New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Phil Carter]

It is possible you know you separate out the private knowledge of Anderson and Swanson and the political and private actions of Scotland Yard.

As I have suggested in other posts, Anderson and Swanson appear to have satisfied themselves, at least, that Kosminski was the murderer. They could not bring a prosecution.

Hello Phil H,

It is also therefore possible, by the same token of consideration, that you separate out the private knowledge of Anderson and Swanson FROM each other.

In other words, what Swanson wrote was more details, poorly remembered I might add, what Anderson told him, or what DSS was told of..Anderson's story.

I am convinced of one thing.

If DSS KNEW the details of the Kosminski story off his own bat, he would never have written the mistakes in that he did. One remembers Jack the Ripper.. all details. Jack the Ripper is unforgetable. In every way.

best wishes

Phil

[mklhawley]

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?

Sincerely,

Mike

[PaulB]

Yes, and they can certainly be interpreted in the opposite manner as well. It can easily be interpreted as Swanson merely filling in some gaps as he remembered them, from Anderson's story..hence the mistakes he makes...

As said, it is not the way I interpret it and I was merely making the point that I did not want my words construed to give that impression.

As the officer who had had operational charge of the investigation it is likely that he would have been consulted and probably involved from an early stage, and some of the details he gives suggest first-hand knowledge.

Whether he accepted the story or not..if he is merely just repeating the known story bits as he heard them, he doesn't have to accept or not. He is just filling in the gaps of the story, without personal opinion. "Kosminski was the suspect" doesnt HAVE to be Swanson's personal view..it could just be DSS writing the name of Anderson's suspect.

As I observed, Swanson doesn't intimate any disagreement with what Anderson wrote or with Anderson's conclusion, and some details in the marginalia indicate agreement. Prima facie Swanson is giving tacit support to what Anderson wrote. It is possible that he utterly disagreed with what Anderson wrote, but lots of things are possible and we need supportive argument before accepting one of them over the most likely and probable. The probability is that as one time head of the investigation and arguably overall the best informed, Swanson would almost certainly have been involved. That conclusion is reasonable and rational. Against it you have - what?

No, I don't suggest that, as written above. No I don't therefore believe him to be gullible either. He doesn't have to swallow anything. He may just be adding details as he was told..without opinion.

Swanson may have been filling in a few details of what Anderson had told him, and it may be that we shouldn't infer agreement or disagreement. On the other hand, this was arguably one of the most important cases of his career and I don't think it is reasonable to suppose that he would have noted this information without any comment whatsoever if he didn't agree with it. Would you have done?

I have said this on another thread.. It has been said that Jim Swanson himself was convinced that DSS thought Kosminski to be the killer.(I believe that Chris posted this, apologies if not..)
If, as we are told, DSS didn't talk shop, refused to name the Ripper to his family, how in heavens name would Jim Swanson know that DSS meant Kosminski when DSS, according to Jim Swanson, didn't talk of the name of the Ripper to his family, used the "wild horses" statement to emphasise it, wasn't around when DSS wrote it and no other written communication exists to prove that Jim Swanson KNEW DSS was talking of the Ripper called Kosminski? (A letter to JS from DSS mentioning it for example)..

The answer is, respectfully, that Jim Swanson cannot possibly know what DSS meant because he never talked of the killer to him.

That's a slightly different argument. I was pointing out that if the family believed that DSS knew the identity of Jack the Ripper and if DSS had at any time stated that he would not divulge the name, that self-evidently means that DSS thought he knew who the Ripper was. What you are saying is that Jim may have known that DSS knew the Ripper's identity and assumed following the discovery of the marginalia that DSS had "Kosminski" in mind. Fair enough. The point is that Jim would have made a natural and reasonable assumption.

As to the last point... I believe the family DID honestly believe that DSS knew the name of the killer. I cannot see at this moment in time, any reason to believe that DSS himself was proposing that Kosminski was that man. I believe he just wrote Anderson's suspect in the book.

I believe that IF DSS knew the name of the true killer or killers, he kept it to himself.

As said, fair enough. However, I can't see a single reason why you are likely to be correct. Here we have Anderson stating that his suspect was Jack the Ripper, we have Swanson identifying "Kosminski" as Anderson's suspect, and we have Macnaghten saying that there were good reasons why "Kosminski" was suspected. And we have Swanson adding details to what Anderson had written, but not intimating in the slightest that he disagreed with him or thought the Ripper to be someone else entirely. Swanson need have done no more than write "No" against Anderson's tale. He didn't have to elucidate or give a name or write anything more.

