New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[AdamNeilWood]

Yes.
It has nothing to do with the viability of any suspect - including Kozminski. There is another thread for that on these boards. There are plenty of suspect threads on these boards.

Adam, I have a question. I found it intriguing that Swanson's copy of Anderson's book was not, after all, presented to him by Anderson - as many thought - but by someone named Fred. Of course, the article delves into some of the possibilities as to who this Fred might be. That aside, don't you believe that this very important revelation adds even more significance to the thoughts Swanson expressed in his annotations as truly being his thoughts, and not just parroting the ideas of his 'old master.'

That's a very interesting observation. Swanson's annotations in his books are all factual, either correcting or adding what's on a printed page. As has been mentioned, he wasn't shy about writing when something was incorrect. I find it hard to accept that he'd write something he didn't believe himself, especially as it was unlikely Anderson was going to pop round for tea to discuss the Lighter Side - which he hadn't gifted - as you suggest.

I've no idea why Anderson didn't send a copy of Lighter Side to Swanson. I initially wondered if he didn't bother gifting the book as it had appeared serialised in Blackwood's just before, but my own copy of Lighter Side is inscribed from Anderson to his sister-in-law and dated November 1910. So he did send copies, but why not to Swanson?

Something else which interests me is the timing of the Marginalia. The first set of annotations - those adding to the final sentence on page 138 - were made by DSS presumably just after receiving the book while the rest, including the 'Kosminski was the suspect' line, seem to have been made much later. Judging by the 'shaky hand', this was towards the end of his life. What made him pick up the book to add more comments? Something about the Ripper in the press? Anderson's death?

Best wishes
Adam

[Monty]

Actually Monty I suggested no such thing - you are one of the arch exponents of the childish remark.

In any event I was not aware that the points I raised had been raised before. Not that I scrutinise every thread on this or other forums. Nor have I been privy to the private conversations of those more intimately involved with the Swanson family.

Ill informed. And admitted.

And why should I be unwilling to name names? Libel? Can you libel the dead?
The attitude that the authenticity of the marginalia cannot be questioned as it might imply dishonesty on the part of some one or a group of people should be regarded as no more than an attempt to silence the questioning of the legitimacy of documents.

Then name names.

There is a difference between questioning and implying dishonesty.

In my opinion the article that is the subject of this thread raised a number of issues that invited clarification.
The denunciations here just demonstrate a weak attitude towards the testing of documents and can be taken as a tacit admition that the marginalia has indeed been accepted too readily.

For the record I think it is likely on the balance of probabilities that the marginalia is genuine - yet that is far from suggesting that there are not legitimate questions which should be addressed.

Contradictory.

The bottom line is that tests were completed and the evidence supports what the Swanson family have maintained all along. Accepted too readily is neither here nor there, the evidence and provinence is entact and the marginalia is sound.

Monty

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Our opinions differ. You have the right to yours.

best wishes

Phil

Yes, they do differ. That doesn't make your right.

[Garry Wroe]

But, of course, one should neither count Kosminski in nor out, because we don't know why he was ever suspected and we can't assess how good the evidence against him was and therefore we can't decide whether it was good or bad evidence.

With respect, Paul, the evidence against Kosminski appears to have been almost entirely circumstantial. Smith’s investigation, conducted contemporaneously with the Seaside Home identification, turned up little or nothing. Macnaghten considered Druitt a stronger candidate than Kosminski. Littlechild was apparently of the belief that Anderson was barking up the wrong tree. Abberline reportedly dismissed the claim that the Ripper had been identified and committed to an asylum. On top of this, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, an individual in the throes of a serious psychotic illness.

Tellingly, Anderson had developed his own a priori conclusions regarding the killer’s ethnicity, area of residence, familial circumstances and psychosexual state. Lo and behold, Kosminski just happened to conform to this profile in every particular. Were one pushed to cite an example of the self-fulfilling prophesy, this would be it. For a better understanding of how such thinking can skew a major police investigation, posters might care to familiarize themselves with the case of Terry Hawkshaw, the Leeds taxi driver who for several years was the prime suspect in the Yorkshire Ripper murders.

Clearly, therefore, there was no tangible evidence against Kosminski. The entire case rested on the Seaside Home identification, which in itself counts for very little given that the empirical research suggests a high probability of misidentification under such circumstances. And if, as many insist, the Seaside Home witness was Lawende, why was no identification forthcoming when the City conducted its own investigation into Kosminski?

On this basis, Paul, I consider the evidence against Kosminski to have been neither good or bad. It was simply nonexistent.

