New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

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

The fact is that most of history is interpretation, Phil. We know that things happened, in most cases we know the broad details of how they happened, but very often when we get into the detail we have to piece what happened together from a variety of disparate sources, each source carefully considered, each statement weighed and balanced, everything pieced together like a jig-saw.

The Swanson marginalia is no different

We have to ask questions of the marginalia, such as: is it likely that Swanson would have been a witness to or otherwise closely associated with what he is describing. The answer to that has to be 'yes'. Swanson had had overall charge of the investigation, he had remained involved in the investigation throughout, he was probably the best informed senior investigating officer. It's likely, therefore, that he would have been involved in one way or another. And, of course, we'd then ask if there is anything in what he wrote which suggests that he was an eye-witness, and I have indicated some details which suggests that he was (or, at the very least, had a detailed knowledge of it). These and a whole bunch of other things indicate that Swanson was not just repeating a story told to him. And even if we allow the possibility that he was repeating a story told to him, we would have to assume, pending evidence to the contrary, that as an informed and senior officer he would not have accepted the story - if he did accept the story - without some pretty persuasive argument/evidence, especially as it demanded a brake from normal police practice. And it is pretty certain that he did accept it because he does not in any sense indicate that he didn't.

So, pieces of evidence can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways and we can speculate about what someone might have done (which, given that we don't know much about what these people thought and how they hbehaved, and what their morals and values were, is pretty much a waste of time), but what we aim to achieve is the most sensible and balanced interpretation given the facts at our disposal.

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

I don't think it is likely that anything will come along that 'nails any name' either. We hope it will, but until it does we have to work with what we've got, and the Swanson marginalia is part of it. Put in simple terms, if anyone was likely to have been party to the identification then it was Swanson. If you think otherwise, you have to have evidence of some sort, be it a medical record to show that he was ill during the relevant period, or something to show he was on holiday, or something like that. And you have to demonstrate that contrary to all the good and sensible reasons that suggest that Swanson accepted the story, Swanson didn't accept it. And you have to demonstrate that if Swanson did accept it, that he was gullible and didn't have or ask for or otherwise seek support for what he was tole. And...

Sometimes you're not going to have the definitive answer, but just have to accept the circumstantial evidence, like when you find fish in the milk.

[harry]

Phil H,
It may be as you say,that certain codes,in certain professions,dictate the behaviour of it's members,not disagreeing.However the police, and law enforcement agencies in general,work in the main under laws enacted by parliament,and rules and interpretations made by judges.The powers of officers are that part of law and rules,which details how an officer should apply those laws and rules.There are, in addition,departmental directives,that sometimes seem to conflict with law.An instance is a directive that was made in the department I was a member of.It was to the effect that no action be taken against certain persons in the possession of pornography,when that possession was unlawful.The whitechapel murders were capital crimes.What I refuse to accept is that any officer,or group of officeres,acting singly or in conjunction with others,would fail to apply the law,in a situation that clearly showed a person to be guilty of the crimes.Yet this is what we are expected to believe,and some seem to believe that there was some sort of code of behaviour which allowed them to do so.

[Phil Carter]

The Whitechapel murders were capital crimes. What I refuse to accept is that any officer,or group of officeres,acting singly or in conjunction with others,would fail to apply the law,in a situation that clearly showed a person to be guilty of the crimes.Yet this is what we are expected to believe,and some seem to believe that there was some sort of code of behaviour which allowed them to do so.

Hello Harry,

This is a very very good posting. I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

What I refuse to accept is that any officer,or group of officeres,acting singly or in conjunction with others,would fail to apply the law,in a situation that clearly showed a person to be guilty of the crimes.Yet this is what we are expected to believe,and some seem to believe that there was some sort of code of behaviour which allowed them to do so.

Who ever suggested that this happened?

RH

[Phil H]

What I refuse to accept is that any officer,or group of officeres,acting singly or in conjunction with others,would fail to apply the law,in a situation that clearly showed a person to be guilty of the crimes.

When did they not?

Yet this is what we are expected to believe,and some seem to believe that there was some sort of code of behaviour which allowed them to do so.

The code of behaviour I, and Anderson, referred to, had to do with not telling tales out of school. Full stop.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

This is an interesting article that I have only just had time to read and digest properly.

I wonder what happened to the official documents that Swanson – certainly unofficially – kept?
Presuming if course they were in fact official documents. These being the victim list (in copperplate handwriting and embossed with the oval Metropolitan Police seal) and the memorandum from Anderson appointing Swanson as the Scotland Yard clearing house for all Ripper related correspondence.
Has anyone apart from the journalists at the News of the World and the Telegraph in the 1980s seen these documents?

I find Jim Swanson’s unpublished letter to the Telegraph enthusiastically promoting Kosminski unequivocally as the culprit interesting.

I also find it interesting that an unrelated letter from Anderson to Swanson (that actually predated the publication of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’) was pasted inside the book.

Then we find that other books with similar annotations later turn up to corroborate the annotations in ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’.

There is a Forensic Science Service report dated 2006 that is not unequivocal in its authentication of the marginalia.
It compares the pencil written marginalia to ink handwriting samples (which do not seem to have been tested for age) that were provided from the same source as the annotated copy of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ – the Swanson family.

I find it interesting that Jim Swanson had annotated a copy of Paul Begg’s ‘Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts’.

The Swanson’s were paid £750 (down from £1,000) in 1981 by the News of the World for their abortive (Yorkshire Ripper coinciding) story. Did the Telegraph pay for the 1988 (centenary) story?

The depositing of the annotated ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ at the Scotland Yard Black Museum and its featuring in the documentary ‘Jack the Ripper: the Definitive Story’ obviously have greatly added to the provenance of this document.

I am also interested to see that a new letter from Donald Swanson recently turned up. It was written in both normal pencil and with a purple pencil - just like the marginalia! The text included apologies for both being written in pencil (rather than with a pen, which might be expected in a letter) and the shaky handwriting. It will be noted that the above mentioned Forensic Science Service report speculated that differences in the marginalia writing with other samples might be accounted for by shaky handwriting occasioned by old age. This might be termed useful corroboration for the marginalia’s authenticity.

This year the newly discovered letter (and a couple of other newly discovered letters) were compared by the same person who conducted the 2006 Forensic Science Service report and he found that the handwriting in the newly discovered letters more closely matched that found in the marginalia.

How has the sale of the Swanson memorabilia gone – which includes the annotated copy of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ (retrieved from the Scotland Yard Museum)?
Apparently the Swanson family felt the items would be better held in the hands of a private enthusiast than in a seldom visited Scotland Yard Museum.
I see that the much attacked Patricia Cornwell was considering buying the items... and loaning them back to the Scotland Yard Museum.

I am afraid that I am reminded of Hugh Trevor Roper. I am tempted to wonder if another lot will appear from somewhere, including a pencil written note on a page torn from an authentic Victorian notebook, stamped with a Metropolitan Police seal, containing extra details on Kosminski!

Obviously these thoughts will not be popular, but in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked. It is too easy to get too close to a subject and lose one’s objectivity.

[Phil H]

Lechmere - why must you continue to defame an honourable man - Swanson?

The marginalia have, so far as I can see, been declared authentic by any reputable historical standard. Yet you continue to promote discord and doubt for your own questionable ends.

Phil H