New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Simon,

I take it these are the DSS handwriting samples Trevor has been keeping up his sleeve?

He did tell me at the York conference that he had a couple of signatures taken from official reports closer to the probable date of the Marginalia being written than the sample used by Dr Davies for his 2006 report.

Thanks for posting them. Now we can see what all the fuss has been about.

Best wishes
Adam

[Simon Wood]

Hi Adam,

I just contacted Trevor, who tells me that the 1882 Swanson signatures are not the samples he has used for comparison purposes in his investigation regarding the marginalia.

I hope that clears up matters.

Regards,

Simon

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the clarification.

And thanks for posting these further signature samples.

Best wishes
Adam

[m_w_r]

Hi,

I did stick a few of these up on the boards some time ago, but there are plenty of Swanson signatures from 1903, when he was signing off on documents relating to the Moat Farm Murder. This was not long before his retirement, and in this example there is a little bit of Swanson's writing alongside the signature. 'A recommended' isn't as silly as it sounds: Swanson had noted 'A' a few lines up, in the margin, next to the reporting officer's recommended action (in this case, forwarding the report to the solicitor acting for the Director of Public Prosecutions), and he was saying that he agreed with the suggested action and recommended it.



And, of course, there is his signature from the 1911 Census, which I'm sure we've all seen before.



Regards,

Mark

[harry]

Paul,
Maybe if you went to the village,and that visit ended with you discovering the identity of JTR,would you then feel you wished to identify that village?

[PaulB]

Paul,
Maybe if you went to the village,and that visit ended with you discovering the identity of JTR,would you then feel you wished to identify that village?

Why? I'd know which village I'd gone to, and as I would be writing for my eyes only, why would I expand on what I already knew?

But Swanson did identify the 'village' in the sense that he specified a place. He didn't just write 'village' or 'convalescent home' or 'home' or anything equally vague. He specified a place, 'the Seaside Home'. And the word 'the' and the capital 'S' and 'H' indicate that he meant a specific seaside home, not just any seaside home. And Donald Rumbelow instantly recognised it as a reference to the Convalescent Police Seaside Home, stating that to a policeman then, as now, that is what 'the Seaside Home' meant. And if it wasn't for the difficulty we have in trying to figure out why an identification was held there, nobody would have any problem in accepting that that is precisely where Swanson meant.

But the fact is that Swanson was writing for himself and he knew the place he meant and what he wrote was enough for his needs. You may wish he had written more, that he had been more detailed, that he told the story in the minutest detail, but he didn't, and there is no justification for disbelieving him just because he didn't go into the details you and the rest of us would like. You've got what you've got.

[harry]

That is the kind of selfishness that I do not understand,and have difficulty in accepting.The case had received national and worldwide coverage.The two most senior officers had,it is claimed,evidence that would solve the case.Every policeman takes an oath to serve the public,and to act in the public interest.That interest extends to providing,to the best of their ability,a safe place,twenty four hours a day,in which people can live their lives.Yes,even prostitutes.In 1888 a situation arose which threatened that safety,if not of all,certainly a section of the community.That situation was resolved,it is claimed, the threat removed,but the public carried on in fear and ignorance.
Quite a noble act then,on the part of Anderson and Swanson,to forgoe the adulation and praise of a grateful public,the acclaim of a world wide audience,the undoubted thanks and perhaps honours from a relieved government.Not to mention the denial of recognition of effort,to the numerous officers who were also kept in ignorance and still laboured to detect a threat that was then non existant.'You beauties" as they say here in Australia.

[PaulB]

That is the kind of selfishness that I do not understand,and have difficulty in accepting.The case had received national and worldwide coverage.The two most senior officers had,it is claimed,evidence that would solve the case.Every policeman takes an oath to serve the public,and to act in the public interest.That interest extends to providing,to the best of their ability,a safe place,twenty four hours a day,in which people can live their lives.Yes,even prostitutes.In 1888 a situation arose which threatened that safety,if not of all,certainly a section of the community.That situation was resolved,it is claimed, the threat removed,but the public carried on in fear and ignorance.
Quite a noble act then,on the part of Anderson and Swanson,to forgoe the adulation and praise of a grateful public,the acclaim of a world wide audience,the undoubted thanks and perhaps honours from a relieved government.Not to mention the denial of recognition of effort,to the numerous officers who were also kept in ignorance and still laboured to detect a threat that was then non existant.'You beauties" as they say here in Australia.

Not really, Harry. There are numerous cases where the police believe they know the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, but they can't say so unless they have the evidence to bring charges. I remember the trouble the police got into for announcing that they had caught the Yorkshire Ripper. There was no doubt that they had, but the law said he was innocent until proven guilty. But that's an altogether different issue to source analysis.

[robhouse]

Not really, Harry. There are numerous cases where the police believe they know the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, but they can't say so unless they have the evidence to bring charges. I remember the trouble the police got into for announcing that they had caught the Yorkshire Ripper. There was no doubt that they had, but the law said he was innocent until proven guilty. But that's an altogether different issue to source analysis.

Gary Ridgeway is the example I always cite. The police strongly suspected Ridgeway for over a decade, but lacked evidence to bring charges until the finally processed the DNA evidence in 2001. I say strongly suspected, but I think some members of the police would have said they "knew" Ridgeway was the killer, even though they lacked evidence to convict him.