It is something that without further evidence, cannot be cleared up with any certainty. Doubt remains, not least because of the quality of the original story teller, and his evidences, which in the book are lacking exactly that... evidence...Anderson.. who is known to clearly embellished things in that very same book. He is also known to promote "moral guilt"... without a trial. He is also full of an arrogance that is very contentious.

Well, you're assuming that Anderson was the original story teller. As Phil H has pointed out, Swanson could be the original storyteller and Anderson have been reporting what he was told. Or that both were present, or that neither were. Maybe they are both citing someone else. And no matter how Anderson papered over the cracks in his career or played up the part he played in events, there's a big difference between that and claiming the the identity of Jack the Ripper was known when everyone - policemen, journalists, politicians - knew it wasn't.

[AdamNeilWood]

I was pointing out that if the family believed that DSS knew the identity of Jack the Ripper and if DSS had at any time stated that he would not divulge the name, that self-evidently means that DSS thought he knew who the Ripper was.

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

[Phil H]

If the witness was Lewande, and the case related to was Eddowes, there would have been no liaison in terms of co-operation with Met or Swanson.

Monty, Swanson was certainly aware of CITY CID is relation to Kosminski, so I'd put money on some liaison having taken place.

Phil C

I don't know why you are so fanatically attached to the (to me absurd) notion that DSS simply repeated Anderson's views having been totally ignorant of them before. The nature of the working relationship between the two men, and DSS's cordial words in relation to Anderson somewhat preclude that.

Had Anderson not habitually annotated his books, I migth have been more prepared to accept that view, but as it was he ddi write in information of which he was aware that explained the printed text. It is clear that that was what happened in the case of the "Ripper-related" marginalia.

If DSS KNEW the details of the Kosminski story off his own bat, he would never have written the mistakes in that he did.

If he didn't KNOW they were mistakes he might - i.e. the death date of Kosminski.

One remembers Jack the Ripper.. all details. Jack the Ripper is unforgetable. In every way.

To make that remark would require mediumistic or psychic abilities. It is entirely possible that while many in SY recognised that there were political and public interests in the case, it might have been perceived as a distraction or annoyance - especially at senior level. From experience, I can say that even today, a publicly prominent case can occupy much time, require much work and be obviously "important" without one accepting that the public is "right" to be obsessed by the issue, the the "facts" the media are promoting are correct or that is is actually the most memorable case one has dealt with. It is entirely possible that that was DSS's view.

That is not to say that as the co-ordinator he would not have been an expert in the detail, understood the way the case played out, and been aware of the conclusions reached. Because we obsess about JtR does not mean they did.

If Kosminski was a big name prior to March 1889, would Abberline have known?

Not in my view, Mike, or necessarily. I have suggested elsewhere that IF Sir RA and DSS were acting outside their rules with a separate investigation, perhaps using the city CID, the Abberline might have been out of the loop on the details. Organisations often do that in my experience, for morale or other reasons (if you ask someone to act instead of your own in-house people it can cause bad feeling, so - at least in less enlightened times - you didn't tell them) - deniability, separation of information etc. It is quite possible that Abberline had never heard of Tumblety, if he was an SB case.

Phil H

[c.d.]

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.

[Phil H]

Not answering for Paul, c.d.

Bbut if Swanson was simply ELABORATING what his old chief had said (i.e. adding in details he knew) one would expect the tone to be "completely neutral" would we not? Filling in the detail, without comment, surely and logically ENDORSES the original.

Secondly, as he was evidently writing for his own personal satisfaction (there is no evidence that anyone saw the marginalia in his lifetime or were aware of its existence) he had no need to indicate whether Anderson's belief was correct or incorrect. Why should he. providing the detail and the name would be enough to say he agreed.

I have come to the view, after considerable thought, that in the context of the marginalia, DSS (HAD HE DISAGREED) would have said so in no uncertain terms. But in a separate quote, if corroboration is required, he said more of less specifically that he and Anderson had NO major disagreements.

phil H

[c.d.]

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.

[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?

[c.d.]

Hello Mac,

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

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,

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.

[c.d.]

Sorry, I have to go now.

c.d.

[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

[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?
__________________