New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Phil Carter]

But you have just agreed that his family didn't get even an impression that he wouldn't write the suspect's name down in his personal papers.

So there is no difficulty in his having done that. No broken word. Not even a contradicted impression.

Hello Chris,

That is taken out of context Chris, and you know it.

I have ALSO said that by writing in Anderson's book, and commenting on what Anderson was telling, and expanding on Anderson's story, it does NOT disqualify him from the impression given to his family that he would keep HIS mouth shut about what HE knew.

We can discuss this until the cows come home..the point is that there is room for differing interpretations. And of course, it includes yours.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

I have re-read the article concerned in the light of comments above. i find little to make me re-think my views. However:

On page 138, Swanson also highlighted Anderson’s statement:
Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service. [Swanson’s underlining]

I take this to be potentially indicative of three things:

a) irony - that Anderson had been telling tales out of school. Yet he does not give a name, which is surely the point; or

b) agreement. Effectively the underlining conveys DSS's endorsement of Sir RA's words. This implies that DSS would keep confidentiality, but his marginalia show that he did not consider this private comment to breach that; or

c) that Sir RA's choice to reveal information allowed DSS some disctretion in the matter.

I regard (b) as most likely, since he wrote the words but told no one. With (c) as a possibility. I discount (a) given the existence of the marginalia.

I also note the following comment in the article:

The fact that some one’s idea of how a murderer should behave during his stay in Colney Hatch does not coincide with the reported behaviour of the man in question cannot possibly challenge the unequivocal signed statement of the man who knew that Kosminski was the suspect.

I have another comment arising from my perusal of the article a second time, which I will post in a relevant Kosminski thread.

I agree with that.

Phil H

[Chris]

That is taken out of context Chris, and you know it.

It sounds rather as though you are implying that what I posted was somehow misleading. I don't like that.

Anyhow, this is all the "context" there was.

I wrote:
"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?"

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

Surely that is perfectly clear. In writing down the name, DSS would be neither breaking his word, nor even - as you agreed - contradicting any impression that the family had got.

[Phil Carter]

It sounds rather as though you are implying that what I posted was somehow misleading. I don't like that.

Anyhow, this is all the "context" there was.

I wrote:
"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?"

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

Surely that is perfectly clear. In writing down the name, DSS would be neither breaking his word, nor even - as you agreed - contradicting any impression that the family had got.

Hello Chris,

I am not, uncase you were wondering, sitting here writing for the sake of argument. I also will catagorically state that I write and respond as I see things only. I have my opinion and will state it..ON the subject.

Whether you see things that aren't meant, or there, such as "It sounds rather as though you are implying that what I posted was somehow misleading. I don't like that." well....

It may SOUND like that to you..but it isnt like that. Period. So if you are looking for a fully blown head to head argument, wrong man chosen.. I won't bite. Sorry. Please dont read into my words things that aren't meant. Thank you kindly.

I'm not here to insult on any personal level. And if you dont accept that, thats your problem..please note, I WILL NOT respond in that way. Period. I hope I make myself perfectly clear. I don't bracket personalities by their general views in Ripperology. I believe it wise to differentiate between people, and that is what I try to do. I can only speak for myself.

I have made my position crystal clear many times. It doesn't need repeating further.

However, for the last time.. I believe that the History of the Marginalia has been very helpful in telling us the disposition of DSS, his attitude and his character. I believe that the family's impression of the man strengthen's the view that DSS is commentating on Anderson's story only, as he was either told it or knew it. That is not disparaging. It is explanatory. I am very grateful to the Swanson family for revealing the documentation they have. I believe it supports my views. Others may believe it supports theirs. As has been said by quite a few, there is room here. I accept that. I have agreed with Phil H in a previous post about such room.

Others will take a differing view. So be it.

I won't bite to baiting of any kind from anyone. Because I have no interest in such. Shame for some who might like that sort of game.

If the intention of those supporting the "suspect" "Kosminski" feel that their "suspect" is somehow strengthened by the article of the History of the Marginalia in Ripperologist, then I find that it has done no such thing. That is my impression.

In my opinion, it (the article) has strengthened the view that Anderson's suspect, and the annotation made by DSS, is of and is in reference to Anderson's suspect alone. The family's views of the character of DSS have told me that DSS would keep quiet of what HE knew... but it allows for DSS to expand on the Anderson story without breaking his own code of conduct of HIS work.

