New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Phil,

True, I have used this point in argument. It must be said that the evidence presented in the article has been used by others "on the other side of the fence" as well.

I hope that the facts given in the article will be used as evidence.

But the simple fact is, I'm genuinely sorry to say, that this evidence does not enhance Kosminski as a suspect one bit.

As I've said before, the article is a history of the Marginalia, not Kosminski or his supposed guilt.

What I would like to say thank you for, is the kind openess from your good self and the Swanson family themselves in regard to subsequent conversations with the Swanson family since the article. This sort of openess is refreshing. My personal thanks.

The Swanson family have been incredibly helpful, not just to me but also other researchers such as Chris and Rob. Their willingness to 'lay the facts bare' is to be applauded.

So to surmise..

DSS told his son, DNS, that the killer was known. He also told his son that he didn't pass on work related knowledge.

We don't know that he told DNS that; perhaps it was simply a case of DSS never talking about his work, and after learning that the identity of the Ripper was known, the family left it at that.

This was passed on to the grandchilren of DSS, Mary Berkin and Jim Swanson. The "wild horses" comment came not from DSS, nor, as I have understood it, DNS, his son. It is an impression recieved by Jim Swanson. (forgive me if I am interpreting this wrongly), and used in the NOTW article in 1981 whilst in negotiation with The NOTW.

The "wild horses" comment is a quote attributed to Jim Swanson in a News of the World article, presumably made in an interview with their Chief Crime Reporter Charles Sandell. While Jim knew that DSS didn't reveal the name, I suspect the "wild horses" description was his own embellishment as it's a better soundbite than "my grandfather didn't tell anyone." He might even have had those words put in his mouth by Sandell.

Best wishes
Adam

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

Yes you're correct in that what Jim and Mary have said about DSS is hearsay - but this is what you've been using as the basis for your argument, specifically the 'wild horses' quote given to Charles Sandell of the News of the World in 1981!

From what Mary and Nevill have told me since publication of my article, the knowledge within the family that the identity of the Ripper was known seems to have come from DSS's eldest son Donald Nevill, the father of Jim and Mary, who was interested in his father's career but in a general sense, and not it seems enough to press him on the identity of the Ripper.

Thus the family were aware that Donald Sutherland Swanson knew the identity of the killer, but hadn't been told the name. Whether Donald Nevill Swanson ever asked we'll never know, but we can assume not given that Jim and Mary state their grandfather wouldn't have let it slip. We can only wonder whether he'd have been told if he had.

As you say, perhaps a letter or document will someday turn up confirming this.

Best wishes
Adam

Hello Adam,

Thank you for the reply. Most appreciated.

True, I have used this point in argument. It must be said that the evidence presented in the article has been used by others "on the other side of the fence" as well.

But the simple fact is, I'm genuinely sorry to say, that this evidence does not enhance Kosminski as a suspect one bit.

What I would like to say thank you for, is the kind openess from your good self and the Swanson family themselves in regard to subsequent conversations with the Swanson family since the article. This sort of openess is refreshing. My personal thanks.

So to surmise..

DSS told his son, DNS, that the killer was known. He also told his son that he didn't pass on work related knowledge.This was passed on to the grandchilren of DSS, Mary Berkin and Jim Swanson. The "wild horses" comment came not from DSS, nor, as I have understood it, DNS, his son. It is an impression recieved by Jim Swanson. (forgive me if I am interpreting this wrongly), and used in the NOTW article in 1981 whilst in negotiation with The NOTW.

I too hope that more material surfaces, that can further our understanding of the subject.

On another subject entirely, I draw your attention to the James Monro thread with questions regarding the Monro memoirs.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Not indicating agreement with Anderson, but indicating direct experience of the event. There is nothing overt, but subtle comments such as the suspect being sent 'by us' (which could mean the police in general or specific individuals of whom one was Swanson), the remark that the suspect knew he'd been identified, the observation that the suspect was taken with his hands tied behind his back (not in handcuffs or any other formal restraint). It can all be interpreted differently.

Hello Paul,

The highlighted line is excellent, imho. Interpretation is a key point. We can discuss the merits and strengths of interpretation ad nauseum.

Speaking personally, and honestly, and I really mean this..if somebody comes along with something that nails any name..Kosminski or otherwise, to being a killer suspected of The Whitechapel Murderer, or one of them, I'd be delighted. Totally delighted.
I don't particularly care for the name of the killer, or killers. But that's just me. Others do though. I'd just love to see a definitive breakthrough. It would make a wonderful change in the genre.

I fear however, that it will never happen, for one reason or another.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Phil,

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Let's take a look at this statement by way of example...Barack Obama is president of the United States. Is there anything in that statement that tells you how I feel about President Obama? Do I like him? Do I hate him? Do I intend to vote for him?

c.d.