[Hunter]

Actually, this thread is about the article written by Keith Skinner and myself for Ripperologist magazine. The only on-thread discussion in the past 200 or so posts have been made by Lechmere, which is why I'm keen for him to post his thoughts so that they can be answered as best we can.

Yes.
It has nothing to do with the viability of any suspect - including Kozminski. There is another thread for that on these boards. There are plenty of suspect threads on these boards.

Adam, I have a question. I found it intriguing that Swanson's copy of Anderson's book was not, after all, presented to him by Anderson - as many thought - but by someone named Fred. Of course, the article delves into some of the possibilities as to who this Fred might be. That aside, don't you believe that this very important revelation adds even more significance to the thoughts Swanson expressed in his annotations as truly being his thoughts, and not just parroting the ideas of his 'old master.'

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

Was Abberline at the Head of the Ripper investigation?

best wishjes

Phil

No, he wasn't. Swanson was.

[PaulB]

Back then, Kosminsky was considered by some a strong suspect. That should be obvious-3 top policemen said as much. Today, however, he is a weak suspect. But they all are all weak suspects. Kosminsky is just one of the least weak.

I know what you mean, but he's not a weak suspect. He can't be. We know next to nothing about why he was suspected, so how on earth can we judge whether he's strong or weak? All we can say is how people back then thought of him.

[Abby Normal]

Back then, Kosminsky was considered by some a strong suspect. That should be obvious-3 top policemen said as much. Today, however, he is a weak suspect. But they all are all weak suspects. Kosminsky is just one of the least weak.

[Phil Carter]

I take a deep breath, and feel thankful that there are people like Paul Begg, who can express what I am trying to say much more eloquently than I can. Thank you Paul.

Let me be very clear:

1. I think it is quite obvious, and hardly debatable, that Kozminski was "regarded as" a strong suspect by the men who were at the head of the Ripper investigation.

2. I also think that today, we as historians must still consider Kozminski as a strong suspect in the Ripper case. I say this because there is nothing I have seen that eliminates him as a suspect, there is so much we do not know about why he was suspected, and much of what we do know about him fits with what we would expect the Ripper to be like. Many of the pieces fit, circumstantially, etc. And new pieces of information that come to light also fit, often. We should really be trying to find out more about him, as opposed to endlessly arguing about things that have been argued endlessly before.

RH

Hello Rob,

Was Abberline at the Head of the Ripper investigation?

best wishjes

Phil

[robhouse]

"Was a strong suspect" or "was regarded as a strong suspect" is a rather pedantic distinction isn't it? Pretty meaningless too. Obviously Kosminski was regarded as a strong suspect by those who suspected him. And Macnaghten, Littlechild and Smith don't throw ice-water over that. They maybe throw ice-water over him being Jack the Ripper, although we can't be entirely sure that they knew all the evidence known to Anderson and Swanson, but they don't pour ice-water over Kosminski being a strong suspect. Indeed, Macnaghten actually tells us Kosminski was a strong suspect, albeit he favours Druitt.

I take a deep breath, and feel thankful that there are people like Paul Begg, who can express what I am trying to say much more eloquently than I can. Thank you Paul.

Let me be very clear:

1. I think it is quite obvious, and hardly debatable, that Kozminski was "regarded as" a strong suspect by the men who were at the head of the Ripper investigation.

2. I also think that today, we as historians must still consider Kozminski as a strong suspect in the Ripper case. I say this because there is nothing I have seen that eliminates him as a suspect, there is so much we do not know about why he was suspected, and much of what we do know about him fits with what we would expect the Ripper to be like. Many of the pieces fit, circumstantially, etc. And new pieces of information that come to light also fit, often. We should really be trying to find out more about him, as opposed to endlessly arguing about things that have been argued endlessly before.

RH

[Phil Carter]

Ruling out Aaron Kosminski is ten times worse than ruling him in.

Until you can demonstrate that that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the Kosminski named by Swanson and Macnaghten then you are just playing silly name games. And you are downplaying valuable source material from two informed and senior sources who to all intent and purposes are stating that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper. And ignoring a third source who acknowledges that "Kosminski" was a good suspect.

And you are ruling out Kosminski because you don't know the evidence on which their conclusion was based, but that's your ignorance, an ignorance forced on you because those sources said all they thought was necessary and because the vagaries of time and fate have destroyed what other paperwork may have existed. That's not unusual. It isn't rare. There are other crimes cases where no paperwork exists at all.

