New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Monty]

Come now Trevor,

We both know Hearsay evidence is admissable.

We do not know Kosminskis state of mind in 88. You are basing him as in 91, when his condition was obvious to all.

Martin is on record for saying he is doubtful the Kosminski he found is the Kosminski referred to by Anderson and Swanson.

Coles is not part of Macnaghtens canon. Not all the Police officials of the period felt she was a Ripper victim. Most noted students of the case feel Sadler was her killer.

And, to clarify, Hearsay is admissable. Not as strong as primary granted, but evidence none the less.

Despite what you state, Kosminski was a contemporary suspect and therefore to be considered.

Condemed? No. I'm with you on that. Then again, I don't think many are against you on that point.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

But, Phil, your assumption that "DSS stated he wouldn't reveal [the name] at any cost" is precisely what I'm questioning!

It's the interpretation of what Jim Swanson said that's at issue. You are putting forward an interpretation of what he said which you claim is incompatible with 'Kosminski' being DSS's suspect. That being the case, it obviously is relevant that Jim Swanson believed 'Kosminski' was DSS's suspect.

Hello Chris,

Thanks again for the reply.

It still doesn't determine whether Swanson's suspect was his own or Anderson's suspect. Either way cannot be proven without further material appearing.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

It still doesn't determine whether Swanson's suspect was his own or Anderson's suspect. Either way cannot be proven without further material appearing.

The point I was addressing was your assertion that "We have been given proof of DSS' determination to never break his silence." I think that is very questionable. All we know for sure is that he refused to tell members of his family the name of the man he believed was the Ripper.

[Phil Carter]

The point I was addressing was your assertion that "We have been given proof of DSS' determination to never break his silence." I think that is very questionable. All we know for sure is that he refused to tell members of his family the name of the man he believed was the Ripper.

Hell Chris,

Thanks for the reply again.

Here we travel into the realm of interpretation of the man's solemn word.
I believe he kept his word. Period. I personally believe he spoke of Anderson's suspect, not his own. I myself base that on the very clear description of the man's personality in reference to talking shop.

I believe the family knew his personality well enough to make the wild horses comment about him.

If you interpret it differently, then, to each his own. But a question I must ask is this...I allow myself to quote you..

"All we know for sure is that he refused to tell members of his family the name of the man he believed was the Ripper."

I see.....So he leaves a message in a book, that unless his Last Will and Testament says otherwise bequiething it to a specific person... unless he writes anything specific in his will....his FAMILY members will take posession of anyway. The same family members that aren't going to be revealed the name....hmmmm.
He refused to tell them, "wild horses impression", yet presents it in a book that they will find out anyway?
No Sir. I argue that isn't the man nor his personality. He was clearly a man of his word and a man of principle, as has been indicated by his own family.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Phil

I'm sorry, but it's precisely this kind of speculative discussion about whether it's likely that A would have done B if we interpret C to mean D that I don't want to get drawn into.

I am making a very simple point. I am suggesting that the "wild horses" comment may simply be the family's description of the difficulty of getting the suspect's name out of DSS. I am suggesting that DSS may not have said anything himself about "wild horses".

If that is the case, then there is nothing to indicate that DSS gave any sort of "solemn word" about taking the suspect's name with him to the grave, and your contention that DSS's suspect was someone other than 'Kosminski' is based on a misinterpretation of something Jim Swanson said in 1981.

[Fisherman]

Once again, it can be pointed out that the reason we quibble over this in the way we do, owes solely to the fact of Swanson not having been sufficiently clear - although he could have been, had he wished to.

Sutherland was one of the men who knew all the strange views, the conjecture, the disagreements over the GSG, for example. He had seen - and probably cursed - the effects of not being absolutely clear. Why would he add soemthing himself that was equally unclear? I find it hard to believe.

Therefore, I lean very much towards the view that Swanson simply expanded on what Anderson had thought and believed.

And just as it is suggested that Swanson could have felt a moral duty to come clear about his own convictions, it equally applies that he may have felt that Anderson was not correct in keeping his ideas from the public, and therefore Swanson may have felt that laying the cards on the table as he himself was getting on and his old master had passed away, was the correct and moral thing to do; Swanson survived Anderson by some six years.
To me, that would offer a very reasonable explanation.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Phil

I'm sorry, but it's precisely this kind of speculative discussion about whether it's likely that A would have done B if we interpret C to mean D that I don't want to get drawn into.

I am making a very simple point. I am suggesting that the "wild horses" comment may simply be the family's description of the difficulty of getting the suspect's name out of DSS. I am suggesting that DSS may not have said anything himself about "wild horses".

If that is the case, then there is nothing to indicate that DSS gave any sort of "solemn word" about taking the suspect's name with him to the grave, and your contention that DSS's suspect was someone other than 'Kosminski' is based on a misinterpretation of something Jim Swanson said in 1981.

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the response once more... but I will repeat MY simple point. You state that

"All we know for sure is that he refused to tell members of his family the name of the man he believed was the Ripper."

You state it is "known for sure" that he refused to tell members of the family...

Yet that is precisely what he has done, according to you, in writing the name Kosminski in the book...because they get the book anyway after he dies, unless his will states otherwise.

That Chris, goes against the distinct and clear impression the family had of him, his personality, his principles and his values.

