New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Phil Carter]

Well, yes, I am perfectly well aware that he never made that statement, but you appear to have been saying that DSS did tell his family that he wouldn't name the Ripper. To Chris you wrote the following (my italics):

"It is very easy to see that it would be hard to believe Chris..yes, IF one doesn't take into account, which I am doing, that DSS specifically said to his family that he would not reveal the name of the man he believed was the killer."

There is, as I am sure you appreciate, a big difference between DSS saying that he would not reveal the name and other people saying that he said he would not reveal the name. And what he said to children and grandchildren, might be different from what he said to his wife. And one must also take into account the fact that families very often didn't discuss such gruesome things, so Swanson might have been reluctant to discuss the case beyond saying the Ripper was identified. The bottom line is that Swanson didn't say he wouldn't divulge the name of the murderer, other people, remembering after some period of time had passed, said that he wouldn't.

Helo Paul,

As I have just said Jim Swanson is the source, perhaps I am actually writing it and not appearing to write anything else..

You are wasting your time pushing the point further. And now I have replied sufficiently, to my mind.

All this was gone over yesterday Paul...we can all write with failings, and make ammendments afterwards. I am sure you have done that before as well, as you can appreciate. This has been done by me.

Next?

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

For the umpteenth time, DSS did not say that. Jim Swanson used the words, I believe. So try reading what I have written Paul... I wrote in reply to your previous post.. DSS did not utter those words.

You seem to have problems reading a sentence clearly. So before casting aspertions as to my mindset, do please get the facts right. You know..the facts. A word you are used to using. See my previous post to you if in doubt with this one.

Thank you

best wishes

Phil

Actually, I have no trouble reading a sentence clearly and your words "...DSS specifically said to his family that he would not reveal the name of the man he believed was the killer" don't open themselves to too many variant interpretations. "DSS specifically said..." means DSS specifically said, not that his grandson specifically said. I think my understanding of the facts is correct, and your "DSS specifically said..." isn't. But no matter, you've made it clear that your statement was wrong and that it was Jim's perception that you were citing.

My post to Phil H was written before I read your reply to me.

[PaulB]

Helo Paul,

As I have just said Jim Swanson is the source, perhaps I am actually writing it and not appearing to write anything else..

You are wasting your time pushing the point further. And now I have replied sufficiently, to my mind.

All this was gone over yesterday Paul...we can all write with failings, and make ammendments afterwards. I am sure you have done that before as well, as you can appreciate. This has been done by me.

Next?

best wishes

Phil

Fine, if it was gone over yesterday and you acknowledged your error then I missed it. Sorry. I'm not pushing things anywhere. Just trying to make sure the facts are stated and not misunderstandings. End of discussion.

[Phil Carter]

Fine, if it was gone over yesterday and you acknowledged your error then I missed it. Sorry. I'm not pushing things anywhere. Just trying to make sure the facts are stated and not misunderstandings. End of discussion.

Hello Paul,

No problem. No apology needed. No offence taken. My apologies for a sharp response.

best wishes

Phil

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Bridewell
Totally agree-good post. Whereas Swanson does not come right out and say it, I think there is enough there in the marginalia that we can infer that if he did not totally agree with Anderson that kosminski was the killer, than at least he thinks he is a very, very strong suspect. These are not the remarks of someone just objectively and robotically repeating and adding information:

"...and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged..."

"...after this identification which suspect knew..."

"...and he knew he was identified."

"...no other murder of this kind took place in London."


Whether consciously or subconsciously it seems Swanson is tipping his hand here.
And with the family saying that Swanson knew who the killer was pretty much confirms it, for me anyway.

[Sally]

"...and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged..."

This alone seems to me a strong indication that DSS considered Kosminski to have been the Ripper.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Sally,

With all respect, seriously, any person expressing such distinct knowledge of the alleged murderer, cannot be writing from the perspective of his personal role and involvement, in the case when both he and the police force as a whole, are still clearly looking for Jack The Ripper well beyond the incarceration of Aaron Kosminski. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Kosminski, identified suspect, pointed out as the murderer, incarcerated for the rest of his days, is ignored by the rest of the police force, from top to bottom bar two, as they merrily carry on looking for the Whitechapel Murderer..and all the time only Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson know that Kosminski is the Ripper, and carry on the fascade with that singular knowledge inside them? I am sorry but it beggars belief, pushing boundaries of known procedure...all for the sake of a nonentity that means nothing to almost everyone.. and that these two intrepid policemen know the truth the rest of the Metropolitan Police Force, the City Police Force, every politician, journalist and rag, tag and bobtail are in the height of hunger for such knowledge...and the search is going on in broad daylight for Jack the Ripper long, long after Kosminski is put away in a loony bin? And Swanson is STILL part of the hunt?

