New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Phil Carter]

A previous poster has accused people who question the reliability of the Marginalia of being incredibly stupid.

I agree if the argument is that the Marginialia is a fake as that is terminally weak.

On the other hand, it is not 'stupid' to assess the values and limitations the reliability of a primary source, written perhaps 20 or 22 years after the events being described in a private notation accountable to nobody.

To accept any source at face value flies in the face of historical methodology.

That Swanson wrote to himself in a straight-forward manner is no doubt true.

The limitations of this source is that what is written there does not match other primary sources, and this is true of Anderson too.

Are we supposed to just ignore this issue?

Anderson and Swanson assert that the suspect died soon after being 'safely caged' and that this 'mystery' was all over by early 1889.

Both of these assertions can be shown, easily and quickly, to be wrong.

That Swanson claims that many were involved in the identification at of all places a police hospital -- which never leaked?! -- flies in the face of common sense

Historical judgements can only ever be provisional but some people's temperaments cannot cope with that as it is too contingent and too uncertain, and prefer everything to be straight-forward and unambiguous.

The Jack the Ripper mystery, at least the significant police figures disagreeing with each other about the real prime suspect, is not a good fit for such people.

Hello Jonathan,

You will notice, that despite our views on MM etc being different, there is agreement between us regarding these lines you write on the above subject.

We all know that the weaknesses that have been seen, exposed and talked about over many years are there. We all know that the problems regarding Anderson and his views, have resulted in many a "fist-fight". Likewise Swanson's marginalia and annotations, likewise, as you well know, the Macnagthen Memoranda.

Problems start to rise when those studying history see a different path from that which has been presented to us in perpetuity. In common language, rocking the boat.

Kosminski has in the last 5 years been discussed in every way we can..with links to Anderson and his words, and Swanson and his naming of a "suspect".
Anderson's suspect.

And just those words.."the naming of Anderson's suspect" causes all kinds of trouble. Because of the connotations connected with it. Thats how far it has come. Defence of the Realm has nothing compared to the defence of the guilt of Kosminski. Lord help anyone who dares to try to put Kosminski, the suspect, to bed.

The History of the Marginalia has been, for me personally, a really fine eye opener. I suspect Jonathan, that some people didn't expect that sort of reaction from those not supporting the Kosminski campaign. I reckon they thought the strength of the suspect be reinforced by the article...not questioned in any way. So no Jonathan, we are not supposed to ignore any issue. If we do, ..... then we are in real trouble, methinks.

best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin. Thanks. But if Harvey spoke up after the fact, why sack him?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Neglect of Duty - for not speaking up at the time - would be the reason if that had happened.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

You're right Phil H, but if I don't defend Sir Melville's ghost nobody else will.

The counter to your counter is also easily and quickly made:

The source by Swanson, and the sources about Swanson, and the sources about the police investigation between 1888 to 1891, show that he was mistaken about his chosen suspect in certain key ways -- including when he was certain about 'Kosminski'.

The question is why and how significant these errors are?

If you read 'Jack the Ripper--The Facts' a strong argument is made by Paul Begg as to why the values of the Marginalia, as a late primary source, outweigh its limitations.

I can't recommend that book highly enough and it has been a great influence on my thinking, for what this is worth.

Whereas Sir Melville Macnaghten in another source by him and this time for the public under his own knighted name, eg. not hiding inside the bureaucracy or anonymously behind cronies, does not make any errors about Druitt -- quite the contrary as it corrects them.

For example, 'Laying the Ghost ...' debunks that Druitt was (or said to be) middle-aged, or a medical man, or an affluent reculse, or ever 'detained' in an asylum, or -- most singicantly -- that he killed himself instantly after the 'awful glut' of Miller's Ct.

In both versions of his 'Report' Mac gives the false impression that Druitt was a contemporaneous suspect from 1888/9 who was not arrested because there was a lack of proof or the 'fairly' good family did not tumble to their maniacal member quickly enough. In the memoir he reveals what we also can see from other primary sources: the real reason Druitt was not arrested was due to the fact that he was long deceased.

This kind of accuracy -- this kind of corrective candour -- between sources is, in my opinion, sorely lacking with Anderson and Swanson (and Macnaghten arguably possesses more accurate information about their prime suspect too, eg. not deceased, and not sectioned soon after Kelly.).

To Phil C

I recall the first time I barely glimpsed on a TV, at a uni party, the Ustinov doco, and being amazed at the assertion that two senior cops had said that an Aaron Kosminski had been positively identified at something called the Seaside Home (I thought it was a prison) and that the killer had, by his actions, practically confessed.

As I recall they showed a sketch of the scene with Kosminski falling to the floor with his hands tied behind his back, eg. so shocked to see the witness.

As for Druitt, the senior cop who backed him didn't even know he was not a doctor or when he killed himself?!

