New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Surely you know better than to employ that cheap shot.

Regards,

Simon

[harry]

It almost seems,from the many posts above,that the investigative and administrive police officers engaged in the hunt for the Ripper,were a numerous collection of small cliques,each with their own agenda,collecting information,and instigating activities,that only they were aware of,and unwilling,when it became known who the Ripper was,to share their knowledge with anyone.Then it all ended with a pat on the back,and some friendly advice,"Now Aaron,you have been a bad lad,we shall keep our eyes on you,but now go home to your family,and do not kill any more women".
More amazingly it could all have been simply done by one officer at this seaside home saying,"Aaron Kosminski,I am arresting you on suspicion of the murders of Mary Ann Nichols,Annie Chapman......etc".

[Tom_Wescott]

It almost seems,from the many posts above,that the investigative and administrive police officers engaged in the hunt for the Ripper,were a numerous collection of small cliques,each with their own agenda,collecting information,and instigating activities,that only they were aware of,and unwilling,when it became known who the Ripper was,to share their knowledge with anyone.

This is exactly correct. I was posting on another thread recently that individually, most of the policemen didn't know much about the murders. Or not enough. One reason is that they blindly followed their own theories, hoping they'd get the glory. Even within one division, there wasn't a lot of open communication. Reid, for instance, only knew about the cases he personally investigated. He wasn't aware any organs were missing.

To make matters worse, the police would embark on contrived 'investigations' to appease the public, the press, or the queen, and to throw the killer off track (or the man/men they thought might be the killer). Likewise, these ruses are bound to throw us off 125 years later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

No Tom,

Its incorrect.

The communication within H division is clearly noted within the case file and is obvious. However there are errors, as with every case. Yet you paint an inaccurate picture.

Communication across forces is also clear and, again, obvious.

This trait of modern commentators to pass judgement on such matter is either lazy or ill informed. This is clear from many posts, across the threads, in recent days. Opinions passed as fact that misleads the reader.

Its a great shame that Stewart Evans has lost his Jack mojo and no longer posts. Its an equal shame that Don has never contributed.

If they did, such ignorance would have been avoided.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Monty,

You're coming across as a bit of a police apologist. I'm not trashing the police forces, just pointing out that they weren't on a well-organized hunt here. There were multiple hunts going on at once. If you're telling me I'm wrong about that, then you're ignoring a wealth of evidence. If I stated something in my last post that was blatantly incorrect, then please point it out. I've no problem with being corrected. But I'm certain that not everything in my post was incorrect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

Monty,I know such things happen in law enforcement organisations,even today.Sure 95 percent are persons that are truly interested in doing the job as it should be done,but ambitions and recognition can and do cause many an otherwise honest and trustworthy cop to stray once in a while.

[Cogidubnus]

I'm sorry but I simply can't recognise the Metropolitan Police, as they then existed, in the descriptions being applied here...I've looked at contemporary accounts, I've looked at the press (mostly hostile), I've even checked out the "funny buggers" - vide Messrs Porter and Campbell, but none of them come up with this sort of descrption...I can only conclude that certain posters here have their own agenda.

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Cog, there are varying and somewhat contradictory descriptions presented on this thread...which views are you not buying?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Tom

And I think I'll leave you to post your own conclusions too...please copy me in...I'll be most interested

All the best

Dave

[Monty]

Tom,

I do not care how I'm painted here. Others may do, however I'm comfortable in how I'm perceived, as false as it is by some.

Harry,

I know they do also, however you stated 95% are focused on the job in hand. Not. That's hardly a force at odds with each other as is being portrayed.

Monty

[harry]

Monty,
What I think is being portrayed here,applies to only a very small number of officers of senior rank.Unfortunately, because of the nature of law enforcement work,officers are split up into small sections,each working independenly of each other,and are thus more easily influenced by the views of those above.So I will add that the 95 per cent willing to act in a proper manner cannot always do so.I could detail many instances of this from my own experiences.
I think you a fair minded person,so answer me this.What proportion of senior personnel,claiming to have evidence that would convict probably the most infamous murderer of history,would fail to act in the proper manner,but would instead allow that murderer to go free.Because this is what we are expected to believe.

[Monty]

Harry,

If they had the evidence?

None.

A lot of Andersons claims are, I feel, puffed up. For publication and the selling of books.

However I see no reason why Swanson would lie. That said, when you actually read his words he isn't claiming Kosminski was the murderer.

