New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Paddy]

What can one say about this wonderfully written piece...the research is valuable enough, the presentation impeccable...and the follow-up stuff simply hammers it home...to be fair not by a long chalk is absolutely everything tied down, (viz the Seaside Home Mystery), but thanks to Adam and Keith the authenticity of the marginalia and much else besides must surely be far, far less in doubt...

.

Absolutely agree, I really enjoyed it. Well done !

Pat Marshall

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

I agree entirely. Which is why the "wild horses" comment has assumed an important role in my own personal interpretation of the actions of DSS. I honestly believe that DSS was writing an expansion of the Anderson story as he knew it or was regailed it, filling in the gaps.

I would like to believe that Swanson agreed wholeheartedly with Anderson and believed Kosminski was the Ripper, as that would make life (and research) much easier. However, there are in fact some serious problems with this conclusion, the most obvious being that Swanson did not state that this was his opinion. He had every opportunity while writing his notes in the margins to state his personal opinion, but chose not to. I would think that if he were even halfway as passionate about Kozminski as Anderson was (or pretended to be), he would have noted a few words to this effect. And now, after reading Adam and Keith's article, I'm struck by the comments from members of the family to the effect that Swanson would never reveal the Ripper's name. If this was, in fact, the case, then Kozminski must not have been Ripper (in Swanson's estimation), or why else would he casually and carelessly leave his name noted in a book, but otherwise swear to take the Ripper's identity to the grave with him? Food for thought.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Yes Tom, that was my immediate (and rather obvious surely) thought when I read this.

[Phil Carter]

I would like to believe that Swanson agreed wholeheartedly with Anderson and believed Kosminski was the Ripper, as that would make life (and research) much easier. However, there are in fact some serious problems with this conclusion, the most obvious being that Swanson did not state that this was his opinion. He had every opportunity while writing his notes in the margins to state his personal opinion, but chose not to. I would think that if he were even halfway as passionate about Kozminski as Anderson was (or pretended to be), he would have noted a few words to this effect. And now, after reading Adam and Keith's article, I'm struck by the comments from members of the family to the effect that Swanson would never reveal the Ripper's name. If this was, in fact, the case, then Kozminski must not have been Ripper (in Swanson's estimation), or why else would he casually and carelessly leave his name noted in a book, but otherwise swear to take the Ripper's identity to the grave with him? Food for thought.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Yup, again, I agree entirely (and with Lechmere). Which is why in my opinion DSS would have taken said name of killer to his grave..wild horses....which, in turn, is why I wanted to see other examples in the same book of other cases and comments made by DSS in annotations to see if a pattern is formed..i.e. it is made clear that he comments upon a story written by Anderson, corrects them, shows that he was involved etc or whether, as I suspect here in the WM case, he is only expanding upon and adding details told to him, by Anderson.

Kosminski cannot have been the "Ripper" according to Swanson's own family's comments about DSS' attitude towards revealing anything. If Swanson did know the identity of the killer(s), then I believe he did take it to his grave. What he didn't do was reveal a name that related to the Whitechapel murderer as he knew it. By a name that Anderson was talking about..and possibly Anderson's theory as to the name of the murderer of Elizabeth Stride only. Anderson only made this figure into "Jack the Ripper". Just my honest opinion.
Food for thought indeed.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

Thank you for kindly providing these further examples. The comments about what "Jack" in one of them are very interesting indeed. Swanson, seemingly, is commenting from a position of knowledge that is apart from Anderson. It is a correcting overview comment, I believe.

The "Macnagthen, Chief Constable" comment shows that Swanson is certainly filling in details of Anderson's tale. Interesting in regard to the "marginalia".

The more the examples provided, the more one can try to decifer a writing pattern from DSS, I believe. Thank you again for doing this. Most appreciated.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

"Jack was every case of murder where the murderer was not charged because evidence was not obtainable"

This is most interesting indeed, especially when put together with DSS' own comments in the marginalia and annotations.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

"Jack was every case of murder where the murderer was not charged because evidence was not obtainable"

I read the first word as 'Such', not 'Jack'.

[Phil Carter]

I read the first word as 'Such', not 'Jack'.

Hello Chris,

Yes, i thought that at first as well. However I am not sure. I can easily see either, to be honest.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

It is 'such' Chris,


Again, reference to 'murderer' in the marginalia is to me more an explaination of reason than accusation against Kosminski within that specific passage.

Its not about Swansons belief, its a verification of an suspect. Swanson supports Anderson in the suspects I D, not in his belief the killer and the suspect are one in the same.


