Announcement

**Phil Carter** · 10-21-2012, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Chris View Post

The problem is that - as we've discussed - it's not clear that Swanson ever gave "his word" to anyone that he wouldn't name the suspect.

To my mind the natural interpretation of the phrase about "wild horses" is that it's Jim Swanson's comment on DSS's refusal to tell the family the suspect's name - and not any sort of vow of secrecy made by DSS himself.

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the reply, once more.

Yes, your thoughts on the interpretation of the phrasiology are quite acceptable of course.

However, when reading and re-reading the complete article presented before us, I get the distinct impression that DSS was a policeman who was very guarded in his comments about his work, of nature. I also get the impression that he was indeed a man of his word.
Now if Jim Swanson and his family was given that very same impression, I can see no reason why DSS would write any knowledge, work obtained, about his work.

I can see, however, as Paul B has also written, that DSS would be expanding upon Anderson's story. Naturally, it doesn't compromise DSS' own thoughts on revealing or talking of, or writing down, work related things. It simply enhances another person's story, that may well have been imparted upon DSS by Anderson himself. As Anderson breaks a silence, often, over a long period of time, note, then Swanson commentating upon it is quite natural too.

best wishes

Phil

**Monty** · 10-21-2012, 12:59 PM

Hi Monty

I think Anderson puffing things up to sell a book misunderstands both the man and the publishing industry at that time, much as others misunderstand the way the police worked in 1888. Anderson was a noted and sometimes controversial authority on penology and theology, and his position as head of the CID was in itself all the puff his memoirs would have needed at a time when publishing wasn't the expensive and highly competitive commercial piranha pond it is today. And whilst Anderson may have had an inflated sense of his own importance and the part he played in various events, that's an entirely different thing from doing things to sell a book. And on top of that, is there any evidence that either he or his publisher at any time used what he wrote about the Ripper to help promote the book? And one might also question how Anderson would have imagined claiming the Ripper was identified would have done him any good if everyone knew he was talking through his bottom. And remember that Anderson had made the same claim in passing, without any brouhaha, in books and articles ten years earlier.

Hey Paul

Thats fair comment, I cannot pretend that I know either.

Anderson hardly plays down this event though.

The revelation that the biggest criminal of his age, Jack the Ripper, was known is surely evidence in itself that it was used to draw attention (maybe not promote) to the book. It is the only aspect of the book discussed today, it was serialised in Blackwoods so intended or not, the attention was there, and welcome Im sure.

Sure, Anderson ran that risk. However, as you note later, Swanson is more guarded about Kosminski. In an age where authority was not questioned, Andersons words would only have been challenged by his peers...and they were.

And whilst Swanson doesn't claim that Kosminski was the murderer, he doesn't say, "what a load of bol..." either. In other notations, as cited by Adam, he provides correctives and there is no reason to suppose that he would have stopped short of offering his own opinion about Kosminski if it differed from Anderson's. On balance, whilst it is true that he doesn't overtly endorse Anderson, he expands on the incident Anderson describes and he doesn't pooh pooh it.

Well yes and no. Yes it seems Swanson is his own man, and not afraid to state what he sees. However he is a middle ranking CID man therefore to question ones superiors you must be secure in the knowledge of how such questioning would be taken.

All that said, I agree, he isnt completely against Anderson if we are judging on the marginalia (and theres no reason to state otherwise). With Swanson we have a very guarded confirming statement which is essentially, and wisely, covering his ass.

Kind regards
Monty

**Chris** · 10-21-2012, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

I also get the impression that he was indeed a man of his word.

So do I. But what's at issue is whether he gave his word to anyone that he would never disclose (or even write down in his private papers) the name of the suspect.

Evidently the family didn't get the impression that he wouldn't write down the name, did they?

**Phil Carter** · 10-21-2012, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Chris View Post

So do I. But what's at issue is whether he gave his word to anyone that he would never disclose (or even write down in his private papers) the name of the suspect.

