New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood
You presume (I think) this witness (to some unspecified event involving Kosminsky) told the family. From there gossip reached the police. The police learnt the name of both the suspect and the witness. The police then 'with difficulty' and not following any sort of legal procedure (a rather French method) got both witness and suspect to the Seaside Home where upon the witness refused to identify the suspect becaue he was Jewish.

I was suggesting that there is more chance that word simply got round than there is that the police managed to keep an organised track of who was coming across their desks in order to cross reference them at a later date.

I suppose there is a flaw with this, and that is that the witness didn't know the suspect was Jewish, and therefore probably didn't know his name - making it much more difficult for word to get round regarding a certain person.

I don't go with the cross-referenced at a later date idea, as I can't imagine the police would have been able to sift the raft of information they were receiving in such an effective manner. On reflection, nor do I think that the word got round regarding a specific person as it's fair to say witness didn't known suspect by name.

So, it seems that the ID and the Kosminski information received by the police were independent of one another; which would suggest that they had more on Kosminski than merely a sighting/witness to an event.

Nor do I believe it was the knife/sister escapade as there were plenty of those types knocking about. I'd imagine that they had something on Kosminski that made him stand out from the rest - whatever that may be.

[Lechmere]

Sir Robert, you say...
“Oh, say if there was a homicidal maniac running around the East End....
Other than that Swanson was a glorified clerical assistant.”

Swanson’s appointment related to a homicidal maniac running around the East End, so clearly some other exceptional event related to this overall situation would be required before Swanson was qualified to act. The key clause being ...
“...unless there is some extreme urgency.”
The note from Warren actually does describe Swanson’s primary role as being that of a superannuated clerk.
The claim that Swanson was put in operational control of the overall Ripper investigation – in operational control I repeat – cannot be sustained by this document nor any other record. That is the point I have been making with regard to this missing document.

On the issue of provenance I gave the following example:

“If a Van Gogh is displayed for several years in the National Gallery as a Van Gogh, and then it comes up for sale, then its authenticity, its provenance, will not be seriously questioned. The National Gallery will be deemed to be a scrupulous and expert body in determining the authenticity of paintings.”

For those who may be unfamiliar, the National Gallery is the UK’s premier art gallery and the senior staff there may be regarded as experts in their field. It is one of the world’s most reputable and galleries. They have this to say about provenance:
The word provenance derives from the French ‘provenir’ (to come from). It refers to the history of ownership of a work of art.
Provenance can be established through many sources. These include historical documents, such as contracts, inventories, guidebooks, collection and sales catalogues, as well as information on the object itself, such as inscriptions, seals and labels. The history of ownership assumes great importance, especially in proving that a work is authentic or that it has not been stolen.

Being in a collection can help to establish provenance. Exhibiting the Marginalia in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum collection does that.

You also say...
“Provenance is not altered by how many people perceive a document or documents as genuine. How many pinheads believe the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are genuine???? And if appearance in a documentary improves provenance I am immediately entering Winner's The Diary of Jack the Ripper into the historical record.”

I have never suggested that the marginalia’s provenance was enhanced by the number of people who might regard it as genuine.
That sort of thinking underpins many debates in this field to be sure. We often hear ‘my suspect has more supporters than your suspect nah, nah, nah.’

I try to avoid such gambits.
Am I mistaken but were the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ ever on display in a reputable museum as a genuine document?
The documentary I highlighted was ‘Jack the Ripper – the Definitive Story’ a well regarded program which was met by almost universal acclaim by people interested in this field. So there is no comparison to the Diary.

I think it is slightly strange that the ‘provenance’ issue is being disputed.

To recap, the problems with the Swanson related documents are:
• The Warren note is missing – how many people have actually seen it and how many times has it been photographed. Can we be sure it is even genuine?

• The News of the World letters and remittance advice seem to have only become available recently long after the death of the people involved, which makes their validation almost impossible.

• The News of the World ‘Jack’ draft turned up at the Scotland Yard Museum 30 years after it was written. No credible explanation has been presented as to how it turned up there.

• The letters that have been used as a basis for comparison with the writing in the Marginalia come from the same source and the letters we have been told about are also written in pencil.

In my opinion despite these significant problems, on the balance of probabilities, I think the marginalia and the Warren letter are genuine.
However if the test were the more stringent ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then I would revise my personal judgement. There are too many discrepancies and uncheckable aspects related to these documents and we are left to blindly trust their legitimacy.

This would have been avoided had the various researchers ensured that the Swanson family went through their records in the 1980s to see what was available and for any resulting documents to be kept securely.
I am amazed that this was not done.
I would have wanted to search through every book and scrap of paper to see what else was potentially there.