Whereas this Kosminski was a local man, insane, poor, he had been indentified by a witness, and he had 'confessed', he was the prime suspect of two very senior policeman of the day, and he then died 'soon after' in a madhouse (if they mentioned he was still alive I missed it).

I thought: well that's that -- case closed.

Now a quarter of a century later I believe, and I am alone in this so I the odds are in my disafavour, that Macnaghten moved across bits of Druitt to 'Kosminski', his fictional variant of Aaron Kosminski, eg. the 'confession' clincher (though that may have begun with a brother) the family 'suspecting the worst' and frantically trying to have him sectioned, the key witness who began life as a beat cop (but was really Lawende sighting Druitt), and that he expired of his mania soon after -- and introduced this 'suspect' to Anderson in 1895.

[Bridewell]

A Hard One to Call

Evenin' All

We can probably argue until hell freezes over about whether or not DSS himself believed Kosminski to actually be the killer, because it's wide open. What is apparent is that he puts a considerable amount of flesh on the bones of Anderson's account which - to me - suggests that he may have had rather more knowledge of the events described than Anderson himself. He goes to quite a lot of trouble to provide the additional detail, for whatever reason. I'm not sure, personally, that DSS (or anyone else for that matter) would bother to do that in respect of a suspect who, in his own opinion, was not the offender. I think it's arguable either way - as so many things are in this field - but if I was forced to come down off the fence I would have to come down on the side of DSS knowing that the suspect identified was named Kosminski - and believing that 'Kosminski' was indeed the killer.

As an afterthought, DSS cannot have known for certain that his marginalia would never come to public notice. The text, as written, is open to the interpretation that he himself is of the opinion that Kosminski was not only 'the suspect' but also rightly identified as the killer. He does nothing to clarify or eliminate that ambiguity. There is also the possibility, as Swanson provides the additional information not given by Anderson himself, that Anderson's original source for the events described - was Swanson.

Regards, Bridewell.

[robhouse]

Then I'm sure Paul Begg will appreciate those words as he too has written this very morning that Swanson is expanding upon Anderson's story...!

I agree with him! And Paul knows that I think he is a very intelligent and thoughtful historian. So do go trying to suggest that Paul agrees with you.

And for your information.. I am NOT discrediting the Swanson marginalia, in any way shape or form. I am, infact, supporting the Swanson family's impression of the man himself, and telling you that I believe Jim Swanson when he said that "wild horses" wouldn't drag the name out of him.

Shame that really does cause a problem for all "Kosminski is guilty" supporters.

It doesn't cause any problem at all for Kozminski supporters. Just because you have come up with some new crackpot scheme to discredit the true meaning of the Swanson marginalia as it relates to Kozminski, does not mean that it should bother me. It doesn't at all.

Swanson said he was a suspect...and is merely expanding on Anderson's words, a thing that I am far from being alone about. That isnt incredibly stupid either. When the insults rise, the argument is lost, Rob.

You see Rob, you can't have it both ways. Either DSS is a man that tells the truth, the impression given to his closest family is correct, and thereby not revealing the culprit, then Kosminski is NOT his idea. And that means what Rob?

If DSS is going against his family's distinct impression and indeed revealing the name of his culprit, then what does that say for believing what he wrote in the Marginalia itself?

I prefer the DSS who told the truth to his family and kept that word on a scale that he didn't talk shop and didnt reveal his knowledge.

You go on believing that then.

That isn't stupid Rob. And it doesn't warrant your crass words just because it flies in the face of your theory...oh yes, that, your theory, includes the theory that DSS was "itching" to tell the "British public"...I believe. Based on what evidence Rob? Nothing in the History of the Swanson Marginalia indicates anything of the sort.

It is not based on any evidence at all. It is based on my assumption that if you know the answer to one of histories most famous "unsolved mysteries," you might be itching to reveal it. This is human nature in my opinion. At the same time, I think it is obvious that Swanson knew he could not reveal it. And as I think Phil H said, Swanson probably was aware that sometime in the future after his death, the book might be found.

[harry]

Phil H,
Post 302.The unwritten rule of the service.What was that? The crimes were a case of several sordid murders.The alledged culprit was a member of the public,an almost unknown member of the Jewish race.Sure he had not been convicted in a court of law,but to suggest that many years after the murders apparantly ceased,Swanson was bound by some sort of unofficial rule of non disclosure,even to his family,needs explanation.

[Beowulf]

Is there any photograph of Kosminski at all?

[Phil H]

[B]Post 302.The unwritten rule of the service.What was that?

Harry: Anderson gives the answer, if you read it

Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service. So the unwritten rule is - not telling tales out of school.

The crimes were a case of several sordid murders.The alledged culprit was a member of the public,an almost unknown member of the Jewish race.Sure he had not been convicted in a court of law,but to suggest that many years after the murders apparantly ceased,Swanson was bound by some sort of unofficial rule of non disclosure,even to his family,needs explanation.