Evidently the family didn't get the impression that he wouldn't write down the name, did they?

Hello Chris,

Specifically, no. But conversely, the family didn't get the impression that he would write down the name either, did they?

best wishes

Phil

**Chris** · 10-21-2012, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

But conversely, the family didn't get the impression that he would write down the name either, did they?

No, but again that's not really what's at issue.

**Phil Carter** · 10-21-2012, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Chris View Post

But what's at issue is whether he gave his word to anyone that he would never disclose (or even write down in his private papers) the name of the suspect.

Evidently the family didn't get the impression that he wouldn't write down the name, did they?

Specifically, no. But conversely, the family didn't get the impression that he would write down the name either, did they?

No, but again that's not really what's at issue.

Hello Chris,

You argue the issue is that he did not give his word to anyone that he would disclose the name of the suspect, with the addition that he didn't give the family the impression that he would write down the name.
I argue that that is countered equally that he didn't give the family the impression that he would write the name down either.

I have therefore negated in equal terms the argument you gave. because neither can be proven. It is your example of backing up your comment of what is at issue. It is negated and equally balanced.

And because of that negation..you now tell me that my answer doesn't count? Sorry Chris, but that doesn't work. If you are going to use a specific example to help back your comment of what IS at issue, and that is countered in equal balance, you cannot then say the countered answer of equality doesn't fit the criteria of issue!

The point of all this is that we both agree that DSS was a man of his word. Because we cannot specifically prove or disprove this, we are left with what OTHERS have said about the man. THAT is where the "wild horses" comment becomes valuable. It is 2nd hand evidence but still the best we have.

If in Jim Swanson's, and the family's comments, we have an accurate impression of DSS' thoughts on revealing job related things, then we must accept that this source, a primary source of knowledge of the man, is as they were given the impression of.

Nothing has been produced to show that he would not be a man of principle and would disclose things HE knew, work related. BUT....
Nothing has been produced to show that he would be a man of principle and not disclose things HE knew either...EXCEPT the family's impression of his character...which tells me he would not disclose what HE knew related to his work.

He could easily expand on Anderson's work though. He comments upon Anderson's words throughout Anderson's book. Ipso facto, point proven as to what he is doing.

That weighs heavily in my judgement.

But it is just an opinion, Chris.

Kosminski was the suspect. The suspect ANDERSON was talking of in his book.
NOT Swanson's suspect. Swanson is confirming and expanding. Simple as that, imho.

best wishes

Phil

**Chris** · 10-21-2012, 02:45 PM

Phil

The point I'm making is extremely simple. You keep talking about Swanson keeping "his word". What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that he gave a "word" in the first place.

**robhouse** · 10-21-2012, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

Kosminski was the suspect. The suspect ANDERSON was talking of in his book.
NOT Swanson's suspect. Swanson is confirming and expanding. Simple as that, imho.

best wishes

Phil

It strikes me as truly incredible, the lengths that people will go to discredit the Swanson marginalia. First we had the "old men's memories" argument, then we had the various confusion theories, then we had the "it's a forgery" theorists...

And now we have an entirely new variation. Yes, Swanson told members of his family that he knew the Ripper's identity; and yes, he effectively corroborated Anderson's statements about the Ripper's identity, going so far even as to add further support of said suspect being the Ripper; and yes he gave the suspect's name as Kozminski. But Kozminski was NOT the person Swanson believed was the Ripper. Swanson actually believed someone else was the Ripper (!!!)

Incredible really. Incredibly stupid.

RH

**Phil H** · 10-21-2012, 03:05 PM

Well said, Rob.

Textual criticism of the marginalia, aimed at understanding it better, is one thing. But there does seem to be a mind set that wants to undermine, disparage or discredit what Swanson wrote. I don't see that as helpful or legitimate scholarship.

