New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin,

Herewith a fairly plausible scenario.

Sir MM wrote his piece, and kept it in his drawer at work. He showed and shared it's contents with various people. It was never officially received into the files, therefore never stamped. It was not adressed to anybody either. Technically, it is an unofficial document, written by an official. That official may simply have shared it's contents with certain others. At some time or another, he himself slipped the paper into the files, before his retirement.

Therefore it can be unofficial and read by many, never to see the light of day until 1965, when discovered by Robin Odell.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

A well-argued and good-natured response to a somewhat provocative post. Respect!

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

That's not my point. You're saying the family 'merely' thought he was insane; I'm saying MM reports the family as leveling a far more serious charge.

Hello Robert,

Yes, and many other people reported members of their family to the police in the thought or belief that they were Jack the Ripper. It wasn't unusual.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

A well-argued and good-natured response to a somewhat provocative post. Respect!

Hello Colin,

Thank you. It just seems quite plausible and fairly logical to me.
As MM was under Anderson, there's a fairly good chance his boss saw it.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Sir MM wrote his piece, and kept it in his drawer at work. He showed and shared it's contents with various people. It was never officially received into the files, therefore never stamped.

Subject to correction from anyone who understands these things better than I do, the 'stamped received' thing would apply to documents that had been sent to the Metropolitan Police by someone else - a member of the public or another official body. Documents produced by police officers wouldn't be 'stamped received' - because they hadn't been received (i.e. received from outside the force).

[Phil Carter]

Subject to correction from anyone who understands these things better than I do, the 'stamped received' thing would apply to documents that had been sent to the Metropolitan Police by someone else - a member of the public or another official body. Documents produced by police officers wouldn't be 'stamped received' - because they hadn't been received (i.e. received from outside the force).

Hello Chris,

Subject to the above, and the following..I believe that all documents in the files had a file number, and were initialled. They were also addressed to a recipient and or a "seen" by another official. Internal post and documentation was also stamped and or catalogued, no?

I believe I am correct in saying that there is no official stamp of any sort on this document? Please correct me if I am in the wrong.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

And all I’m trying to say, Paul, is that we ought to be looking at the bigger picture when attempting to ascertain the level of hard evidence the police had against Kosminski. If Anderson alone was convinced by it, it could hardly have been compelling.

In a sense, doesn't Anderson himself admit that? "It was a case of moral versus legal proof." If it would have been sufficient to convince "twelve good men and true" it would have been legal proof. The "moral proof" business must in effect be an acknowledgment that not everyone would be convinced by the evidence.

[Chris]

Internal post and documentation was also stamped and or catalogued, no?

Well, that's the question.

At any rate I'm fairly sure internal police documents wouldn't have been 'stamped received'.

And if the Macnaghten Memorandum isn't stamped, then that in itself is a demonstration that internal documents weren't always stamped, isn't it? I don't know that they ever were. Are there any examples?

As for 'catalogued', I don't know what that refers to. We don't have a catalogue of all the documents that referred to the case, do we?

[Nemo]

I can't really see the problem in identifying the evidence Anderson considered to be sufficient and what was available to him

Despite "not telling tales", in his autobiography and subsequent letters to the press he is quite open in regard to why he thought the Polish Jew was the Ripper

He states quite clearly that it was deduced that the Ripper crimes were the work of a madman, living in the local area, confirmed by the location of Kosminski, who was positively identified by an eye witness, and whose incarceration marked the end of the Whitechapel murders

Anderson didn't need any more moral proof than that and doesn't hint at any further hard evidence

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Yes, and many other people reported members of their family to the police in the thought or belief that they were Jack the Ripper. It wasn't unusual.

Next you'll say it was as common as saying "Good Morning!"....

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

He states quite clearly that it was deduced that the Ripper crimes were the work of a madman, living in the local area, confirmed by the location of Kosminski, who was positively identified by an eye witness, and whose incarceration marked the end of the Whitechapel murders

Anderson didn't need any more moral proof than that and doesn't hint at any further hard evidence

There is a missing point to your logical chain.

And that's how Kosminsky came to the attention of the authorities.

Not everyone in the East End was paraded in front of Lawende.

That's the missing piece of "evidence" that we can only guess at.

[Lechmere]

I am interested in the note mentioned in this article and reproduced in part in ‘Jack the Ripper – Scotland Yard Investigates’ on page 85 (of my copy anyway).

This is the note from Warren and is the primary source for Swanson being placed ‘in charge‘ of the investigation into the Whitechapel murders.
I would suggest that this letter makes Swanson and his office the clearing house for documents and information relating to the case that came into Scotland Yard from a variety of locations and sources. This is somewhat different from suggesting that Swanson was ‘in charge’ of anything other than the documents themselves which he would collate and prepare reports for his superiors.

The Warren note was apparently shown to the News of the World in 1981 – according to another document that strangely and inexplicably turned up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum in 2011.

The original Warrren note was in the possession of the Swanson family and presumably had been ‘kept’ by Swanson after he left the police. However this note has disappeared.

I am wondering...
Who has actually seen this document?
How closely did they see it?
Did they photograph all of it (as I said only one page is reproduced in ‘Jack the Ripper – Scotland Yard Investigates’)?
Does anyone have any idea what happened to it or when it disappeared?
In other words when was the last time anyone saw it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

I've just had a brief trawl through my collection of SY and HO reports and internal correspondence.

Most bear a date stamp and/or a file reference, and those which don't are contained within file covers bearing a description of their contents and often a variety of file numbers.

As an example, here's the first page of a November 1888 letter from Anderson to the Home Office regarding his pension—



Had Macnaghten's memorandum been sent to either the Commissioner or, say, an under-Secretary at the Home Office I would have expected this important document to have been addressed and recorded in a similar manner.

But, then again, I do realise we are dealing with Ripperland where anything and everything is possible.

Regards,

Simon

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

In a sense, doesn't Anderson himself admit that? "It was a case of moral versus legal proof." If it would have been sufficient to convince "twelve good men and true" it would have been legal proof. The "moral proof" business must in effect be an acknowledgment that not everyone would be convinced by the evidence.

I suppose we also need to consider evidence that would not be admissible.

I don't pretend to know the finer parts of the law but I could see how Kosminski's "acknowledgment" that he had been I.D.'ed might be problematic.

Everyone focuses on Lawende (IMHO) saying he couldn't/wouldn't identify the suspect, but what if Kosminski had some sort of hallucination that very moment, violently shuddered and Anderson and Company took it as a sign of being guilty?

[Chris]

Simon

A while ago I did check the register of incoming Home Office correspondence to see if there was any reference to the Memorandum having been received there, and there wasn't. So I think it is reasonably clear that it was never sent to the Home Office.

My thought was that there would be no reason for an internal police document that had remained within the police files to have a date stamp. Though obviously I'd have to look at some examples to check that.

The example you gave was a document sent by Anderson to the Home Office, so I'm not surprised the H.O. stamped it as received.

[Chris]

The Warren note was apparently shown to the News of the World in 1981 – according to another document that strangely and inexplicably turned up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum in 2011.

Why "strangely and inexplicably"?