though - you have a suspect about whom you know not a iota when it comes to the evidence that MADE him a suspect - and so you help his candidacy along by promoting him to a strong suspect since he was a strong suspect back then - on grounds you know nothing about.

Itīs more circular than the sun.

To top things off, you tell me that "this is not a trial" - claiming that since we deal with "history", we may safely look away from trifles like this.

Well, Rob , I at least agree with you on one score: we should try and learn from history, not least the history of epic mistakes and premature conclusions.

That much a simple soul like me DOES understand.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Sir Robert Anderson:

"I take it you haven't read them."

I have - and came away with a picture of a normally quite calm and unexcited man.

You've read Rob House's book and all the extant records he reproduces?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I see lots and lots of things that point totally away from putting too much trust in Anderson and his faithful companion, and therefore I deem it wise not to empty that particular cup too enthusiastically.

Dismissing Swanson as Anderson's Tonto ain't historically accurate.

Do you think after all those years that Swanson was still somehow under the spell of Anderson when he took his pencil out in his study to make those marginalia ??

And what do you make of this :

"Mary Berkins, Swanson's granddaughter, said the case was commonly discussed by her family. It was general knowledge that my grandfather knew the name of the killer, and that there was no evidence except from a Jewish man who would not give evidence for ethical reasons," she said.

Does this sound like there was a tradition in the family that fit precisely with Anderson's suspect? Does to me. Does she say "suspect" or "killer" ?

Anyone still hold that the Marginalia actually indicate a disagreement with Anderson? I don't remember which poster brought forth that gem.

[Abby Normal]

This is not a trial. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" here. We are assessing historical information. The main reason he is a strong suspect today, is because he was considered a strong suspect then, by people who knew a hell of a lot more about him than we do now. And because, as I argue, many circumstantial facts support his "candidacy" as possibly being the Ripper. If you cannot understand that, then I cannot help you.

RH

Hi Rob
Totally got it.

But lets pretend it is a trial and we are detectives. Knowing what we do on Kosminski now-Is it a strong case or a weak case?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,
I'm sorry but we can't do that. Our ignorance of past events doesn't give us the right to discount the words of those who tell us the little we know.

Hi Paul
I dont discount their words-I count them! Thats why Kos has to be considered a suspect today.

My point is if we are playing detective TODAY-given all we know now-the case is weak. Kos is a weak suspect. They all are. Kos (and a few others IMHO) are just less weak.

[Scott Nelson]

Which 'several quarters' would these have been?

In 1903 Macnaghten's report would be a good bet. There may have been some loose talk around as witness to Griffith's 1898 book and, maybe, Sims at that time. Abberline was in contact with the Yard as he says, which almost certainly included both Swanson and Anderson, before their retirements.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"How is a positive ID in the eyes of at least 2 senior police officers "nonexistent" evidence?"

You should ask Garry about that, really, since he wrote it. I just took a chance of getting to kiss him; I rarely get that chance. VERY rarely, actually.

As for the ID, it was a FAILED ID, letīs not forget that. Anderson paints it out as a success, and Swanson claims that he would have had enough to hang the suspect, if only thew witness had not declined to witness - something he was not at liberty to do, according to Monty. And he is correct. Goose and gander.

My own stance is that there is what I call meta-evidence; evidence that there may have been evidence, that is. But the real deal, the accusation act against Kosminski, is totally and utterly non-existant. "We, the crown, accuse you, Kosminski, of being the Ripper, the reason being ... what??

That is where I recognize a total lack of the hard (or wobbly) evidence Anderson thought he had. And from this knowledge of mine, I come to the conclusion that we have nothing on Kosminski, factually. He was accused, yes. He was a suspect, yes. He must remain so, yes (it works both ways - if we cannot condemn him, we cannot free him either, since we doi not know the amount and quality of evidence that was (perhaps) once there.

The best,
Fisherman