We have nothing to say that Swanson held any other view than what he acknowledged in his annotations.

He almost certainly did not write for publication or for any eyes other than his own. Further he was in the habit of annotating his books, it seems.

Whatever he might have said to his family can only be hearsay and as such does not affect the value of the maginalia. People say things within the family circle to tease and intrigue, and DSS might equally have been engaging in such behaviour as much as speaking ex cathedra.

Certainly DSS appears to have wanted to flesh out, and expand on what his old chief had written. The prose is capable of being read more than one way, but the logical interpretation must surely be that DSS was setting out what both men knew. This cannot (at least to my mind) be read as other than endorsing Anderson's view and providing a name.

Had DSS wanted to imply that Anderson was wrong, misguided or whatever, then surely he had the opportunity to construct what he said in a different way. There would have been qualifying words: "although Anderson says that..."; "he writes, but"; he believed but in fact" included in the marginalia. But there are not. Rather there are specific details (though we clearly do not fully understand them) of what happened which fit rationally with corroboration, not dismissal.

Finally, and on a slightly separate note, I believe that Swanson was a man of principle and would not have given away Kosminski's name in any way that meant that it might have been made public during his lifetime or even later. BUT, DSS may have recognised that the name would not appear in any file, and (as diaryists often do) was writing with the knowledge that one day in the distant future his revelation of the name might come to light.

Phil H

**Phil Carter** · 10-21-2012, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by robhouse View Post

It strikes me as truly incredible, the lengths that people will go to discredit the Swanson marginalia. First we had the "old men's memories" argument, then we had the various confusion theories, then we had the "it's a forgery" theorists...

And now we have an entirely new variation. Yes, Swanson told members of his family that he knew the Ripper's identity; and yes, he effectively corroborated Anderson's statements about the Ripper's identity, going so far even as to add further support of said suspect being the Ripper; and yes he gave the suspect's name as Kozminski. But Kozminski was NOT the person Swanson believed was the Ripper. Swanson actually believed someone else was the Ripper (!!!)

Incredible really. Incredibly stupid.

RH

Hello Rob,

Then I'm sure Paul Begg will appreciate those words as he too has written this very morning that Swanson is expanding upon Anderson's story...

And for your information.. I am NOT discrediting the Swanson marginalia, in any way shape or form. I am, infact, supporting the Swanson family's impression of the man himself, and telling you that I believe Jim Swanson when he said that "wild horses" wouldn't drag the name out of him.

Shame that really does cause a problem for all "Kosminski is guilty" supporters.

Swanson said he was a suspect...and is merely expanding on Anderson's words, a thing that I am far from being alone about. That isnt incredibly stupid either. When the insults rise, the argument is lost, Rob.

You see Rob, you can't have it both ways. Either DSS is a man that tells the truth, the impression given to his closest family is correct, and thereby not revealing the culprit, then Kosminski is NOT his idea. And that means what Rob?

If DSS is going against his family's distinct impression and indeed revealing the name of his culprit, then what does that say for believing what he wrote in the Marginalia itself?

I prefer the DSS who told the truth to his family and kept that word on a scale that he didn't talk shop and didnt reveal his knowledge.

But as others say as well as I do, he expanded upon Anderson's story, and filled in the gaps for us.

That isn't stupid Rob. And it doesn't warrant your crass words just because it flies in the face of your theory...oh yes, that, your theory, includes the theory that DSS was "itching" to tell the "British public"...I believe. Based on what evidence Rob? Nothing in the History of the Swanson Marginalia indicates anything of the sort.

best wishes

Phil

PS Please don't knock the delivery men when they are further convinced that Anderson's suspect was his and his alone by the presentation of the Ripperologist article... We didn't write the article, nor provide the documentary evidence. I think the Swanson family have been tremendously enlightening with their finds. Marvelous, infact. I am most grateful!

**Phil Carter** · 10-21-2012, 03:46 PM

Hello Phil H,