RH

[PaulB]

Gary Ridgeway is the example I always cite. The police strongly suspected Ridgeway for over a decade, but lacked evidence to bring charges until the finally processed the DNA evidence in 2001. I say strongly suspected, but I think some members of the police would have said they "knew" Ridgeway was the killer, even though they lacked evidence to convict him.

RH

Thanks Rob. A good example.

[mariab]

To Rob House:
Pardon me to butt in and highjack, but I'm under the impression that Ridgway was suspected by the police only marginally.
In 1983 victim Marie Malvar was soliciting on the Seattle strip (close to the airport). Her BF followed the john's truck she had gotten in until they sped away and he lost track of them. After that Malvar was never heard from again. A few days after the incident, Malvar's BF, father, and brother spotted the suspicious truck near the place where the BF initially lost sight of it days earlier, and followed the truck to Gary Ridgway's house. When interrogated by the police, Ridgway denied having ever seen Malvar, and that was the end of it.
Later on Ridgway was arrested on the strip during a routine search and was asked to give samples. He was one among hundreds.
What's similar between the Whitechapel murders and the Green River killings are the logistics of the two cases, as in the massive influx of information the police force had to deal with while they typically didn't have the means to process the ever increasing amount of data and evidence. Reportedly much of it was lost, misplaced or overlooked entirely. The situation got so out of hand that at one point they enlisted the help of volunteers to assist the police in the ongoing investigation, WVC-like.
Another parallel with the Ripper case is that the hundreds of interviews conducted with local prostitutes who worked the main strip in Seattle remained for the most part fruitless, since most of the girls were reluctant to talk due to their blatant mistrust for the police.

[Phil H]

That is the kind of selfishness that I do not understand,and have difficulty in accepting.

Only because you are looking at things with a C21st rather than a C19th perspective.

The case had received national and worldwide coverage.The two most senior officers had,it is claimed,evidence that would solve the case.

But not, I think, until after at least the Kelly murder. In fact, Anderson claimed (I recognise that this is arguable) that he did try to get the unfortunates off the streets. The police of the time would also have argued that they were doing everything they could to deter and/or apprehend the culprit.

Every policeman takes an oath to serve the public,and to act in the public interest.That interest extends to providing,to the best of their ability,a safe place,twenty four hours a day,in which people can live their lives.

I doubt whether that was true in 1888, but others are better placed than me to inform you on Victorian police responsibilities.

Quite a noble act then,on the part of Anderson and Swanson,to forgoe the adulation and praise of a grateful public,the acclaim of a world wide audience,the undoubted thanks and perhaps honours from a relieved government.

I get quite tired of this sort of anachronistic warbling. Anderson and Swanson need have said nothing - indeed, perhaps should have said nothing. DSS's comments were made in a personal volume and not for publication or release in his lifetime. Anderson was circumspact.

Anderson's motivation could have been (I cannot prove it, but that does not matter for this discussion) that he WAS informing the public in a non-specific way that the Ripper was no longer a danger. I am of the opinion that they did not focus on a tenable suspect until 1889 at the earliest (Kosminski).

I don't think Victorian officials in 1888 had any responsibility to the general public. They were CROWN servants with an obligation to the Government/executive to adminster legal and policy issue even-handedly. There was no freedom of information act in force.

Not to mention the denial of recognition of effort,to the numerous officers who were also kept in ignorance and still laboured to detect a threat that was then non existant.

Utter drivel. Anderson is indeed at pains to pay a compliment to the ethos of his profession. the level of threat can be determined by the various increases and reductions in levels of manpower devoted to the East End.

If you are going to debate these issues you might at least strive to understand the mind set and milieu in which they took place. It was a society with different structures and values than those we enjoy today; the problems they faced, the responsibilities they had; the technology and the experience were all totally alien to those we have in 2012. You will never appreciate the nuances of the case if you insist on hanging on to irrelevent C21st attitudes. Who are WE to judge the past?

Phil H

[robhouse]

To Rob House:
Pardon me to butt in and highjack, but I'm under the impression that Ridgway was suspected by the police only marginally.

Ridgeway was one of the police's top suspects for over a decade... there were a couple others, but according to the head of the GRTF, he "knew" Ridgeway was the Green River killer before he saw the results of the DNA tests.

RH

[mariab]

To Rob House:
Fascinating. Could you perhaps cite your source? Thanks so much.

[Archaic]

Hi Maria.

It's off-topic for this thread, but Rob is correct. The Green River Murders happened where I live and were in the news daily. I vividly remember how sickening it was every time they discovered another body. Ridgway was interviewed and prospective evidence was tested multiple times, but the samples never matched. The evidence was usually quite degraded due to the bodies being dumped in the river and in the rainy woods. Ridgway had a double life; one as a devoted husband and father and the other as a serial killer. He even successfully passed a lie detector test because his life was so incredibly compartmentalized.

Sheriff Dave Reichert and other members of the Green River Task Force believed Ridgway to be the likely killer, but they were only able to prove it in I think 2001 when new, more sensitive DNA tests became available. They set a trap for him with a female officer posing as a prostitute, and were able to arrest him. He finally confessed to 48 murders.

Best regards,
Archaic