If a significant new document turns up from this source –due to the history of how the Swanson material has emerged or disappeared, it will be held under severe suspicion. Maybe not by over eager enthusiasts within this narrow field, but certainly in the wider historical community.
If anyone thinks this will not be the case then you are showing extreme naivety and I would suggest you are allowing your enthusiasm for a potential new document that may – who knows – assist a particular suspect theory, get the better of you.

When new records turn up healthy scepticism should be the order of the day. I can’t say it much clearer than that.

A couple of months ago I was allowed access to the Pickfords archives. I was left unsupervised with all their 19th and early 20th century records for several hours. If I was unscrupulous I could have obtained a Victorian pencil and written on one page (or brought in a Victorian loose leaf and inserted it):
‘3rd September, Broad Street, Lechmere hasn’t turned up for work’
Or if I had found
‘3rd September, Broad Street, Cross has day off for inquest'
I could have torn the page out.
In retrospect I should have taken an independent person with me to verify what I found or rather didn’t find, and that has been nagging with me.
(In case anyone is tempted to gain access and write one of the ledgers ‘3rd September, Broad Street, Cross has day off for inquest’ then think again as I photographed everything!)

Falsifying records in this day and age is easy. If you want a new record to be taken seriously then correct procedures should be adhered to. Otherwise questions will be and should be asked – however uncomfortable this might make some people.

I obviously favour Charles Lechmere as the most likely culprit. However if it is a bit of a poor show when my suspect preference is employed as some sort of counter attack. I would suggest that it would be far more intellectually rigorous to answer the points I have raised about these documents.

Chris

From what you said I am unsure which documents you have actually seen and which you have seen photocopies of.
As a basis for comparison have you ever seen original News of the World documents from the 1980s?
Has anyone with a background in documents analysis seen these items – apart from Christopher Davies - ?
Are there any other known extensive examples of Donald Swanson’s writing that does not originate from the Swanson family?

For the record I haven’t accused anyone of forgery or collusion.
You ask why I think it is strange that an unpublished News of the World article, typed onto what looks like letter notepaper, suddenly appeared in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.
By what mechanism did it appear? When? Who presented it? Who accepted it? How has it laid there unnoticed for so long (presuming it has been there a while)?
This did not happen in the Age of Dinosaurs – it was in the past 30 years.

[Lechmere]

Fleetwood
You presume (I think) this witness (to some unspecified event involving Kosminsky) told the family. From there gossip reached the police. The police learnt the name of both the suspect and the witness. The police then 'with difficulty' and not following any sort of legal procedure (a rather French method) got both witness and suspect to the Seaside Home where upon the witness refused to identify the suspect becaue he was Jewish.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Did they not keep a list of all the men they checked out during the house to house search Anderson spoke of?

Hi Abby,

I think it's highly unlikely that they had a list of men to which they referred, and subsequently cross referenced Kosminski at a later period.

In order for this to have happened you have to believe that:

a) Kosminski was chalked down as a possibility during the house to house search - why would he have been?

b) The police held the administrative capacity to have managed an inordinate amount of information that passed through their desks. We all know it was a tricky business nearly a 100 years later in the case of Peter Sutcliffe.

On the other hand, there is one event, assuming you believe the Marginalia is genuine, that doesn't need a great deal of jumping through hoops to arrive at the conclusion that this event may give us the answer:

a) A witness ID'd Kosminski.

b) Clearly this witness had seen something incriminating.

c) Would the witness have kept this to himself or would he have told family members? Probably the latter.

d) Word gets round, as gossip does.

e) All you then need is an informant going to police with information - pre ID.

[PaulB]

Thanks! So do you think then that after kos came to the attentione of anderson, Anderson was like aha just the type of man we were looking for?

Hi Abby
I don't know what he thought. My suspicion, and it is no more than that, is that Anderson and the police weren't looking for any "type", but followed up each and every good line of inquiry as it came along. As I said, Anderson doesn't claim the low class Jew theory was his own, he doesn't claim personal credit for it, and perhaps most revealingly he doesn't say it played any part in whatever brought the Polish Jew to police attention. Had it done, surely Anderson would have said so, especially if his purpose in writing was to claim kudos for himself and/or the police!

Paul

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,
They may have done, probably did, but it hasn't survived and there is no mention of it and Anderson doesn't say that any such list was consulted. It is entirely speculative. Maybe mythical.