I say again.. any policeman expressing such distinct knowledge of the alleged murderer as DSS does, cannot be writing from the perspective of his personal role and involvement, in the case when both he and the police force as a whole, are still clearly looking for Jack The Ripper well beyond the incarceration of Aaron Kosminski. In the absence of another man named Kosminski...the answer is obvious... DSS is simply filling in Anderson's story.

DSS' direct work in the case clearly runs against the incarceration of this Kosminski being the murderer.......Oh..and so does Macnagthen's, and Reids, and Littlechild's, and just about every other policeman involved in the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer after Kosminski's incarceration.

Please explain to me why, if Swanson and Anderson both knew of the incarceration of Kosminski, ipso facto the "id parade" before it, why the hunt for the Whitechapel murderer continued when a Cheif Inspector and the Assistant Commissioner knew it was a closed case? And ONLY those two....


best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

There is one possibility that occurs to me that might reconcile the two views:

a) Ripper incarcerated;

b) police continue to hunt for Ripper.

That is, that if Anderson and Swanson were conducting their own enquiries, outside the normal procedures and using City police as their agents (hence the City watch on Met territory, the unusual ID etc - then Sir RA and DSS may have been satisfied that they had their man and he was locked away. However, the Commissioner (by now Munro or Bradford) may have been unconvinced; or for political reasons unwilling to take the chance and thus he required close attention to each successive murder until Coles.

Now this is, I emphasise, purely speculation. But it might go someway towards explaining why Macnaghten had a different view and why Anderson and Swanson acted and wrote as they did. Macnaghten may have been wholly unaware of the "private" investigation; disapproved of it, or followed a wider Yard line.

It might also explain why the police were not inclined to follow through with the ID and "force" the witness to testify. Some of the wording of the marginalia might also be better understood if we assume that some such thing took place.

I'd be interested to know what others think of this conjectural idea.

Phil H

[Bridewell]

A Continued Search

With all respect, seriously, any person expressing such distinct knowledge of the alleged murderer, cannot be writing from the perspective of his personal role and involvement, in the case when both he and the police force as a whole, are still clearly looking for Jack The Ripper well beyond the incarceration of Aaron Kosminski. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Kosminski, identified suspect, pointed out as the murderer, incarcerated for the rest of his days, is ignored by the rest of the police force, from top to bottom bar two, as they merrily carry on looking for the Whitechapel Murderer..and all the time only Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson know that Kosminski is the Ripper, and carry on the fascade with that singular knowledge inside them? I am sorry but it beggars belief, pushing boundaries of known procedure...all for the sake of a nonentity that means nothing to almost everyone.. and that these two intrepid policemen know the truth the rest of the Metropolitan Police Force, the City Police Force, every politician, journalist and rag, tag and bobtail are in the height of hunger for such knowledge...and the search is going on in broad daylight for Jack the Ripper long, long after Kosminski is put away in a loony bin? And Swanson is STILL part of the hunt?

There is always the possibility that Anderson & Swanson believed, following the ID, that Kosminski was responsible for one or more of the murders, but not all of them. Identification of Kosminsky and a continued search for 'Jack the Ripper' are not necessarily constrained by logic to be mutually exclusive.

On the subject of Kosminski generally:
If anybody hasn't read Stewart's masterful dissertation on the Kosminski / Seaside Home conundrum, it's well worth the effort. (Did I post this idea a couple of days ago? Probably - but worth repeating.)

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

Regards, Bridewell.

[Hunter]

It may be worth mentioning that Swanson's "eyes and ears" role appears to have ended in December 1888 on the appointment of James Monro as Commissioner.

