New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[AdamNeilWood]

'Why "strangely and inexplicably"?'

Why or how would an unused internal News of the World document turn up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum?
I think it is a little strange.
There may be a logical reason, but...
'Inexplicably' literally means there is no explanation. There hasn't been an explanation. The article states:
'When and how it entered the Crime Museum is unknown at this point.'

Hello Lechmere,

One possibility which Keith and I considered is the access that News of the World journalists had to the Metropolitan Police in 1981, as revealed recently by the Leveson Inquiry. Perhaps Charles Sandell ran the draft article by a contact at the Met for opinion and this eventually made its way into the Crime Museum?

Best wishes
Adam

[Lechmere]

Context

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

That is what it would mean if Swanson was in operational control.

Hello???

I give him the whole responsibility.

Explain the ambiguity here.

Oh, that's right - there isn't any.

[Lechmere]

Hunter
That doesn't sound like being put in operational charge - which is the usual claim.
It means his seniors will consult him as he has the information. It does not mean he will operationally control the investigation on the ground. That is what it would mean if Swanson was in operational control.

[Lechmere]

'Why "strangely and inexplicably"?'

Why or how would an unused internal News of the World document turn up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum?
I think it is a little strange.
There may be a logical reason, but...
'Inexplicably' literally means there is no explanation. There hasn't been an explanation. The article states:
'When and how it entered the Crime Museum is unknown at this point.'

[Hunter]

...This is the note from Warren and is the primary source for Swanson being placed ‘in charge‘ of the investigation into the Whitechapel murders.
I would suggest that this letter makes Swanson and his office the clearing house for documents and information relating to the case that came into Scotland Yard from a variety of locations and sources. This is somewhat different from suggesting that Swanson was ‘in charge’ of anything other than the documents themselves which he would collate and prepare reports for his superiors.

"I look upon him for the time being as the eyes and ears for the Commmr in this particular case...He must be consulted on every subject. I would not send any directions anywhere on the subject of the murder without consulting him. I give him the whole responsibility."

That sounds like someone being placed in charge to me.

In Evans & Skinner's The Ultimate, The authors present the words of the whole text verbatim. They would have, not only seen the document to transcribe it, but they also add commentary that most of it was probability written by a secretary, but the last paragraph is in Warren's own hand. I've never had reason to suspect that these two notable researchers might be unreliable.

[Chris]

Have you ever found a date on which it finally turned up at Scotland Yard and was christened the Macnaghten Report?

I assume it was just slipped into the files on the date it bears, and has stayed there ever since.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Have you ever found a date on which it finally turned up at Scotland Yard and was christened the Macnaghten Report?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

The Warren note was apparently shown to the News of the World in 1981 – according to another document that strangely and inexplicably turned up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum in 2011.

Why "strangely and inexplicably"?

[Chris]

Simon

A while ago I did check the register of incoming Home Office correspondence to see if there was any reference to the Memorandum having been received there, and there wasn't. So I think it is reasonably clear that it was never sent to the Home Office.

My thought was that there would be no reason for an internal police document that had remained within the police files to have a date stamp. Though obviously I'd have to look at some examples to check that.

The example you gave was a document sent by Anderson to the Home Office, so I'm not surprised the H.O. stamped it as received.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

In a sense, doesn't Anderson himself admit that? "It was a case of moral versus legal proof." If it would have been sufficient to convince "twelve good men and true" it would have been legal proof. The "moral proof" business must in effect be an acknowledgment that not everyone would be convinced by the evidence.

I suppose we also need to consider evidence that would not be admissible.

I don't pretend to know the finer parts of the law but I could see how Kosminski's "acknowledgment" that he had been I.D.'ed might be problematic.

Everyone focuses on Lawende (IMHO) saying he couldn't/wouldn't identify the suspect, but what if Kosminski had some sort of hallucination that very moment, violently shuddered and Anderson and Company took it as a sign of being guilty?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

I've just had a brief trawl through my collection of SY and HO reports and internal correspondence.

Most bear a date stamp and/or a file reference, and those which don't are contained within file covers bearing a description of their contents and often a variety of file numbers.

As an example, here's the first page of a November 1888 letter from Anderson to the Home Office regarding his pension—



Had Macnaghten's memorandum been sent to either the Commissioner or, say, an under-Secretary at the Home Office I would have expected this important document to have been addressed and recorded in a similar manner.

But, then again, I do realise we are dealing with Ripperland where anything and everything is possible.

Regards,

Simon

[Lechmere]

I am interested in the note mentioned in this article and reproduced in part in ‘Jack the Ripper – Scotland Yard Investigates’ on page 85 (of my copy anyway).

This is the note from Warren and is the primary source for Swanson being placed ‘in charge‘ of the investigation into the Whitechapel murders.
I would suggest that this letter makes Swanson and his office the clearing house for documents and information relating to the case that came into Scotland Yard from a variety of locations and sources. This is somewhat different from suggesting that Swanson was ‘in charge’ of anything other than the documents themselves which he would collate and prepare reports for his superiors.

The Warren note was apparently shown to the News of the World in 1981 – according to another document that strangely and inexplicably turned up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum in 2011.

The original Warrren note was in the possession of the Swanson family and presumably had been ‘kept’ by Swanson after he left the police. However this note has disappeared.

I am wondering...
Who has actually seen this document?
How closely did they see it?
Did they photograph all of it (as I said only one page is reproduced in ‘Jack the Ripper – Scotland Yard Investigates’)?
Does anyone have any idea what happened to it or when it disappeared?
In other words when was the last time anyone saw it?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

He states quite clearly that it was deduced that the Ripper crimes were the work of a madman, living in the local area, confirmed by the location of Kosminski, who was positively identified by an eye witness, and whose incarceration marked the end of the Whitechapel murders

Anderson didn't need any more moral proof than that and doesn't hint at any further hard evidence

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.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Yes, and many other people reported members of their family to the police in the thought or belief that they were Jack the Ripper. It wasn't unusual.

Next you'll say it was as common as saying "Good Morning!"....