So my point is simple. It isnt speculation on my part. It is seeing the man for whom he was. They, the family, were adamant that they were not to know the name of the culprit. Crystal clear.

Now a man like that won't pass that info on at any cost, I argue. Therefore, passing on Anderson's suspect, is no pronlem to him. Who cares who knows that? Simple logic.

Rob House, speculates that DSS was "itching" to tell the "British public" the name.

Now THAT doesn't add up with either your view or mine, Chris.

best wishes

Phil

PS..Please excuse the lack of further replies..time has caught up with me. My apologies

[Chris]

You state it is "known for sure" that he refused to tell members of the family...

Obviously when I said he refused to tell members of the family the name of the suspect, I meant he refused on the specific occasion or occasions that Jim Swanson was referring to.

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty my friend !

Come now Trevor,

We both know Hearsay evidence is admissable.

Yes but it was only introduced in the last 10 years and is subject to a strict criteria

We do not know Kosminskis state of mind in 88. You are basing him as in 91, when his condition was obvious to all.

His state of mind doesnt matter its what evidence there was to make him a PRIME suspect at any time. The answer is there must have been none otherwise it would have been mentioned by either MM, Swanson or Anderson, and of course not forgetting the whole compliment of the Met police and City forces combined who i am sure could not all been sworn to a vow of silence

Martin is on record for saying he is doubtful the Kosminski he found is the Kosminski referred to by Anderson and Swanson.

Well its a serious doubt how can you argue against the antecednets not tying up with what MM wrote, and besides it doesnt even tie up with the movements of Aaron Kosmiski as far as the events shown in the marginalia are concerned

Coles is not part of Macnaghtens canon. Not all the Police officials of the period felt she was a Ripper victim. Most noted students of the case feel Sadler was her killer.

That may be the case but in the new RIP article there is mention of a Swanson document setting out nine murders and one attempt using my abacus that would include Coles, and even as recent as Grainger in 1895 they were still playing hunt the ripper

Despite what you state, Kosminski was a contemporary suspect and therefore to be considered.

But we all know how easy it is for a name to be mentioned as a suspect and perhaps even then entered in some official record but when that happens that person is then investigated and then the report written up accordingly which is what may have happened as far as the MM and then the AV is concerned whereby in one je names him as a likely suspect and then in the other exonerates him.

Aaron Kosminky has been considered and there is nothing to now suggest or there ever was that he was JTR. The neareset he came to becoming a serial killer was when his mother asked him what he wanted for breakfast and he replied "I ould muder a bowl of cornflakes"

Condemed? No. I'm with you on that. Then again, I don't think many are against you on that point.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Perhaps I'm being daft again, but certain conclusions seem rather iron clad here. Those are:

1) Donald Swanson himself wrote all the annotations himself.
2) Resulting from #1 must be the conclusion that Anderson's suspect was named or known as 'Kosminski'.
3) The report from another of Anderson's subordinates, Macnaghten, also names 'Kosminski' as a suspect.
4) The writings of all three men (Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten) are referring to the same man, known as 'Kosminski'.
5) The best research to date has arrived at the man named Aaron Kozminski as the person who must have been 'Kosminski'.

Please let me know if I'm mistaken in any of the above, and IF I'm mistaken, please tell me HOW I'm mistaken.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Hi Tom,

For your list, is it important when Anderson considered Kosminski a definitely ascertained fact?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mike,

No, it's not important for that particular list. I'm just trying to ascertain if everyone (except Trevor, of course) agrees that a) Aaron Kosminski was a bonafide suspect, b) that Anderson, Swanson, and Macnaghten were talking about the same man, and c) Aaron Kozminski, as identified by later researchers, was one and the same as 'Kosminski'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jenni Shelden]

Tom,
that seems to be very soundly put what i was getting at.
I also think the assumption made by others that if Swanson had suspected someone else or thought Anderson was wrong he would have written something to this affect rather than to the affect of what he wrote - ie that they werent arrested due to lack of evidence but he could have put - Anderson was wrong.

hence Kosminski is valid suspect - a police suspect from the time - a view held by Anderson and MM and DSS. I also think it is highly likely that this man is Aaron Kosminski.

jeNNI

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jenni, that's a good point. If Swanson knew for a fact (at least in his own mind) that someone other than Kosminski was the Ripper, and therefore Kosminski was innocent, we might expect to see some evidence of that in his notes. But instead we are only left with his seemingly impartial notes expounding upon Anderson's dogmatic proclamations. And as for Swanson's alleged knowledge of the Ripper's identity, we are left only with family lore. I'm not aware of Swanson putting anything into print in the way of his knowing who the Ripper was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Hi Jenni, that's a good point. If Swanson knew for a fact (at least in his own mind) that someone other than Kosminski was the Ripper, and therefore Kosminski was innocent, we might expect to see some evidence of that in his notes. But instead we are only left with his seemingly impartial notes expounding upon Anderson's dogmatic proclamations.

Absolutely. And in fact he adds an argument in favour of Kosminski's guilt - "after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London". It's not much of an argument, but why would he add it at all if he was convinced that a different suspect was the Ripper? And why bother giving all the additional information about Kosminski anyway, if he favoured a different suspect?