It is that simple. People can argue for and against it... fair enough.

All I have done is agree with the Swanson family and their views on DSS.


best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Phil

What you wrote was "That is taken out of context Chris, and you know it". That did imply that I had knowingly posted something misleading. So please don't compound the offence by accusing me of reading things into your words that aren't meant.

As for the rest of it, I certainly don't have the time to waste on this kind of pointless argument. I was concerned only to correct the impression that DSS had in some way given "his word" that he wouldn't reveal (or even record for his own private use) the name of the suspect.

[Phil Carter]

....I certainly don't have the time to waste on... pointless argument.

Hello Chris,

Agreed.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

I believe that the family's impression of the man strengthen's the view that DSS is commentating on Anderson's story only, as he was either told it or knew it.

The difficulty is that it IS only an "impression", passed on verbally years after the lifetime of DSS, and no where recorded at the time. It is thus of interest but in my view insufficiently strong to over-turn the thrust and logical reading of a written text.

By saying that I in no intend to impugn the integrity or interpretation of those who received and have drawn on such verbal information. BUT one has to have some basic process to weigh and evaluate material, and mine in that contemporary written evidence takes precedence over later non-literary, oral "tradition".

I also believe that Swanson wrote - re Anderson - "We never knew an unpleasantness, though we differed sometimes, but very seldom and then over very trivial matters. "

I interpret that to indicate the true nature of the working relationship between the two men. I don't think either would have dismissed the Ripper case as "very trivial" and thus I do not believe that they disagreed on the suspect (Kosminski).

Phil H

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

I believe that the family's impression of the man strengthen's the view that DSS is commentating on Anderson's story only, as he was either told it or knew it.

The difficulty is that it IS only an "impression", passed on verbally years after the lifetime of DSS, and no where recorded at the time. It is thus of interest but in my view insufficiently strong to over-turn the thrust and logical reading of a written text.

I would argue that the impression given in the article in Ripperologist is presented in an effort to give a complete, or more complete picture of the man himself and the Marginalia. Presentation of personal letters and references to the man's character are primary source. Verbal or not, they are primary and are of great import.

[By saying that I in no intend to impugn the integrity or interpretation of those who received and have drawn on such verbal information. BUT one has to have some basic process to weigh and evaluate material, and mine in that contemporary written evidence takes precedence over later non-literary, oral "tradition".

Granted and accepted, Phil. That is certainly your right to assess as you see fit.

[I also believe that Swanson wrote - re Anderson - "We never knew an unpleasantness, though we differed sometimes, but very seldom and then over very trivial matters. "

[I interpret that to indicate the true nature of the working relationship between the two men. I don't think either would have dismissed the Ripper case as "very trivial" and thus I do not believe that they disagreed on the suspect (Kosminski).

I do not maintain they disagreed on "Kosminski"... I merely state that I believe that DSS was expanding on Anderson's story. That is what I believe he is doing. That is how I interpret the Marginalia.
To each his own, though!

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

Surely, had DSS not believed that Kosminski was a suspect, and Anderson had insisted he was, then they would have disagreed?

If DSS had believed Kosminski was a suspect, but not agreed with Anderson's conclusion that AK was "Jack" they would have disagreed.

If Anderson had withheld information from DSS until the publication of his autobiography, then surely Sir RA would have been guuilty of duplicity and misleading his high-ranking subordinate. It would have been tantamount to a deliberate insult. So would DSS really have written: "We never knew an unpleasantness, though we differed sometimes, but very seldom and then over very trivial matters." so explicitly?

I see no alternative, frankly, though I have considered the opposite position and posted on it positively, other than to conclude that DSS was noting something that the two men had worked on together, that the "us" who sent AK to Brighton included DSS, and that there was not a glimmer of daylight between the two men (by which I mean, to make it absolutely clear, that there was no difference of opinion).

Nothing makes me doubt DSS's consistency and integrity either. I see no discrepancy in behaviour in a man who is insistent that the Ripper was caught and put away, but will not give a name; and the same man writing in a private book, which never left his possession until his death some discreet details, including the name.

As I commented earlier, it is entirely possible that DSS was aware that the story was not widely known, that the name was not on the official file (he may well have been unaware of MM's memorandum) and thus have been content for it to emerge either to his family or the public well down-stream.

