New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon...I'm a simple soul...for the benefit of the record, Swanson's thoughts contradict Cris's analysis of Warren's order where?

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cogidubnus,

You may want to check out Swanson's own [previously posted] description of his duties during the WM investigation.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

At the time Warren issued this order it was not known what circumstances might develop. He was laying out protocol while allowing Swanson some latitude to act without conference with the aforesaid officials if Swanson felt urgency was required; which means that the responsibility to make that determination rest with him... i.e. - he was in charge. This is very similar to many 'general orders' issued to military commanders in the field. The chain of command is followed except when officers in key positions may have to exercise initiative instead of compromising a fluid situation by waiting on orders. Of all people, Warren would have understood this.

The situation you refer to in the Nov. 6 reports was handled directly by Warren in this instance. He assumed responsibility for the actions taken in Goulston Street. That others than he made reports on the same instance is because the Home Office requested them to ascertain if his decision was valid or the situation was as he depicted, or they were requested by Warren to back him up. We know from Warren's report that the Home Office made this request on the 5th of Nov. and it was immediately complied with. Why the Home Office waited this long is anybody's guess considering what happened just days after.

I know I've come late upon it, but this is the best analysis of the full implications regarding Warren's definition of Swanson's role that I've seen to date...(sorry if that's clumsy construction)...thanks Cris

All the best

Dave

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

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

I'm not saying "hard" evidence as in good enough to convict, but I don't think it was "profiling" or a wholesale dragnet that led them to Kos. Something did, and we don't know what it was. Some bit of information that hasn't made its way down to us, unfortunately. Even if a door to door called him to their attention, there had to be something more to elevate him from a person of interest to a suspect to "The Murderer".

There is a missing piece of the puzzle, and that is what caused them to parade Kos in front of Schwartz (or Lawende). We don't know what that was.

I don't believe in a scenario where Anderson had dozens and dozens of suspects put in front of Schwartz.

[Nemo]

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?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I beg to differ Robert

The deduced character and location of the Ripper was clearly stated to have led the authorities to Kosminski

Hi Nemo!

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that they were honing in on Eastern European Jews as suspects, and specifically lunatics, and a dragnet pulled Kos in? No clues or tips or detective work done? (As an aside I think a doctor the family took Aaron to see may have expressed concerns to the police.....but that's another matter.)

And that they then paraded the hundred or so men that might have fit the bill past Lawende, and one of them flinched or gave a start? And then Anderson was off to the races....

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is this a reasonable summary of your position?

[PaulB]

I beg to differ Robert

The deduced character and location of the Ripper was clearly stated to have led the authorities to Kosminski

I don't think so. Where was this clearly stated?

[Nemo]

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.

I beg to differ Robert

The deduced character and location of the Ripper was clearly stated to have led the authorities to Kosminski

When they came across him, his lunacy, habits, hatred of prostitutes, and "homicidal tendencies" led to an attempt at identification, which was successful

Where is there any mention of any other evidence or the requirement for such?

And we don't know how many people were subjected to identification by eye witnesses

Regards

Nemo

[Chris]

I have already gone through the ‘strange and inexplicable’ discussion some posts above.
If you think it is perfectly normal and not worth querying how this article (which is being used to corroborate another document of much greater significance) appeared at the Scotland Yard Museum, then that is your prerogative.

I know you've "gone through it". What I'm asking is why you seem to think there is anything strange about this at all.

As far as I'm concerned - and that seems to go for everyone else here except you - there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to question the genuineness of the documentation from the 1980s. Having seen the documents Adam and Keith published, and also having seen photocopies of the other correspondence, which I summarised on the boards a while ago, I think the idea that these documents are fakes is ludicrous - laughable.

To suggest publicly on such flimsy grounds that the people concerned may have been guilty of fakery and collusion is quite disgraceful.

[Monty]

Lechmere,

Hunters post above clarifys Swansons responsibility clearly, no need for me to add anymore.

Monty

[Hunter]

What extreme urgency might that have been?

It wasn't until five-and-a-half weeks after the double-event, on 6th November 1888, that Warren, Arnold, Swanson and Long wrote their reports.