So, there are three senior sources, three sources who had information that we don't, who say that Kosminski was a suspect, two of those sources overtly and tacitly saying he was Jack the Ripper. And you think it's okay to dismiss what they say and count Kosminski out. You in fact think it is better to count him out than to give fair and considered attention to three senior and informed contemporary sources and count Kosminski in. Sorry, but that's just nuts.

But, of course, one should neither count Kosminski in nor out, because we don't know why he was ever suspected and we can't assess how good the evidence against him was and therefore we can't decide whether it was good or bad evidence. And no matter how hard you try to claim that the absence of evidence supporting Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten diminishes the case against Kosminski, it doesn't diminish anything at all.

So, sure Aaron Kosminski may not be the Kosminski, but so far there is no viable alternative and there may never be a viable alternative. Produce one and maybe you'll have an argument worth listening to, but just saying maybe he wasn't the suspect because we don't have the evidence that he was doesn't mean diddly.

Hello Paul,

Our opinions differ. You have the right to yours.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"We may never "know why". That information may not exist anymore. If it does turn up one day, fantastic. Right now we have to do what we can with the information we have."

Correct in every instance, Paul - I agree.

"And the information we have is that Macnaghten states that Kosminski was a good suspect and Anderson and (presumably) Swanson believed he was Jack the Ripper. They obviously thought Kosminski was a good or strong suspect (Anderson thought he was more than that!) and given that they are credible voices, there is little reason for us to say otherwise."

There is no reason for us not to acknowledge that these men tought Kosminski a good or even excellent bid. I agree with that too.

But when it comes to making the call that Kosminski was a good or even excellent suspect on useful and sound grounds? No, we can never do that! What if it surfaces that all they had was his madness and the knife threat and a failed identification? Where would that put us?

It would put us in a different ball game. The trouble is, we don't know that that was all they had. We don't even know that they had that, as the threat to the sister may have been utterly unknown to the police. So, as is repeatedly stated, we have no idea what the evidence against Kosminski was and therefore we can't assess it and it is impossible for us to form any conclusion as regards the probability of their conclusion being correct.

It would make us look very ridiculous, thatīs were it would put us.

Why would it make us look ridiculous? We theorise on the basis of the evidence in our possession and we adapt, change, and sometime abandon our theories as and when new information comes to light (or sometimes when existing evidence is reinterpreted). That's how theories work (or should work). It's how well we use the tools we have that matters. It's doing a bad job with the tools we have makes us look ridiculous.

Therefore, I once again say that we donīt condemn anybody on no evidence, Paul.

Nobody is condemning anybody on no evidence. The evidence is what our sources tell us, just as it is for anything that happened in the past and of which we have no direct personal experience. All we can do is do our best to assess the reliability of our sources.

Strong suspects are people who are brought to court, to face the legal system. Letīs assume that we could do so, retrospectively, with Kosminski. What on earth would we tell the judge and jury? That we somehow sense that the suspicions that once were there were sound suspicions and that he should therefore be sentenced to eternal Rippership?

We wouldn't attempt to bring Kosminski before the judge and jury, but needless to say this isn't a court of law and the rules of law don't apply. This is history. The rules are different.

When did jumping to conclusions ever do any branch of research any good? If you want to do it, be my guest. But I hope you recognize that those who wonīt join in, refuse to do so on very good grounds.

Who is jumping to conclusions? We have a source which states that Kosminski was a suspect and we have two sources which seem to say he was Jack the Ripper. We can assess the reliability of those sources, but we can do little beyond that.

"I think we can safely say that Kosminski was a strong suspect."

What I would say is that we can safely say that he was regarded as a strong suspect. Whether he WAS or not hinges on one thing and one thing only - the quality and amount of evidence. And we canīt say that since we will perhaps never find it, we must accept that it must have been pretty damn good. Andersonīs enthusiam is tempered by MacNaghten, and Littlechild and Smith pour ice-water over it.

And we are left with nothing at all to make a fair call. Thatīs as conclusive as itīs gonna get.

Now, I will withdraw for the moment, Iīve got other things to do. But please make sure that you donīt make yourself guilt of any miscarriage of justice while Iīm gone! Enthusiasm is fine - I have it in Lechmereīs case, lots of it! - but letīs not take leave of all moderation and sense.

The best,
Fisherman

"Was a strong suspect" or "was regarded as a strong suspect" is a rather pedantic distinction isn't it? Pretty meaningless too. Obviously Kosminski was regarded as a strong suspect by those who suspected him. And Macnaghten, Littlechild and Smith don't throw ice-water over that. They maybe throw ice-water over him being Jack the Ripper, although we can't be entirely sure that they knew all the evidence known to Anderson and Swanson, but they don't pour ice-water over Kosminski being a strong suspect. Indeed, Macnaghten actually tells us Kosminski was a strong suspect, albeit he favours Druitt.