Hello c.d.,
With respect, that's a different argument. A statement of fact such as 'Barack Obama is president of the United States' doesn't tell me anything about anything, although I might expand on what you had written a given the dates of when he too office, what he'd done before doing so, and so on. However, I wouldn't do that if you had written 'Barack Obama is president of Mexico'. I'd have written 'no, he wasn't'. That's what the difference is with Swanson. Anderson is effectively saying 'we knew who Jack the Ripper was' and Swanson does not indicate any disagreement with that statement.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

What details in the marginalia do you feel indicate agreement with Anderson? To me, the marginalia seems to be a completely neutral statement. He is simply indicating Anderson's belief, not whether that belief is correct or incorrect.

c.d.

Not indicating agreement with Anderson, but indicating direct experience of the event. There is nothing overt, but subtle comments such as the suspect being sent 'by us' (which could mean the police in general or specific individuals of whom one was Swanson), the remark that the suspect knew he'd been identified, the observation that the suspect was taken with his hands tied behind his back (not in handcuffs or any other formal restraint). It can all be interpreted differently.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

It's worth remembering here that Jim Swanson's comments in the unused News of the World article aren't the only source that the family were aware that DSS knew the name of the suspect; Mary Berkin, Jim's sister, confirmed this as published in my article. She recalled that after Alice Swanson's funeral...

"[When we were shown the Marginalia it] was the first time that any of us had seen the name of the suspect, written very faintly in pencil! [Jim] must have realised the significance… I don’t think DSS would have broken the Police Code to impart it to anyone, but we, in the family, had all been assured that the culprit was known."

Best wishes
Adam

Thanks Adam.

[Phil H]

Harry
To put it in modern terms, I think it is like an informal mixture of personal data protection and official secrets acts.

Many professions have "codes" as you calls them - also "ethos" or "mores" of that profession. You keep trade secrets, don't talk about cases or people, or give out information that might come your way in the course of your duties.

Somewhat different, but similar - a catholic priest is bound to keep secret things told him in a confession (as i understand it); freemasons take an oath to keep things secret. (And before any one deliberately misinterprets me - I am NOT suggesting that the police in 1888 were priests or freemasons, they are just examples.) Another might be journalists protecting their sources, some have gone to prison in protecting that principle.

It may be just a "British" thing, but I know that during my career, and more so when I joined in the 1970s, the civil service had clear, unwritten "traditions" or codes of conduct that we followed, including impartiality, for instance. Done forget that britain still does not have a WRITTEN constitution (thank heavens) and thus many things are based on precedent and tradition. That allows flexibility but is also pretty clear - the codes of behaviour might be likened to that.

It is not about being "party to agreements to keep silent" - it is general accepted standard of behaviour by members of the professions - ethics.

So, Anderson is suggesting that memebers of the met Police did not discuss the names of suspects, or the detail of cases with people outside, ever. And one can see why that might be. A policeman might come into possession, in doing his duty, with priveleged information about individuals. It might or might not be true, but if made public could be demaging.

What was so special about Kosminski,that not even wild horses would drag the name forth.

There was nothing "special" about Kosminski, in this context, so far as i know. Nor needed to be.

If Swanson was determined that the name should never be divulged all he had to do was destroy the book or remove that part which contained the name Kosminski.

If you are following the various Kosminski discussions, I have already covered this. In my view DSS is proven to make similar marginalia in his books for his own amusement. The Anderson-book marginalia is slightly longer than others. This was for his own personal amusement to be seen by no one else. BUT, like diaryists through history, I have suggested that DSS might (at the back of his mind) have realised that they might become public one day. The privacy of his jottings is indicated by how long it took the family to find them.

In the whole history of the Whitechapel killings,I cannot find a similar instance of conduct,that equals this,to me,strange behaviour on behalf of senior police officers.

I agree that long after the event, Little child talked in a letter of Tumblety. But outside the official files (which were confidential and internal and thus different) I think MM was taciturn about names, was he not? Where do you perceive personal information as having been given out at the time?

Concentrate on the man Kosminski,what he was,and what he had done,and then explain why he should receive such special treatment.

No need to do so, because he didn't receive special treatment in terms of the "code" to which you refer.

It is quite difficult to set out or explain clearly something so delicate as a code of honour. But I hope I have done enough.

Phil H

[harry]

This code that is frequently mentioned.What is it? I've been party to agreements to keep silent,on many ocassions,but there were always good reasons to do so,never because of some code..What was so special about Kosminski,that not even wild horses would drag the name forth.If Swanson was determined that the name should never be divulged all he had to do was destroy the book or remove that part which contained the name Kosminski.In the whole history of the Whitechapel killings,I cannot find a similar instance of conduct,that equals this,to me,strange behaviour on behalf of senior police officers.Concentrate on the man Kosminski,what he was,and what he had done,and then explain why he should receive such special treatment.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . . . . . .

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Hunter -
"Abberline was taken off of the case in March 1888. The investigation continued long after that."

Don't you mean March 1889? His next big case was the Cleveland Street Scandal.
If Kosminski was a big name prior to March 1889, would Abberline have known?

