New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[PaulB]

I think the one thing that really needs to be cleared up now is Trevor Marriott's claim earlier this year that a "leading handwriting expert" had stated that in their opinion the marginalia were not written by Swanson, and that these findings were "conclusive".

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=14187&page=6

In the light of the evidence presented in the article by Adam and Keith I find those statements extremely difficult to believe.

Indeed.

A bolt has been shot.

[Chris]

In defence of what has been said and stated before that from my experience in the criminal justice system it is not unusual for two experts in the same field of expertise to disagree with each others findings.

No doubt that's true to some extent. But in view of Dr Davies's conclusions it is extremely difficult to understand how any responsible document examiner could state conclusively that the handwriting was not Swanson's, particularly without having seen the original document.

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello all,

"Such was every case of murder where the murderer was not charged because evidence was not obtainable"

It is also noted that underneath this text, and the "Macnagthen" annotation, both kindly provided by Adam Wood previously, that Swanson does not "sign" the annotations with "DSS" on these occasions.

A question I have for Adam, therefore, is throughout this book, how many annotations/additions/emphasised underlinings are there, and how many are undersigned?

best wishes

Phil

Phil,

I already answered this in post 41:

In answer to your last post I'm about to post high res images of the other three annotated pages of The Lighter Side of My Official Life, so you'll be able to see the extent to which DSS wrote in that book.

And in the article itself I wrote:

Jim saw that his grandfather had made handwritten comments on four pages and also the endpaper, either adding to or correcting what was on the printed page.

To make this even clearer, it means I've posted photos of every instance where Donald Swanson wrote or otherwise underlined passages in his copy of The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

The fact of the matter is that Swanson did sign personal notes using his initials, 'DSS', as evidenced by the example in his personal address book, and also in his letters to his family, both shown in my article. He obviously didn't do this with every single piece of writing, as evidenced by his margin notes made in other books in his library, again shown in the article.

Are you suggesting that because he didn't initial the reference to Macnaghten or the comment regarding 'evidence being obtainable' there's something suspicious about him doing so on the comments regarding to Kosminski?

Best wishes
Adam

[mklhawley]

You don't get it do you. The marginalia is genuine and unless you are suggesting that Swanson was lying or wishfully thinking or confused or mistaken, or anything else that's been suggested a dozen times, the fact remains that there was a suspect identified by Swanson as "Kosminski", so the name is on the list. So tear it up, start again. I don't care. His name will have to be on any list produced.

And what a good detective believes or disbelieves is neither here nor there. This is history.

I just had to bold this, and this article has improved our pool of 'reliable knowledge'.

Sincerely,
Mike

[AdamNeilWood]

Questions answered?

Hello Trevor,

Many thanks for the kind words regarding the article. I look forward to hearing your thoughts regarding Dr Davies's second examination of the Marginalia.

In the meantime, back on 15 July 2012 you posted this on another thread:

If I may throw another spanner into the marginlia works from my dealings with newspapers over the years I can say that newspapers will only pay any agreed sum of money on publishing the article.

For those who are preparing or have already prepared this article they should be looking to provide documentary evidence to :

Prove conclusivley that the name Kosminski was written in the documentation offered to the NOTW in 1981.

Show that an amount of money was actually agreed and what that amount was, and show that it was physically paid to Swanson

Show what the agreement was between Swanson and the NOTW in 1981

Show any correspondence from the NOTW regarding the contents of what they were being offered

Show the rights agreement between the NOTW and Swanson.

Show correspondence fron the NOTW showing why they didnt publish it.

Show correspondence between Swanson and the NOTW in 1987 when they supposedly gave the rights back.

More of the above and less of hearing about what people beleive or suspect.

Anything less will still leave a doubt

I wonder if in this article, out of the blue we shall see the full handwriting experts report suddenly appear after Nevil Swanson saying he doesnt have permission to let anyone read it of have a copy, and the Met saying they no nothing about it and the curator of the crime museum saying his copy has gone missing?

