New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Sally]

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

Perhaps he was in the habit of initialling his notes. Considering that the annotations are unlikely to have been intended for anything other than private consumption, that seems feasible. People are full of these little idiosyncracies; there need be no great significance in it.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps, Sally - unneccessary though it would have been if not intended for anybody but himself. I still find it odd that he would write "The suspect was Kosminsky. DSS" if he really did not want anybody to take part - he would have had no NEED to tell himself that Kosminsky was the suspect, would he - he already knew, right? And he would also know that he himself had written the annotation, therefore he would not need to sign it. Unless it was a reflex, as you suggest.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Rob,

Much as I would like to stand on the side of the outcome of the swishing of the razor of probability, the WM is, imho, a very good reason to NOT apply that rule. Because the razor's cut points AWAY from Kosminski being the Ripper, simply because he is not seen nor noted nor seen to be or noted to be anywhere near any of the crimes, to our knowledge. And we can only go on what we have, so I'm told.

Ipso facto..Occam's Razor rule, if applied, i.e. logical conclusion, discounts every single known suspect as to being the Ripper, but dint of them NOT "being in the room when the glass was dropped". Standing outside the door or living in the neighbourhood when the glass was dropped doesn't mean they were the culprit.

Ok.. so where does that leave us with regard to the razor? Apply it gently? Sparse application? Or just chosen application to back up a personal belief?

As regards that I am suggesting, which you referred to...

I suggest the following by MY interpretation of the History of the Marginalia, etc....

1) DSS was a man of his word.
2) He stated, clearly, that wild horses would not drag the name of the perpetrator(s) of the Whitechapel Crimes out of him.
3) He wrote a reflection as to Anderson's story as he knew it. He expanded upon Anderson's story, not his own. That way, he was not guilty of revealing any name he knew of himself, which he expressly said he would not do.
4) Anderson meant that a lowly Polish Jew was the "Ripper". DSS named the man Anderson was talking of. He also added a few details of Anderson's story TO the story we have been given.
5) The written evidence of his annotating, from what I have seen thusfar, suggests that he does the same to other written points. It is impossible to see that DSS himself would be involved in every episode he annotated upon in every book. Therefore he adds his knowledge to another person's involvement and story. That is a logical outcome, imho.
6) If Anderson's suspect, the lowly Polish Jew, was Kosminski, it is no means a certainty that the killer DSS knew of but never told of, was Kosminski. Logically, if DSS swore never to reveal who the killer was, then the revelation of Kosminski by DSS was not the person DSS knew of. Otherwise he breaks the solemn word he imposed upon himself to his family. From DSS' own words, I believe he kept that word, both to himself and the world. Writing the Anderson suspect's name in the book lost him nothing.I simply take DSS' word for what it is.

That is what I am suggesting Rob. And it isn't stretching the bounds of logical probability either.

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Rob House:

"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."

If it was a late-in-life decision, meant to relieve himself of a burden he found increasingly heavy, then yes, he may have felt obliged to tell.

But not like this, I think. Why would he not write it down and leave it in his will or something; I, Donald Sutherland Swanson, hereby testify to having known the identity of the killer called Jack the Ripper. His true name was Aaron Kosminsky, and the reason I find him proven guilty is...."

Why instead leave a collection of slightly cryptical annotations in his former boss´memoirs? He must have realized that those who came after him would have asked themselves if it was all just a verification of what ANDERSON had thought, and not his own stance. Why not name Kosminsky by his given name? Why not be clear and unambigous, if that was what he wanted. What we have instead is something along the line of "The Kosminskis are the men who..."

If there is one person in this drama from whom I´d expect a clear message, then it´s Swanson. And this is anything but clear, as evinced by the discussion over it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Rob,

This defies the knowledge we have of the man and his principles. You are counter suggesting known fact, based on the suposition that he felt the heavy burden of witholding a secret for so long.

I am sorry Rob, but there is no indication within the material presented that he did do this, or had these thoughts.

"itching to tell his secret"? There isn't a single suggestion that this was so. I'm sorry.

"thought that the British public had the right to know the truth"?
Well, that is one of the most opaque ways he chose to tell "the British public"..for he had no guarentee that the public would ever even see his annotations.
It took more than 60 years before it was introduced to the British public. If he wanted the British public to know, he would have done it in a totally different manner, I suggest. If the burden you speak of was so pressing on his mind, that is....

best wishes

Phil

[mklhawley]

Hi Rob,

On Occam's razor:

...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.

Roger Palmer used Occam's razor quite well when debunking the 'Inspector Andrews Canadian trip' conspiracy theory that Scotland Yard senior officials directed numbers of subordinates to violate British law and also hired an American detective agency for untold amounts of money to collect witnesses against a standing Member of Parliament...and then have this claim argued in front of Parliament...and then have no one spill the beans about it up to the present day.