Yes, 1889. Typo on a new smartphone.

Abberline may have been aware of Kozminski to some degree before he was taken off the case, but he could have been one of many while the murders were still fresh (maybe from initial house to house inquiries) and the information that brought about a closer look at Kozminski might have been accrued much later on. Suspects in many investigations sometimes evolve in relevance over time as new information is processed. I would imagine that many people were investigated in the months and years after 1888.

Bottom line is that apparently someone named "Kosminski" was remembered by two top cops and inferred by another for some substantial reason. Doesn't solve anything, of course... and barring some new revelation, I doubt it ever will.

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello Phil,

Yes you're correct in that what Jim and Mary have said about DSS is hearsay - but this is what you've been using as the basis for your argument, specifically the 'wild horses' quote given to Charles Sandell of the News of the World in 1981!

From what Mary and Nevill have told me since publication of my article, the knowledge within the family that the identity of the Ripper was known seems to have come from DSS's eldest son Donald Nevill, the father of Jim and Mary, who was interested in his father's career but in a general sense, and not it seems enough to press him on the identity of the Ripper.

Thus the family were aware that Donald Sutherland Swanson knew the identity of the killer, but hadn't been told the name. Whether Donald Nevill Swanson ever asked we'll never know, but we can assume not given that Jim and Mary state their grandfather wouldn't have let it slip. We can only wonder whether he'd have been told if he had.

As you say, perhaps a letter or document will someday turn up confirming this.

Best wishes
Adam

[Scott Nelson]

Up to 150, Jenni. But there were only about 15 men of about the right age, surnamed "Kos(z)minski(y).

[Jenni Shelden]

Correct me if Im wrong but - how many people using the name Kosminski were in the East End at the time?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

What do you mean, Mary believed nobody?

For the record, Jim Swanson was 12 years old when Donald Swanson died in 1924, and Mary Swanson (Berkin) was not yet born.

I don't believe Jim would have spoken with his grandfather about the identity of Jack the Ripper, and Mary certainly didn't.

Adam

Hello Adam,

My apologies.. I misread the meaning..and misunderstood the lady's age.

Let me put it this way...

Mary Berkin said "I don’t think DSS would have broken the Police Code to impart it to anyone,"

1) She means, I gather, that NOBODY would ever be the recipient of the name. Thats what I mean by NOBODY.

2)Please explain to me how in heavens name a person can make a judgement either way about a person they has never met, and never heard discuss that persons thoughts on the police code? This is pure surmise based on a third person's impression..it cannot be anything else. It's heresay.

3) Jim Swanson, aged 12, isn't likely to have been told much about JTR or any casework of DSS by the man himself. You believe that as well as most do...ok...That leaves the same premises for this point as point 2...namely a third party family member giving their impression(s). Heresay again.

With every respect to all members of the Swanson family, Jim and Mary's thoughts, either way, are supposition at best. Unless material turns up at a later date with a direct reference to JTR in a written note, letter etc to a family member, we are left with the impression of two family members that have without a doubt, the very best intentions as to the family member they are talking of, his reputation and their faith in him as a person they have been told of what he knew or didn't know.

I am not criticising.. but honestly, that is what we have generously been given..but I am sorry.. this really does not strengthen anything to do with the claim that the suspect Kosminski was a killer or not.

If I am a grandchild of a woman who told me in 1970 when I was 12 years old that she believedshe knew the name of the killer, even with the most romantic view in the world, I cannot then say that when I find a book written by a work colleague of my Gran, it contains writing of my Gran's in the margins that refer to the colleagues story, and the killer is named...whether I believe that my gran would never break her word or not matters not one squat... neither does it matter if I believe her to be convinced that the name she knew was the killer's. And that's IF I had talked to her and got a first hand impression! In the case of DSS, it didnt apparently happen.

In this case, we are now told that it is doubtful if Jim Swanson talked to DSS about the case. We are told he didnt talk shop anyway. We are told that ONE impression comes from a person who never met him and wasnt even born yet.. and finally..if the family believed he wouldn't open his mouth about revealing the name to anyone, who were the other members who believed this?

The point I am trying to give is simple.

If DSS said he wouldnt talk shop, i.e. the Ripper Case included, said by the family, please note.. WHICH family member was told enough for them to reveal to other family members, notably Mary Berkin and Jim, that they were convinced he knew the name of the Ripper?..because if DSS DID give the impression that he didnt talk shop.. he must have said enough to have given such a convincing impression to said family member, that got passed on to Mary and Jim..

I write this with all respect to the family. This just isn't a thing of material substance that rubber stamps Kosminski. It's heresay, imho.

best wishes

Phil

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello Phil,

What do you mean, Mary believed nobody?

For the record, Jim Swanson was 12 years old when Donald Swanson died in 1924, and Mary Swanson (Berkin) was not yet born.

I don't believe Jim would have spoken with his grandfather about the identity of Jack the Ripper, and Mary certainly didn't.

Adam