Enthusiasm for a suspect doesn't enter into the equation. Nor should it. I am not and never have been enthusiastic for any suspect. It's the facts that matter.

[PaulB]

There are,in my opinion,three stages to consider when evaluating Kosminski.The first is that he did come to the notice of police.Without knowing when or why,the most that can be said is that he was a person of interest.Nothing more.In such a situation,he may be subject to investigation,to questioning,survilance,and even identification.That does not make him suspect.

The second stage,suspect,would apply if,during the above,evidence surfaced which led police to a suspicion that a crime had been committed,and Kosminski was involved in that crime.

The third stage,accusation,would result if the evidence against Kosminski was such,that the police considered guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

I have read nothing that persuades me,that at present,we can go beyond the first stage.

Harry, I'm sorry but I don't follow you here at all. A person of interest is a suspect, but one against whom there is no or insufficient evidence. If no suspicion was entertained against such a person then he wouldn't be a person of interest.

A crime had been committed and as the police don't generally investigate, question, maintain surveillance on, and try to identify people who they don't suspect, it therefore follows that evidence of some sort existed which caused the police to think Kosminski was involved in the crime. And for two senior and informed policemen that evidence convinced them of Kosminski's guilt.

The forgoing does depend on whether you are drawing a distinct between the suspect Kosminski and Aaron Kosminski, but as there is no viable alternative to the latter, such a distinction is moot.

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"We may never "know why". That information may not exist anymore. If it does turn up one day, fantastic. Right now we have to do what we can with the information we have."

Correct in every instance, Paul - I agree.

"And the information we have is that Macnaghten states that Kosminski was a good suspect and Anderson and (presumably) Swanson believed he was Jack the Ripper. They obviously thought Kosminski was a good or strong suspect (Anderson thought he was more than that!) and given that they are credible voices, there is little reason for us to say otherwise."

There is no reason for us not to acknowledge that these men tought Kosminski a good or even excellent bid. I agree with that too.

But when it comes to making the call that Kosminski was a good or even excellent suspect on useful and sound grounds? No, we can never do that! What if it surfaces that all they had was his madness and the knife threat and a failed identification? Where would that put us?

It would make us look very ridiculous, thatīs were it would put us. Therefore, I once again say that we donīt condemn anybody on no evidence, Paul. Strong suspects are people who are brought to court, to face the legal system. Letīs assume that we could do so, retrospectively, with Kosminski. What on earth would we tell the judge and jury? That we somehow sense that the suspicions that once were there were sound suspicions and that he should therefore be sentenced to eternal Rippership?

When did jumping to conclusions ever do any branch of research any good? If you want to do it, be my guest. But I hope you recognize that those who wonīt join in, refuse to do so on very good grounds.

"I think we can safely say that Kosminski was a strong suspect."

What I would say is that we can safely say that he was regarded as a strong suspect. Whether he WAS or not hinges on one thing and one thing only - the quality and amount of evidence. And we canīt say that since we will perhaps never find it, we must accept that it must have been pretty damn good. Andersonīs enthusiam is tempered by MacNaghten, and Littlechild and Smith pour ice-water over it.

And we are left with nothing at all to make a fair call. Thatīs as conclusive as itīs gonna get.

Now, I will withdraw for the moment, Iīve got other things to do. But please make sure that you donīt make yourself guilt of any miscarriage of justice while Iīm gone! Enthusiasm is fine - I have it in Lechmereīs case, lots of it! - but letīs not take leave of all moderation and sense.

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"Ruling out Kosminski is ten times worse. "

Of course it is. He was a suspect for some goddamn reason, we can figure that out with no effort at all. But letīs stay away from dubbing him a very good or strong suspect until we know why, thatīs what I say.

I think Chris said it eminently: Kosminski is a historically important suspect. End of story - so far. Letīs hope there is more to come, allowing us to get a better picture.

The best,
Fisherman

We may never "know why". That information may not exist anymore. If it does turn up one day, fantastic. Right now we have to do what we can with the information we have. And the information we have is that Macnaghten states that Kosminski was a good suspect and Anderson and (presumably) Swanson believed he was Jack the Ripper. They obviously thought Kosminski was a good or strong suspect (Anderson thought he was more than that!) and given that they are credible voices, there is little reason for us to say otherwise.

Not knowing why these people thought what they did is not in any sense evidence that they were wrong to think it. They may have been. They may not have been. But I think we can safely say that Kosminski was a strong suspect.