Simon Woods' recent article was based upon Occam's razor.

Psychology comes into it here.

This is exactly where I'm saying one must be cautious when using Occam's razor. Again, if human beings behaved always as we expected, then playing the stock market would be a guarantee for becoming a millionaire.


Back to Kosminsky...


Sincerely,

Mike

[robhouse]

If you write something down, even if you are no necessarily thinking someone will ever read it, it does in a sense (psychologically speaking) relieve you of the burden of containing it. This, I think was the reason. Also I think he may have assumed someone would eventually find it.

The reason he did not publicly announce the name (as fisherman suggests) is the same reason Anderson never did... for starters it would be libel. Even if you believe someone is guilty of a crime you cannot go and announce they are guilty without due process of law.

I apologize I dont have time for a further response right now.

RH

[Fisherman]

Rob House:

"If you write something down, even if you are no necessarily thinking someone will ever read it, it does in a sense (psychologically speaking) relieve you of the burden of containing it. This, I think was the reason."

Still, it was not very clear, was it? And I still think that making annotations in Anderson´s book would have been about the worst place possible to try and sort things out. Instead, he sorted them IN, didn´t he?

Of course, we must make leeway for Swanson being an elderly man at this stage, and so perhaps not as clear as one would have wished. But as far as I understand, he didn´t turn hazy in later years, did he?

"Also I think he may have assumed someone would eventually find it."

Assumed? Wished? Banked on? Once again, we are left with a peculiar choice of channel to try and communicate by. And once again, you may of course be right anyway.

"The reason he did not publicly announce the name (as fisherman suggests) is the same reason Anderson never did... for starters it would be libel. Even if you believe someone is guilty of a crime you cannot go and announce they are guilty without due process of law."

But nobody would fetch him back from beyond the grave to make him stand trial, would they? An old man who made annotations NOT obviously meant for the public could hardly be accused of libel for adding a first name to an already disclosed surname. If your suggestion is a good one, then he secretely hoped that the annotations would be found and made public after he was gone himself.

Not that I have the answers myself to all of this - I find much of it very strange.

All the best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

I have to admit, I don't find any of it strange at all. He kept it inside for all those years, over two decades, he couldn't tell anyone. Finally he jotted down the name in a book. Why is it so unusual?

I think people seem to be looking for some kind of rationalization for an act that was quite natural and normal. I don't really think he had any purpose behind writing it, except to jot it as a note to himself. And he may have realized in the back of his mind that someday, after he was gone, someone would discover it.

Rh

[Cogidubnus]

Rob

For what it's worth, I have to say, on balance, I'm with you...Much of what Phil says has a validity based on logic, but human beings aren't logical creatures and have weaknesses.

I'm always wary of attributing 20th/21st Century feelings to 19th/20th Century folk, but certainly if I was carrying the burden of a secret like that, I'd want it passed on somehow...and if I felt honour-bound not to disclose it personally, I think I too might subconsciously use the "excuse" of a scribbled personal aide-memoire...

Having said that, I think all Swanson is doing is confirming Aaron as a valid suspect...a favourite of the Met's perhaps...but that's all at this stage...

All the best

Dave

[jason_c]

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.

This is a plausible scenario. We dont know the circumstance of Swanson's "wild horses" statement. It may have been said at a time when family members were pestering him for a name of the suspect/murderer. Writing a name down in the privacy of your study is entirely different from gossiping the name to a family member.


edit: I've just re-read this "His family apparently tried to drag it out of him, and he never told them."

[jason_c]

Perhaps he was in the habit of initialling his notes. Considering that the annotations are unlikely to have been intended for anything other than private consumption, that seems feasible. People are full of these little idiosyncracies; there need be no great significance in it.

Im sure I've read before that Swanson did do this on much of his later annotations. Can anyone confirm this?

[DVV]

At this stage, police opinions are not the result of their investigations.
They are the result of their failure.
And they are theories, just theories and nothing else.

[AdamNeilWood]

Im sure I've read before that Swanson did do this on much of his later annotations. Can anyone confirm this?

Hello Jason,

Yes, Swanson signed letters to his family and also personal notes using both the initials DSS and Donald Sutherland Swanson.

I've provided several instances of this in the article.

Best wishes Adam

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Adam (and Keith of course)
I really felt your article answered any question I ever had about this document.
I really dont see how any one who had read it would fail to reach the conclusions I did, that is to say that it is the genuine writings of Donald Swanson.
The amount of research - which I am sure was at times painstaking - in this article is worthy of a PHD thesis. There has been a lot of skilled research without biased theorising which has gone into this article. It is a master class in the art of proper Ripperology.

Well done to all involved

Jenni