That Kosminski was the suspect is pretty much certain for me. That the seaside I D happened gives me concerns, this due to what is alledged to have happened. That they had enough to convict Kosminski, I'm confident this wasn't the case.

However, Anderson had a book to sell and we still have Swansons notes.

Monty

[PaulB]

Harry,

If they had the evidence?

None.

A lot of Andersons claims are, I feel, puffed up. For publication and the selling of books.

However I see no reason why Swanson would lie. That said, when you actually read his words he isn't claiming Kosminski was the murderer.

That Kosminski was the suspect is pretty much certain for me. That the seaside I D happened gives me concerns, this due to what is alledged to have happened. That they had enough to convict Kosminski, I'm confident this wasn't the case.

However, Anderson had a book to sell and we still have Swansons notes.

Monty

Hi Monty
I think Anderson puffing things up to sell a book misunderstands both the man and the publishing industry at that time, much as others misunderstand the way the police worked in 1888. Anderson was a noted and sometimes controversial authority on penology and theology, and his position as head of the CID was in itself all the puff his memoirs would have needed at a time when publishing wasn't the expensive and highly competitive commercial piranha pond it is today. And whilst Anderson may have had an inflated sense of his own importance and the part he played in various events, that's an entirely different thing from doing things to sell a book. And on top of that, is there any evidence that either he or his publisher at any time used what he wrote about the Ripper to help promote the book? And one might also question how Anderson would have imagined claiming the Ripper was identified would have done him any good if everyone knew he was talking through his bottom. And remember that Anderson had made the same claim in passing, without any brouhaha, in books and articles ten years earlier.

And whilst Swanson doesn't claim that Kosminski was the murderer, he doesn't say, "what a load of bol..." either. In other notations, as cited by Adam, he provides correctives and there is no reason to suppose that he would have stopped short of offering his own opinion about Kosminski if it differed from Anderson's. On balance, whilst it is true that he doesn't overtly endorse Anderson, he expands on the incident Anderson describes and he doesn't pooh pooh it.

Paul

[Phil Carter]

Hi Monty
I think Anderson puffing things up to sell a book misunderstands both the man and the publishing industry at that time, much as others misunderstand the way the police worked in 1888. Anderson was a noted and sometimes controversial authority on penology and theology, and his position as head of the CID was in itself all the puff his memoirs would have needed at a time when publishing wasn't the expensive and highly competitive commercial piranha pond it is today. And whilst Anderson may have had an inflated sense of his own importance and the part he played in various events, that's an entirely different thing from doing things to sell a book. And on top of that, is there any evidence that either he or his publisher at any time used what he wrote about the Ripper to help promote the book? And one might also question how Anderson would have imagined claiming the Ripper was identified would have done him any good if everyone knew he was talking through his bottom. And remember that Anderson had made the same claim in passing, without any brouhaha, in books and articles ten years earlier.

And whilst Swanson doesn't claim that Kosminski was the murderer, he doesn't say, "what a load of bol..." either. In other notations, as cited by Adam, he provides correctives and there is no reason to suppose that he would have stopped short of offering his own opinion about Kosminski if it differed from Anderson's. On balance, whilst it is true that he doesn't overtly endorse Anderson, he expands on the incident Anderson describes and he doesn't pooh pooh it.

Paul

Hello Paul,

On balance, whilst it is true that he doesn't overtly endorse Anderson, he expands on the incident Anderson describes and he doesn't pooh pooh it.

In highlighting the above, I am in agreement. I do believe Swanson was expanding on Anderson's story, yes. My thoughts are that this expansion of Anderson's story indicates the thought I've had for a long while that Swanson
did just that.. and wasn't breaking his word to name HIS suspect in any way shape or form. He expands on Anderson's suspect in Anderson's story.

We cannot know, especially in the light of the excellent work done by Messrs Wood and Skinner in harness with the Swanson family themselves, that Anderson's suspect and Swanson's "knowledge" he refuses to impart, were one and the same. I believe Swanson to be a man of his word and simply kept his word.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

My thoughts are that this expansion of Anderson's story indicates the thought I've had for a long while that Swanson
did just that.. and wasn't breaking his word to name HIS suspect in any way shape or form. ... I believe Swanson to be a man of his word and simply kept his word.

The problem is that - as we've discussed - it's not clear that Swanson ever gave "his word" to anyone that he wouldn't name the suspect.

To my mind the natural interpretation of the phrase about "wild horses" is that it's Jim Swanson's comment on DSS's refusal to tell the family the suspect's name - and not any sort of vow of secrecy made by DSS himself.