In any case, what Anderson says is that the house-to-house specifically targeted men living alone. Anderson doesn't say what the outcome was, we are left to infer that it didn't produce any suspects, hence the police conclusion that the murderer must live with his people. There is no suggestion whatsoever that the police kept a list of every man in the area of the house-to-house who lived with his family.

Cheers
Paul

Thanks! So do you think then that after kos came to the attentione of anderson, Anderson was like aha just the type of man we were looking for?

[Nemo]

Hi Paul

Thanks for the extensive reply

I can understand what you are saying about the searches and suppositions and deductions made in 1888, in regard to the likely identity and character of the Ripper, not leading directly to Kosminski - at that juncture

I think you are saying also that the local Jewish lunatic theory was one of many, including doctors, sailors etc

Sometime later, and the indications are, that we are talking about 1891, you say Aaron Kosminski comes to the police attention. The evidence as to why that would be IMO is that he was becoming increasingly mentally erratic and threatened his sister with a knife

Somehow he is also classed as having strong homicidal tendencies and hates unfortunates (as an aside: Does that ring of answers to police questions to you?)

Robert is suggesting that strong evidence as to him being JtR existed prior to his identification

I think that is what you are suggesting

Another way of looking at the extant evidence is that in 1888 the police were definitely on the track of a lunatic, a homicidal sexual maniac, who lived locally and the only "clever" supposition based on local knowledge was that JtR might be from a strata of Jews who would not give up even JtR to the police

Kosminski does not stand out from the crowd at this point

Having, over the years, investigated numerous sailors, cowboys, doctors etc etc the police were almost relieved to have brought to their attention, albeit in 1891, a real suspect in their eyes - a poor Polish Jew lunatic who had lived in the local area at the relevant time. Not only that but he is threatening people with knives and hates prostitutes

Subjecting him to an ID and considering it a positive one seals Kosminski's fate and proves the initial profile correct

There is no hint of any other "strong" evidence against him and no requirement for such

The strongest evidence put forward is the ID which we know is very questionable as to its worth as evidence

As is often stated with other suspects, though seemingly erroneously with Kosminski, the Whitechapel murders ceased after his incarceration

That alone was considered evidence of guilt by senior policemen

This is all assuming the ID did occur as described of course

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
Did they not keep a list of all the men they checked out during the house to house search Anderson spoke of?

Hi Abby,
They may have done, probably did, but it hasn't survived and there is no mention of it and Anderson doesn't say that any such list was consulted. It is entirely speculative. Maybe mythical.

In any case, what Anderson says is that the house-to-house specifically targeted men living alone. Anderson doesn't say what the outcome was, we are left to infer that it didn't produce any suspects, hence the police conclusion that the murderer must live with his people. There is no suggestion whatsoever that the police kept a list of every man in the area of the house-to-house who lived with his family.

Cheers
Paul

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,
What list?
Paul

Hi Paul
Did they not keep a list of all the men they checked out during the house to house search Anderson spoke of?

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
I agree. Do think it probable that they went back and checked the list of men they checked out previously AFTER Kosminski came to there attention and found his name on that list?

Hi Abby,
What list?
Paul

[Abby Normal]

I don't think the context in which Anderson was writing made it necessary to mention or hint at other evidence. Anderson wasn't presenting a case against a specific person, he was simply stating that the identity of the murderer was known. Anderson was saying this because he was trying to make it clear that undiscovered (unsolved) murders in London were rare, and that sometimes the police knew the identity of the murderer but lacked the evidence to bring him to justice. This made the British police look less effective than their foreign (French) counterparts, but the British police had to work within constraints that the French police didn't (the French could arrest and hold someone almost indefinitely while they worked up a case against him; the British police couldn't).

All Anderson says is that some simple deductions led to a house-to-house investigation from which we infer the conclusion was that the murderer lived with people. This led to an opinion that those people must have had cause to wonder at and be suspicious about his bloodstained person and clothing, and self-evidently were not conveying those suspicions to the police, and that this led to the suggestion that the murderer was an immigrant Jew. Nothing in what Anderson says allows us to infer that this suggestion led the police to Kosminski and the fact that he doesn't out-and-out say that it did should probably cause us to conclude that it didn't. All Anderson says is that it was ultimately proved correct in every particular.

It is probably worth emphasising that The only kudos to which Anderson seems able to lay claim is that the murderer fitted a particular hypothesis. He does not say that hypothesis in any way led to the murderer and if the murderer had turned out to be a doctor or an escaped lunatic or to have dressed in women's clothing, Anderson would probably have recited how and why the police had evolved that hypothesis.