At the time Warren issued this order it was not known what circumstances might develop. He was laying out protocol while allowing Swanson some latitude to act without conference with the aforesaid officials if Swanson felt urgency was required; which means that the responsibility to make that determination rest with him... i.e. - he was in charge. This is very similar to many 'general orders' issued to military commanders in the field. The chain of command is followed except when officers in key positions may have to exercise initiative instead of compromising a fluid situation by waiting on orders. Of all people, Warren would have understood this.

The situation you refer to in the Nov. 6 reports was handled directly by Warren in this instance. He assumed responsibility for the actions taken in Goulston Street. That others than he made reports on the same instance is because the Home Office requested them to ascertain if his decision was valid or the situation was as he depicted, or they were requested by Warren to back him up. We know from Warren's report that the Home Office made this request on the 5th of Nov. and it was immediately complied with. Why the Home Office waited this long is anybody's guess considering what happened just days after.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

“It increases the likelihood of it being accepted as being genuine.”

Yes that’s exactly what I said.

Noooooooooo........

You actually said:

In answer to an earlier point – it is blatantly and manifestly obvious that having the Marginalia version of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ in the Scotland Yard Museum massively increases its provenance as does its appearance on ‘Jack the Ripper – the Definitive Story’. Both testified to its historical importance and significance, and that it was genuine.

It's not the same, not by miles. 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.

You know there is this smirky undertone to your posts that continually imply your belief that there is something dodgy to all of these Swanson related documents, and when someone directly challenges you on it you dance away, saying you are only trying to raise issues.

I think due to the way these documents have come out in drips and drabs, with the provenance of the NOTW items being now uncheckable, with many items written in pencil and some seemingly lost and so uncheckable, makes the whole archive somewhat questionable. On the balance of probability I would tend to accept they are genuine.
However I’m flagging this up in case some surprising document suddenly appears.

I would hope more documents do turn up via the Swanson family.

Do you think you are fooling us with this sophistry? You are saying - without actually coming out and forthrightly stating it - that if the Swansons do find something now that they are actively looking for more documents, that it will make everything they've brought forward more "questionable" in your eyes.

All this to advance Lechmere????????????? Lechmere????????????????

Seriously, it's a shame. It does nothing to advance Ripperology as a serious field for historians.

Which it isn't.

On the balance of probability I would tend to accept they are genuine.

Whew. What a relief.

[Lechmere]

Monty
I didn’t state that Swanson wasn’t a superior rank to Abberline and Reid. However if every senior rank interred in another officer’s job there would be chaos.
Of course Swanson was chosen as he was an experienced and senior officer as Warren no doubt regarded this as an important case and wanted an intelligent officer to sort the wheat from the chaff.
But this clearly doesn’t imply that Swanson was in operational control of the investigation. You seem to be agreeing with me on this – if somewhat reluctantly.

You ask:
“What would you class as 'exceptional circumstances'?”

It would be something like some extreme urgency or another...
“On the other hand he should consult Mr Williamson, you, or myself on every important particular before any action unless there is some extreme urgency.”

Chris
I have already gone through the ‘strange and inexplicable’ discussion some posts above.
If you think it is perfectly normal and not worth querying how this article (which is being used to corroborate another document of much greater significance) appeared at the Scotland Yard Museum, then that is your prerogative.

Adam
You credited the reproduced ‘News of the World’ documents. I presume you wouldn’t have done that had you made it up and had photoshopped them. That is a presumption of course. Theoretically it would not be difficult for anyone to photoshop them.

And yes an earlier date would have been when Warren was still alive – and the other NOTW journalists involved.
I suggested that the NOTW could have been approached for a view on the authenticity of the documents. I also suggested that it is probably already too late to get to the bottom of it – short of a scientific investigation which would be prohibitively expensive. I suggested the situation was a bit of a mess.

However your article wasn’t about the authenticity of the documents as such – so I am not blaming you for this. I am merely commenting.
Your use of the NOTW items does also illustrate that the marginalia was known about several years prior to its publication which in turn tends to give it greater provenance – that is the significance of these documents from my point of view. Your article was the catalyst for this line of thought on my part – I am not suggesting that you used the documents in your article for the same purpose.

I think due to the way these documents have come out in drips and drabs, with the provenance of the NOTW items being now uncheckable, with many items written in pencil and some seemingly lost and so uncheckable, makes the whole archive somewhat questionable. On the balance of probability I would tend to accept they are genuine.
However I’m flagging this up in case some surprising document suddenly appears.