Phil H

[Chris]

I do not maintain they disagreed on "Kosminski"... I merely state that I believe that DSS was expanding on Anderson's story.

You are suggesting, aren't you, that Swanson believed a different suspect from Anderson's was Jack the Ripper?

It's one thing to suggest Swanson was only commenting on Anderson's story without endorsing it. But it's quite another to suggest that he could have written what he did - particularly about the suspect knowing he was identified, and about no more murders of the same kind having occurred subsequently - if he privately believed that Anderson was definitely wrong about 'Kosminski' being the murderer and that he, Swanson, was convinced he knew the true identity of the murderer. I think that is what people find hard to believe.

[Phil Carter]

You are suggesting, aren't you, that Swanson believed a different suspect from Anderson's was Jack the Ripper?

It's one thing to suggest Swanson was only commenting on Anderson's story without endorsing it. But it's quite another to suggest that he could have written what he did - particularly about the suspect knowing he was identified, and about no more murders of the same kind having occurred subsequently - if he privately believed that Anderson was definitely wrong about 'Kosminski' being the murderer and that he, Swanson, was convinced he knew the true identity of the murderer. I think that is what people find hard to believe.

Hello Chris,

It is very easy to see that it would be hard to believe Chris..yes, IF one doesn't take into account, which I am doing, that DSS specifically said to his family that he would not reveal the name of the man he believed was the killer.
Now I AM trying to see the point you make above and be fair about it.. YES, you are correct...but IF DSS privately believed or KNEW the name of the killer, he wouldn't necessarily mention it in response to Anderson's comments in his book. That book isn't the place for writing his own theory in..as is seen by other annotations where he comments upon the written word presented in the book.

I maintain he is just sticking to what he knew of Anderson's story and enhancing it by filling in gaps that Anderson did not write.

If the Swanson family were of the impression, a distinct impression, that DSS would be tight lipped of what he knew... then I believe them. Nobody knew DSS better than they did. That's why I believe he comments on Anderson's suspect, and names him.

We simply do not know if Swanson agreed with Anderson or disagreed with him. Thats where there is room for doubt..on both sides.

To remember something about Anderson. His reputation for this story of his isn't exactly backed up by all and sundry within his own police force. Reid, Abberline and others didn't believe a word of it. Macnagthen chose another "more likely" etc...

To remember the story that is in the annotations and Marginalia... Swanson got some of the details wrong. Now I'd think that if Swanson knew the same story as Anderson and knew it intimately, i.e. that this was the man HE knew as JTR..he'd get the marginalia and annotation details correct. That adds weight to misremembering another person's story, I believe.

But above all, I simply believe the Swanson family and how they remember DSS and what he has told them.


best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

It is very easy to see that it would be hard to believe Chris..yes, IF one doesn't take into account, which I am doing, that DSS specifically said to his family that he would not reveal the name of the man he believed was the killer.

I give up.

[Phil Carter]

I give up.

Hello Chris,

As is your choice.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

A previous poster has accused people who question the reliability of the Marginalia of being incredibly stupid.

I agree if the argument is that the Marginialia is a fake as that is terminally weak.

On the other hand, it is not 'stupid' to assess the values and limitations the reliability of a primary source, written perhaps 20 or 22 years after the events being described in a private notation accountable to nobody.

To accept any source at face value flies in the face of historical methodology.

That Swanson wrote to himself in a straight-forward manner is no doubt true.

The limitations of this source is that what is written there does not match other primary sources, and this is true of Anderson too.

Are we supposed to just ignore this issue?

Anderson and Swanson assert that the suspect died soon after being 'safely caged' and that this 'mystery' was all over by early 1889.

Both of these assertions can be shown, easily and quickly, to be wrong.

That Swanson claims that many were involved in the identification at of all places a police hospital -- which never leaked?! -- flies in the face of common sense

Historical judgements can only ever be provisional but some people's temperaments cannot cope with that as it is too contingent and too uncertain, and prefer everything to be straight-forward and unambiguous.

The Jack the Ripper mystery, at least the significant police figures disagreeing with each other about the real prime suspect, is not a good fit for such people.

[Phil H]

Both of these assertions can be shown, easily and quickly, to be wrong.

So can assertions by your pet, MM, Jonathan (Druitt's age and profession for starters). I just ask for balanced judgement.

Phil H