New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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)

[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

[Scott Nelson]

a) yes
b) yes
c) yes and no

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Jenni Shelden]

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

[Scott Nelson]

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

[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

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . . . . . .

Regards,

Simon