Monty

[robhouse]

Kosminski cannot have been the "Ripper" according to Swanson's own family's comments about DSS' attitude towards revealing anything. If Swanson did know the identity of the killer(s), then I believe he did take it to his grave.

This defies Occam's razor to a pretty extreme extent.

What he didn't do was reveal a name that related to the Whitechapel murderer as he knew it. By a name that Anderson was talking about..and possibly Anderson's theory as to the name of the murderer of Elizabeth Stride only. Anderson only made this figure into "Jack the Ripper".

Where exactly do you get the idea that there was anything akin to "Anderson's theory as to the name of the murderer of Elizabeth Stride only." You seem to be really grasping for straws Phil.

RH

[mklhawley]

The ripperology community needs to be cautious when applying Occam's razor, or the principle of parsimony. It is being applied more and more. It is not a law but a guide, and why it works well as a guide in the scientific process is because of causality in nature. Thanks to the laws of nature, natural causes can give predictable effects. The problem with human beings is that many times they do not follow predicted paths. If it did, the stocks would be easy. That being said, it can still be a guide...with caution.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"The problem with human beings is that many times they do not follow predicted paths."

Hallelujah to that!

On a different note, I much like what Tom says here - if Swanson was determined not to give away his take on the Ripper, why would he do so anyway by writing it down? I find this a very good argument. There´s just the one snag: if Swanson did not write for posterity to have it confirmed that Kosminsky was the Ripper, then who DID he write for? If just for himself, then why sign off with DSS? Surely he would have known that he was the originator himself?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I think there's a distinction to be made between Swanson verbally divulging the identity of the Ripper (in his view) to others; and his writing personal annotations in a private book. He may have had no expectation that anybody else would read it. Indeed, that seems to have been true for some time.

[robhouse]

On Occam's razor:

If a person is standing in the middle of an empty room holding a glass of water, then the lights go off for five seconds, you hear glass break, the lights go on and the man is still standing there and the glass is broken on the floor... it is fair to assume that the man dropped the glass. If you suggest that a second man entered the room took the glass out of the man's hand, dropped the glass, then left the room before the lights came back on... this defies Occam's razor. It does not have anything to do with human nature. It is looking at evidence and coming to the simplest conclusion based on what is known and observed. Of course it doesn't always work. But it is surprising to see you say that "It is being applied more and more" in the Ripperology community. In my opinion, it is being employed less and less. The tendency now is toward more and more convoluted theories... various "confusion theories" for example, or suggesting that there never was a Ripper at all, which is very "au fait" these days.

As Adam has pointed out, Swanson refers to Kozminski using the term "murderer". He also says, not once but twice, that the suspect "knew he was identified"... which seems to clearly imply that the suspect acted in a way that betrayed his guilt. At least, it seems Swanson remarked on this fact to support the case for Kozminski's guilt. And as I stated before, if Swanson had thought what Anderson wrote was hogwash, I don't doubt he would have written that.

This does not necessarily mean that Swanson agreed with Anderson's "definitely ascertained" certainty as to Kozminski's being the Ripper. He may have been less sure than Anderson was for example.

However, if it is true that Swanson told members of his family that he knew the identity of the Ripper... it really requires a twisting of the facts to state that he believed the Ripper was someone other than Kozminski! As Phil seems to be suggesting.

To me, it seems entirely natural for Swanson to do what he did... reveal the Ripper's name in a book, where he probably knew it would be discovered at some point, after his death. Psychology comes into it here. Swanson was a professional, and obviously felt obliged to strictly adhere to a code of secrecy regarding the matter. He never publicly wrote about the case.

However, I am sure that if he did in fact know the Ripper's identity (or if he believed he knew it) he would want to reveal the man's name.... even though he knew he shouldn't do so. The fact that he "tacked on" the name of the suspect at the end of the paragraph—a "strange construction" as has been pointed out—in my opinion reflects the fact that he probably wavered about whether he should write down the man's name. He finally decided to do so, and put it at the very end... like a crescendo building up to a climax.

His family apparently tried to drag it out of him, and he never told them. Nearing the end of his life, I think he finally decided to unburden himself of a secret he had held for so long. And to do so in a way that would maintain his integrity as a professional. I think that he was itching to tell his secret. And I also wouldn't doubt that he thought the British public had a right to know the truth.

RH

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I think there's a distinction to be made between Swanson verbally divulging the identity of the Ripper (in his view) to others; and his writing personal annotations in a private book. He may have had no expectation that anybody else would read it."

Not a bad suggestion, on the whole. But then why sign the annotations with DSS if he never intended or expected anybody to read it...?

The best,
Fisherman