Anyone for a small wager ?

With the vast majority of these points resolved within the article, do you now accept that the Marginalia (including the name 'Kosminski') was intact before the book came into Jim Swanson's possession, and therefore he acted with total honesty and integrity?

I know there are problems with what the Marginalia says and I don't pretend to have any more information on this anyone else.

But I would like it confirmed that Jim has been cleared of any suspicion.

Best wishes
Adam

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

I already answered this in post 41:

In answer to your last post I'm about to post high res images of the other three annotated pages of The Lighter Side of My Official Life, so you'll be able to see the extent to which DSS wrote in that book.

And in the article itself I wrote:

Jim saw that his grandfather had made handwritten comments on four pages and also the endpaper, either adding to or correcting what was on the printed page.

To make this even clearer, it means I've posted photos of every instance where Donald Swanson wrote or otherwise underlined passages in his copy of The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

The fact of the matter is that Swanson did sign personal notes using his initials, 'DSS', as evidenced by the example in his personal address book, and also in his letters to his family, both shown in my article. He obviously didn't do this with every single piece of writing, as evidenced by his margin notes made in other books in his library, again shown in the article.

Are you suggesting that because he didn't initial the reference to Macnaghten or the comment regarding 'evidence being obtainable' there's something suspicious about him doing so on the comments regarding to Kosminski?

Best wishes
Adam

Hello Adam,

No sir, I am not suggesting anything. I was just attempting to get a mathematical picture of percentages. I apologise for missing your comments, above, but I just wanted to see for myself the regularity of such annotative undersigning..nothing else. The undersigning of "DSS" has been an element of the marginalia question from the very beginning. There is nothing, I repeat nothing suspicious in MY intentions, as seen by explanation herewith.

The word "suspicious" is misleading as to my intentions Adam. They are quite innocent. If I second guessed every question put to me then I would be presuming a standpoint of sorts. I have not given one in this instance apart from that which I have written here, clearly..namely that I believe that DSS was a man of his word, and kept it. He did not, in my opinion, reveal the name HE knew of in regard to the Whitechapel murders. He kept the word he made to both himself AND his family, imho. There is nothing suspicious in that. It is, infact, supportive of the family view of his professional manner in regard to regailing work related issues.

I am taking the material presented as is. Nothing more. Logical thought leads me to believe that DSS wrote from what he was told of Anderson's story, possibly by Anderson himself. Because he gave his solemn word never to reveal what he knew, I believe he only wrote what Anderson knew, or thought he knew. There is no indication that DSS was fighting with himself to reveal or not reveal the name or information he himself had. He had made a determined judgement not to reveal any information he posessed. The only "itching" came from his relatives in wanting him to speak out. The determination of DSS as shown to his relatives never to tell, overides any possibility that he actually did do it in the form known, annotated in the marginalia. This determination has not been showed to have been broken, nor his resolve weakened.

We are constantly told that we can only work with what we have been given.
We have been given proof of DSS' determination to never break his silence.
It is indeed an honourable man we speak of here. There is no indication that he retracted that turn of self persuasion to remain silent. That is why I believe he never did. Until anything else turns up that shows the man to have had a change of heart, we can only work with what we have. Wild horses would not drag anything out of him that he personally knew.
What Anderson believed though...well, that's another matter entirely. DSS wouldn't be breaking his word telling us details of what Anderson said.

I believe that DSS took the information he posessed with him to his grave, and kept his determined, solemn word.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Adam,

Thank you for reminding me.

Trevor.....where's ma money? Huh? Where is it Dude? You owe money. We had a bet dude.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed.

A bolt has been shot.

Has it I wouldnt be so smug if I were you

[jason_c]

Hello Jason,

Yes, I agree. I have done this as well in the past.
The trouble is that people underline things for different reasons. The main agreeable point is to emphasise. But without a clarification in terms of annotation or footnote, for example, we do not know exactly why DSS underlined this text in emphasis. For example...