Does it? I am an ex-Civil Servant with around 40 years experience, in that time I briefed Ministers, wrote policy papers, worked with senior officials and across Government (some of it on highly sensitive issues). I might occasionally and in a general way discuss my work and share harmless anecdotes with friends, but wild horses would not pull from me details of specific case work or names. That has nothing to do with the Official Secrets Act or data protection either. It is my view, in the C21st that my priveliged position demands confidentiality in perpetuity. I am sure the ethos would have been even more pronounced in the C19th.

Anderson is frank but discreet - he names no names, gives some assurances in his published works. Swanson apparently felt he was bound to silence (I think his underlining of the phrase in Sir RA's memoirs connotes endorsement) but was - for reasons i have discussed elsewhere in this thread, prepared to write down a name in a book in his personal possession.

No matter how great the public interest, even in an age when secrecy is much relaxed and there is much genuine openess in Government in the UK, individual Crown servants (military, police, civil servants) have no authority personally to reveal to others outside the need to know details that are departmentally or personally (in regard to others) properly confidential. Kosminski had never been tried, never been convicted thus his name had to remain secret. Swanson knew the name and recorded it where none but he would see it - also maybe and thankfully preserving it for posterity - but he did not disclose it to others.

Phil H

[harry]

Phil H,
Yes but the Whitechappel murders did not come under the official secrets act,they were subject to common law dictates.They were common law crimes.During their investigation, suspects were named,were arrested and this information was widely reported in police circles.Certainly details of the investigation were subject to strict departmental rulings as to what information would be released to the puplic via the media,but as in the case of Pizer,these rulings were relaxed,as it was in many other instances.Once Swanson retired there were no barriers to telling family or close friends that Kosminski had been suspect,and obviously Anderson did not feel confined as he had stated he would be prepared to disclose the name of the murderer,if the publishers accepted responsibility for any libel actions..So it appears that the threat of libel action was the only deterent.As it is today,but on the death of Kosminski,even the threat of libel action no longer applied to Swanson.

[Phil H]

harry - you clearly have no understanding of the C19th mind-set of men like Sir RA and DSS,, or of the idea of ethos, mores etc within organisations, even today.

Sorry, I can't help you fill that gap any more than I have already tried to do.

As for the libel point, Swanson confided the name to a book in his personal possession. He did not publish it. Neither did Sir RA, whom, if I recall correctly, removed the reference in his volume version.

Phil H

[Phil Carter]

I might occasionally and in a general way discuss my work and share harmless anecdotes with friends, but wild horses would not pull from me details of specific case work or names.

Hello Phil H,

Excuse the flippancy.. but the phrase is apt...no?

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Phil H,

Excuse the flippancy.. but the phrase is apt...no?

best wishes

Phil

As a matter of interest, Phil, can you direct me to where DSS makes this or any similar statement?
Paul

[Phil H]

Paul

You are much better versed in all this than I, but the discussion started from the marginalia where DSS underlines a point of Anderson's viz:

Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service.

In an earlier post I gave my reasons (having dismissed irony) for believing the underlining to be an endorsement by DSS of his former chief's comment. the discussion progressed from there.

Phil H

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H, (again)

In appreciation of your many years in the Civil Service, and the level of sensitivity of certain cases, may I ask a question?

If you had any knowledge of, or discussions upon, the Whitechapel Murders during your career, would we know of them? Not details, of course, no names, etc, but whether the subject was at any level discussed and or acted upon?

The reason I ask this question is two fold.
How would Phil H, the private person with an avid interest in JTR, be able to remain quiet on the subject without letting a few hints here and there, without names or details, let slip?

Secondly, I refer to the Barlow and Watt series on JTR back in the middle of the 70's.
If I recall correctly, the series researchers actually visited the offices of certain departments, and, if I am remembering correctly, when trying to hunt down detaills of the Cleveland StreetScandel at the DPP, were openly told that papers were taken out of the file before any researcher could see them, because of certain names contained therein.

A dissertation on the subject is here..

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-questioning.html

by Andy Aliffe

In that dissertation, I quote the following..

"In the search for that evidence, one of our researchers (Ian Sharp) visited the DPP's office to check on the files on the Cleveland Street raids which were carried out by Chief Inspector Abberline (the policeman who was also in charge of the Ripper investigation). The dialogue quoted by Barlow at the end of the programme is direct reporting of the dialogue between our researcher and the official at the DPP's office who dealt with the matter.

We felt it odd that even after 85 years the DPP's office was not prepared to make the matter completely clear. We consider it proper to make the point in the programme."

This leads me to the question.

If there was any problem involving PAV and the Cleveland St Scandel in papers in the DPP, why would these papers today, 125 years later, should they exist after 1973, be unobtainable?

Thank you kindly for your response.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

As a matter of interest, Phil, can you direct me to where DSS makes this or any similar statement?
Paul

Hello Paul,

As you well know I'd wager, DSS doesn't make that statement.

best wishes

Phil