I didn’t suggest Stewart Evans was conducting a rigorous test. I was showing how the few people who have had access to the documents have walked on egg shells.

“It increases the likelihood of it being accepted as being genuine.”
Yes that’s exactly what I said.

[AdamNeilWood]

Adam

There’s the letter from R Warren dated 16th April 1981.
A remittance advice dated 14th May 1981.
And another letter dated 1st October 1987 also from Robert Warren
All these documents were provided to you by the Swanson family, so no I do not think you photoshopped them.
Mr Warren died in January 2009.
As I said before it is a great pity that all these documents were not released at an earlier date.

Lechmere,

I'm sorry if I'm being a little slow here, but earlier you asked if it had been confirmed by the News of the World that all the documents came from them, implying there's a chance - albeit a miniscule one - that they didn't. Is that correct?

If so, why are you accepting without question that I did in fact receive the documents from the Swanson family? Are you suggesting that I'm completely trustworthy but they might not be? I know you say you're not pointing the finger at anyone specifically, but questioning whether we should accept these NOTW documents at face value. By implication, you're saying someone could have generated them.

I assume by 'earlier date' you mean while Robert Warren was still alive. If he was, I'm certain he'd have recognised his own signature in three letters to Jim Swanson, and also recalled the payment of £750.

If all the known Van Gogh (I knew he had a connection somewhere along the line) paintings came from one source, and new ones kept appearing every so often, then it would be sensible for the art world to proceed with extreme caution and to examine these paintings in minute detail to ensure they are genuine.
Using documents that come from the same source to validate other documents is not sound.

Which other sources do you think we should have approached? I didn't use the NOTW letters to validate the internal memo and draft article, I used them to evidence the trail of events.

In the scheme of things ‘Ripperology’ is not of world-wide importance but I guess it is important to people in this field of study. Hence it is important that all loose ends are cleared up. It is not my purpose to point the finger at anyone – contrary to earlier claims.
However if a load of documents are suddenly released it is important that they are scrupulously validated if they are to be taken seriously.
I think I have demonstrated that these documents have not been scrupulously validated – they have been taken on trust, which actually isn’t good for all sides involved.

For the sake of clarity, and because I'm obviously being slow, can you state here which documents you feel are not to be taken seriously.

We are all human and I can see how it can be difficult to press the point without seeming rude and accordingly act as if treading on egg shells. Hence the following telling passage:

“The use of different pencils is in the address book is reminiscent of Stewart Evans’s thoughts on viewing the Marginalia at his July 2000 meeting with Jim:
“Sitting on the sofa with Keith I then inspected the marginalia with a powerful magnifying glass. I was immediately struck by the fact that the writing in the bottom margin, patently very old in appearance, was in grey pencil but with a sort of purple tinge and was clearly indented. This was in stark contrast with the writing on the rear endpaper which was in a different pencil entirely – a pale hue, larger writing and not impressed on the page as was the other writing. I said, “Take a look at this Keith, the writing at the rear of the book is in a different pencil.” Immediately thinking that Mr Swanson may have interpreted this as a suggestion that it was a later addition in someone else’s hand, I added, rather obviously, “Perhaps he used a different pencil when he wrote that.” Keith looked at it and agreed with me that I was correct. In fact it was not even necessary to use the glass to see the difference. Mr Swanson made no comment.”

This is not conducive to the rigorous testing of documents.

You're correct, but then again this was a description by Stewart Evans of his visit to Jim Swanson to view the Marginalia and photograph it for a book he and Keith were preparing. I don't see anywhere Stewart claiming to be conducting a rigorous test of the document. That was done - twice - by Dr Christopher Davies.

In answer to an earlier point – it is blatantly and manifestly obvious that having the Marginalia version of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ in the Scotland Yard Museum massively increases its provenance as does its appearance on ‘Jack the Ripper – the Definitive Story’. Both testified to its historical importance and significance, and that it was genuine.

It doesn't affect its provenance in any way. It increases the likelihood of it being accepted as being genuine.

Adam

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

What extreme urgency might that have been?

It wasn't until five-and-a-half weeks after the double-event, on 6th November 1888, that Warren, Arnold, Swanson and Long wrote their reports.

Regards,

Simon