He could be agreeing with the written word in front of him.
He could be agreeing and making notes elsewhere for his own use.
He could be noting with the intention of using the agreeable passage later.
He could be disagreeing with the written word in front of him.
He could be disagreeing and making notes for his own use.
He could be noting with the intention of using the disagreeable passage later.
He could be noting with the intent of picking up the phone and talking with someone about it, possibly Anderson himself.

There are a myriad of possibilities, and I believe it really is pointless to try and speculate on what DSS was actually thinking when he underlined the text all those years ago.

best wishes

Phil

Phil,

I agree there are a number of possibilities. With what little we know of how these notes were used by Swanson the two emboldened possibilities are far more likely than the others. For instance we can just about rule out Swanson using these notes with the intention of writing a book or newspaper article. The "picking up the phone" option is a possibility too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

Many thanks for the kind words regarding the article. I look forward to hearing your thoughts regarding Dr Davies's second examination of the Marginalia.

In the meantime, back on 15 July 2012 you posted this on another thread:



With the vast majority of these points resolved within the article, do you now accept that the Marginalia (including the name 'Kosminski') was intact before the book came into Jim Swanson's possession, and therefore he acted with total honesty and integrity?

I know there are problems with what the Marginalia says and I don't pretend to have any more information on this anyone else.

But I would like it confirmed that Jim has been cleared of any suspicion.

Best wishes
Adam

Hi Adam

Thank you for reminding me what I posted I would also like to mention that prior to the new examination many were suggesting that Dr Totty`s and Dr Davies reports were conclusive proof that the marginalia was authentic. Perhaps those people would care to come forward and now admit that those statements they made suggesting that and that those reports were not conclusive proof of that fact.

At this point I dont wish to comment any further on this topic other than to accept that the name Kosminksi was in place in 1981.

As I stated in an earlier post I am still assessing and evaluating all the new material and I have further investigative work to conduct. As and when this is completed I will release a statement or perhaps include it in a comprehnsive article for publication in Ripperologist. This will cover all and everything relevant to this marginalia and everything and everybody connected to it.

[Chris]

We have been given proof of DSS' determination to never break his silence.

I think it's important to remember what the draft News of the World article actually said:

Said Mr Swanson: "It was a surprising discovery because my grandfather was a very discreet man and never discussed the investigation with people outside the force. Even close members of the family knew very little about his work.

"But after he had retired in 1903 he did reveal to members of the family that he knew the true identity of Jack the Ripper, but wild horses wouldn't drag the name out of him.

"We thought he would take the name to the grave with him. ...

Certainly the part about taking the name to the grave relates to the family's expectations. But I think it's also very questionable whether DSS himself is supposed to have said anything about wild horses. To my mind the natural interpretation of that sentence is that he told members of the family that he knew the Ripper's identity, but that though they tried very hard to get him to tell them the name he refused.

In essence this is very much what Jim's sister Mary told Adam this year:
I don’t think DSS would have broken the Police Code to impart it [the name of the suspect] to anyone, but we, in the family, had all been assured that the culprit was known.

Obviously neither Jim nor Mary was in any doubt that 'Kosminski' was the name of the man Swanson believed was the Ripper.

[robhouse]

Firstly Aaron has been eliminated so that just leaves another Kosminski ?

Do you care to back this up with anything? When was he eliminated? And by whom?

RH

[Phil Carter]

I think it's important to remember what the draft News of the World article actually said:

Said Mr Swanson: "It was a surprising discovery because my grandfather was a very discreet man and never discussed the investigation with people outside the force. Even close members of the family knew very little about his work.

"But after he had retired in 1903 he did reveal to members of the family that he knew the true identity of Jack the Ripper, but wild horses wouldn't drag the name out of him.

"We thought he would take the name to the grave with him. ...

Certainly the part about taking the name to the grave relates to the family's expectations. But I think it's also very questionable whether DSS himself is supposed to have said anything about wild horses. To my mind the natural interpretation of that sentence is that he told members of the family that he knew the Ripper's identity, but that though they tried very hard to get him to tell them the name he refused.

