New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Phil Carter]

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...

[I]"[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… [B]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

Hello Adam,

The highlighted is my point.

Nobody.

Mary Berkin believed NOBODY. And as she and Jim Swanson are the only family members known to have talked with DSS.. it's all we have to go on.


best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

It's a good question.. but an even better one in my opinion is this little addition..

Did either know that the FIRST name was specifically Aaron?

That makes a heck of a difference to the situation, I believe.

Because I don't think the answers would be the same...because of what we know of the time frame of Aaron Kosminski's departure into the madhouse, or the time of his death., and the wrong details the pair gave us.

Yup, it makes a heck of a difference, imho.

best wishes

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

a) yes
b) yes
c) yes and no

[robhouse]

One question remains for me - do others think that Anderson and Swanson:

a) knew Kosminski's first name but don't mention it;

b) knew of Kosminski, but never knew his first name (MM also refers only to "Kosminski");

c) used the word "Kosminski" in some other way - to refer to another suspect; as a code; or in an alternative way?

a) yes
b) no
c) no

RH

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby, Phil,

I have gone back and re-read the marginalia several times. I now have to say that you are probably correct. I don't think that while we can conclude with absolute certainty that Swanson held the same view as Anderson, it seems quite likely that he did.

How about that. If you keep an open mind on here, you can sometimes learn something. This was a good lesson for me.

c.d.

Well, I'll be-someone with an open mind. Good for you!
I'll drink to that!

Besides its Friday!

Cheers! (as I drink to that)

[c.d.]

A good attitude to have, c.d., but my advice is keep the mind open and don't settle on a specific suspect. Let a matrix of ideas emerge in your thought, those ideas then begin to cross-fertilise.

There's nothing wrong with questioning everything.

Phil H

Yep, there is a lot of fertilizing on these boards.

c.d.

[Phil H]

A good attitude to have, c.d., but my advice is keep the mind open and don't settle on a specific suspect. Let a matrix of ideas emerge in your thought, those ideas then begin to cross-fertilise.

There's nothing wrong with questioning everything.

Edited to add:

One question remains for me - do others think that Anderson and Swanson:

a) knew Kosminski's first name but don't mention it;

b) knew of Kosminski, but never knew his first name (MM also refers only to "Kosminski");

c) used the word "Kosminski" in some other way - to refer to another suspect; as a code; or in an alternative way?

I favour (a) but believe (b) is tenable. (B) might apply for instance, if Sir RA and DSS did not attend the ID, never met the suepct and relied on information relayed to them.

What do others think.

Phil H

[c.d.]

Hello Abby, Phil,

I have gone back and re-read the marginalia several times. I now have to say that you are probably correct. I don't think that while we can conclude with absolute certainty that Swanson held the same view as Anderson, it seems quite likely that he did.

How about that. If you keep an open mind on here, you can sometimes learn something. This was a good lesson for me.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi CD

from an earlier post of mine:

Whereas Swanson does not come right out and say it, I think there is enough there in the marginalia that we can infer that if he did not totally agree with Anderson that kosminski was the killer, than at least he thinks he is a very, very strong suspect. These are not the remarks of someone just objectively and robotically repeating and adding information:

"...and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged..."

"...after this identification which suspect knew..."

"...and he knew he was identified."

"...no other murder of this kind took place in London."


Whether consciously or subconsciously it seems Swanson is tipping his hand here.
And with the family saying that Swanson knew who the killer was pretty much confirms it, for me anyway.



I would also add in reference to the "he knew he was identified" statement-how could Swanson make that statement if he himself did not beleive it?
__________________

[Phil H]

c.d.

Swanson wrote of Anderson: "We never knew an unpleasantness, though we differed sometimes, but very seldom and then over very trivial matters."

Even though I don't believe that the Ripper case was as central to police belied in the 1890s as some might believe, I certainly don't think that Swanson would have dismissed it as "trivial". So, I think, we can conclude that Swanson and Anderson ddi not disagree over Kosminski - and that this is borne out by the marginalia.

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?

The problem with your analogy is that i know nothing of your association with him, whether there is a personal relationship or whether it relates to your work and other things personal to you, or is made in the context of something Obama has written or said. Nor do i know what else you might have said about the Ppresident.

With Swanson, he is annotating (in a way he did in other books) words written by his old chief; he says nothing negative or to denigrate what Anderson wrote - he provides DETAILS, not just a bland comment. The two men had worked together, had a personal relationship (if not friendship) and Swanson made the positive and clear comment I give above, quite separately.

So I am afraid I dismiss your view with some confidence in my preferred interpretation.

Phil H

[c.d.]

Sorry, I have to go now.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Mac,

Well maybe I am missing something here because if we simply limit ourselves to the marginalia all that Swanson is saying is that as far as he is aware Anderson believed that Kosminski was the Ripper. That is a completely neutral statement. In no way can we say that Swanson concurred with that belief or he if he thought Anderson was out of his freakin' mind. To reach any conclusion, other than what is actually stated requires a leap of faith.

c.d.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac,

Are you talking about the marginalia by itself or other statements made by Swanson?

c.d.

Hello CD,

Well for one, Swanson gives us a name.

Usually, in any walk of life, the person who gives you more details is judged to be the more knowledgable person on the subject.

Not so in this case for some reason.

[c.d.]

Hello Mac,

Are you talking about the marginalia by itself or other statements made by Swanson?

c.d.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Paul,

He is simply indicating Anderson's belief, not whether that belief is correct or incorrect.

c.d.

Problem with this being......

Swanson elaborates. Now, when someone fills in the blanks it's usually because that person knows more about the event.

It is Swanson who gives you the fuller picture in terms of the details of the ID - would it not be the case that the person who gives you the fuller picture does so because he is best placed, i.e. has first hand knowledge?

I'm not saying that this is proof of anything, but, if anything, Swanson elaborating on Anderson's book suggests he was closest to it - as opposed to merely repeating Anderson's story.

Logically, in the event that Anderson was more knowledgable of the event - then why does Anderson give you the bones and Swanson give you the meat?