It's rather like a profiler today saying after the arrest of a murderer that the murderer fitted the profile the police had evolved and considered, but omitting to mention that the profile was one of several, wasn't the primary one, maybe wasn't even treated seriously, and in no way led to the detection of the murderer. But, hey, the murderer fitted that profile so the police were (or maybe eventually would have been) heading along the right lines.

Hi Paul
I agree. Do think it probable that they went back and checked the list of men they checked out previously AFTER Kosminski came to there attention and found his name on that list?

[PaulB]

Anderson was also effectively saying that the biggest crime series of his generation was not unsolved and didn't baffle the head of the CID - as he knew who did it. He knew the man was out of circulation. This man matched the profile that he had determined upon. He (Anderson) was one hell of a clever dick and he had not, under any circumstances, been useless and thwarted. And if he had been able to act like the French police then everyone would know and Anderson would be feted as a hero for catching the ripper.
That is what he is really saying.

No it isn't.

[Lechmere]

Anderson was also effectively saying that the biggest crime series of his generation was not unsolved and didn't baffle the head of the CID - as he knew who did it. He knew the man was out of circulation. This man matched the profile that he had determined upon. He (Anderson) was one hell of a clever dick and he had not, under any circumstances, been useless and thwarted. And if he had been able to act like the French police then everyone would know and Anderson would be feted as a hero for catching the ripper.
That is what he is really saying.

[PaulB]

Hi Robert/Paul

Anderson states quite clearly that assumptions and deductions were made, such as that the Ripper crimes were done by a madman, that he lived in the area local to the murders, and that he was from the same social strata of the victims. He also considered that if the Ripper did not live alone, that "his people" knew of his guilt and must be refusing to report it

In locating Kosminski, or even after being pointed in his direction, it was ascertained that all the deductions were "correct"

The case against him being bolstered by reports that Kosminski hated the unfortunates and had "homicidal tendencies" he was subjected to an identification which was "successful" - case closed

There appears to be an expectation of more damning evidence which hasn't been mentioned, whereas it seems clear to me that at the most we might come across are verbal accusations against Kosminski

These accusations are not hard evidence and are not unique, many people having been accused of being the Ripper, or even confessing to be the Ripper

The evidence against Kosminski was that he fitted the bill and was identified by an eyewitness

If there was any other hard evidence don't you think it might have been mentioned or even hinted at?

I don't think the context in which Anderson was writing made it necessary to mention or hint at other evidence. Anderson wasn't presenting a case against a specific person, he was simply stating that the identity of the murderer was known. Anderson was saying this because he was trying to make it clear that undiscovered (unsolved) murders in London were rare, and that sometimes the police knew the identity of the murderer but lacked the evidence to bring him to justice. This made the British police look less effective than their foreign (French) counterparts, but the British police had to work within constraints that the French police didn't (the French could arrest and hold someone almost indefinitely while they worked up a case against him; the British police couldn't).

All Anderson says is that some simple deductions led to a house-to-house investigation from which we infer the conclusion was that the murderer lived with people. This led to an opinion that those people must have had cause to wonder at and be suspicious about his bloodstained person and clothing, and self-evidently were not conveying those suspicions to the police, and that this led to the suggestion that the murderer was an immigrant Jew. Nothing in what Anderson says allows us to infer that this suggestion led the police to Kosminski and the fact that he doesn't out-and-out say that it did should probably cause us to conclude that it didn't. All Anderson says is that it was ultimately proved correct in every particular.

It is probably worth emphasising that The only kudos to which Anderson seems able to lay claim is that the murderer fitted a particular hypothesis. He does not say that hypothesis in any way led to the murderer and if the murderer had turned out to be a doctor or an escaped lunatic or to have dressed in women's clothing, Anderson would probably have recited how and why the police had evolved that hypothesis.

It's rather like a profiler today saying after the arrest of a murderer that the murderer fitted the profile the police had evolved and considered, but omitting to mention that the profile was one of several, wasn't the primary one, maybe wasn't even treated seriously, and in no way led to the detection of the murderer. But, hey, the murderer fitted that profile so the police were (or maybe eventually would have been) heading along the right lines.

[CATscan]

Long time reader- first time poster. Probably not the best subject to start out with but I have a question- Im not a subscriber so I havent read the article so Im trying to figure out the evidence from what you are posting. Theres a blank that Id like filled for me if it is possible. The Kominski sentence is being proved genuine based on the article from the news of the world that was found that referenced it if I understand right. Can someone tell me what the evidence was in the article that meant the line wasnt added before it was shown to the newspaper?

Please dont say buy the magazine and read it thats not possible for me right now.