In essence this is very much what Jim's sister Mary told Adam this year:
I don’t think DSS would have broken the Police Code to impart it [the name of the suspect] to anyone, but we, in the family, had all been assured that the culprit was known.

Obviously neither Jim nor Mary was in any doubt that 'Kosminski' was the name of the man Swanson believed was the Ripper.

Hello Chris,

Thank you for the reply.
Yes, I can easily the connection being made through this quoted source. However, it is still important, on balance I feel, to point out that we do not know if the name Kosminski was Swanson's suspect or the suspect related to Swanson by Anderson. With the greatest respect to Jim and Mary Swanson, and believe me I have, whether they felt that the name was the one that DSS stated he wouldn't reveal at any cost, or Anderson's suspect, doesn't really help us either. Without some other information turning up to differentiate or collaberate upon the two possibilities, we are left as is.

As I said, I honestly believe that DSS was a man of his word. Having read through the references to his personality, that is the weight carrying conclusion I have. Revealing Anderson's suspect by name seems logical, in reference to DSS determined to keep his word. Had I thought differently, I'd certainly say it.

Finally, Mary's words (again, with all respect possible) that the family knew that the culprit was known within the force really does ask questions. Because I cannot believe that only these two specific men actually knew the name. It's not logical that Abberline didn't know it. If he did, then he started a goose chase mentioning what he did. No City officer knew it either. No Commissioner since has known it...despite regular questioning down the years.

If Macnagthen knew it (Kosminski being both the suspect and culprit) then he started a goose chase too favouring Druitt. What is more, I cannot for the life of me believe that not only have there been a file on Kosminski in existance that has gone missing... but Ostrog, Druitt, Chapman (relating to JTR), Kelly, etc etc all gone missing. Adding Monro's hot potato... I cannot possibly see what hot potato a lowly Polish Jew would be. Especially by the time of him saying those words, when the Jewish "situation" in the East End was far far calmer.

It doesn't make sense that a low life Polish Jew should cause such secrecy. And by implication that only Anderson and Swanson knew..thats a secret kept from far too many others that would or should be privy to the details.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you care to back this up with anything? When was he eliminated? And by whom?

RH

Firstly there is not a scrap of evidence to connect AAron Kosminski to any of these murders. Forget about all this business about living in the area close to the murder scenes etc, thats used to paper over the cracks. There is not a scrap of evidence to show the killer lived or worked in Whitechapel.

Anyone taking that view has a 50/50 chance of being right.

Whoever the killer of killers were he or they were certainly not lunatics or persons like Aaron who in his final days of freedom was described as being dirty and eating out of the gutter.

I have recently studied 67 serial killer cases and have not come across anyone who you could say is on a par with Aaron Kosminski in his ways, habits and style of living etc.

Aaron Kosminski was originally foundby Martin Fido and eliminated soon after by Martin as his antecedents did not match those of the Kosmniski mentioned in the MM.

Furthermore Frances Coles murder was Feb 1891 after Aaron was incarcerated.

The infamous ID procedure mentioned in the marginalia could not have taken place before that date and up until then and therefater the police were still hunting the ripper.

As I said earlier if you and others continue to champion Aaon Kosminski then you have to be prepared to accept that MM was wrong or deliberatly lied and that the Kosminski named in the marginalia is not Aaron Kosminski. Either way he put the record right in the AV by in effect exonarating the person named Kosminski.

Now you tell me why Aaron Kosminski should still remain a suspect and in doing do give me your interpretation of the word "suspect" and how a person becomes a suspect. Let me help you to consider your answers.

Consider this Officer A meets Officer B

Officer A says to Officer B " I think C is JTR"

Does that make him a suspect the answer is no.

Its hearsay sadly there is no much hearsay

[Chris]

With the greatest respect tp Jim and Mary Swanson, and believe me I have, whether they felt that the name was the one that DSS stated he wouldn't reveal at any cost, or Anderson's suspect, doesn't really help us either.

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.