As Stewart Evans has pointed out, Swanson was relieved of the WM being his sole priority at that time. Existing subsequent documents reveal that he was still active in the WM investigation... it just wasn't his only responsibility.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

Yes.

Swanson investigated the Frances Coles murder, February 1891.

He was off with influenza during the William Grant Grainger/Alice Graham attack, March 1895.

Inspector Pitman investigated.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hello Sally,

With all respect, seriously, any person expressing such distinct knowledge of the alleged murderer, cannot be writing from the perspective of his personal role and involvement, in the case when both he and the police force as a whole, are still clearly looking for Jack The Ripper well beyond the incarceration of Aaron Kosminski. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Kosminski, identified suspect, pointed out as the murderer, incarcerated for the rest of his days, is ignored by the rest of the police force, from top to bottom bar two, as they merrily carry on looking for the Whitechapel Murderer..and all the time only Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson know that Kosminski is the Ripper, and carry on the fascade with that singular knowledge inside them? I am sorry but it beggars belief, pushing boundaries of known procedure...all for the sake of a nonentity that means nothing to almost everyone.. and that these two intrepid policemen know the truth the rest of the Metropolitan Police Force, the City Police Force, every politician, journalist and rag, tag and bobtail are in the height of hunger for such knowledge...and the search is going on in broad daylight for Jack the Ripper long, long after Kosminski is put away in a loony bin? And Swanson is STILL part of the hunt?

I say again.. any policeman expressing such distinct knowledge of the alleged murderer as DSS does, cannot be writing from the perspective of his personal role and involvement, in the case when both he and the police force as a whole, are still clearly looking for Jack The Ripper well beyond the incarceration of Aaron Kosminski. In the absence of another man named Kosminski...the answer is obvious... DSS is simply filling in Anderson's story.

DSS' direct work in the case clearly runs against the incarceration of this Kosminski being the murderer.......Oh..and so does Macnagthen's, and Reids, and Littlechild's, and just about every other policeman involved in the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer after Kosminski's incarceration.

Please explain to me why, if Swanson and Anderson both knew of the incarceration of Kosminski, ipso facto the "id parade" before it, why the hunt for the Whitechapel murderer continued when a Cheif Inspector and the Assistant Commissioner knew it was a closed case? And ONLY those two....


best wishes

Phil

because at the time the events happened, Kosminski was just another suspect. With time and no one else caught as the ripper, he became, in their minds, the ripper.

[harry]

Phil H,in reply to your last post to me.
I guarrantee I have more of a mindset than you on 19th century personnel.My grandfather was born in the 1860's,as was my grandmother.My parents were born before the turn of the century,as were various aunts and uncles.Their friends were also of that era,and some were public servants,and even policemen.My schoolteachers,were ,in the majority ,from that era.Our lives overlapped by a great many years,and let me tell you,with small exceptions,they were no different whatsoever,than people today.I myself was a public servant,and served in law enforcement.You w ant to discuss the whitechapel murders,then best you learn what laws applied at that time,beca use you'll be talking about policemen,and policemen were guide d by those laws.

[Jonathan H]

To Abby Normal

Yes, that's possible.

But what the extant record, albeit sketchy and scrappy as it is, arguably shows us is that Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson had no chief suspect at all until 1895, when, apparently, they were quite certain it was a deceased formerly locked-up lunatic (which seems to be in the wake of a Jewish witness saying 'yes' when confronted with a Ripper suspect, eg. William Grant and Lawende).

How is it that Anderson and Swanson mistakenly believe that 'Kosminski' is deceased, and Macnaghten knows he's not?

How can that be?

Sudgen makes a sharp observation in that in the Marginalia, Swanson's assertion that the murders ceased once the suspect was identified and caged, is wrong.

Wrong if the identification took place long after the Kelly murder, perhaps as late as 1891. Therefore the murderer did not stop back in late 1888 because of any identification. He just stopped, by himself, for over two years.

[Tom_Wescott]

Incredibly Stupid

Hi all,

The new issue of Rip had almost too much new information, and I think a lot of us have had to do some 'thinking out loud' on the boards to process it. I know I did. I was very intrigued by the family folklore regarding 'wild horses' not being able to get the identity of the Ripper from DSS, along with his alleged assurance that he knew who the Ripper was. Coupling this with the marginalia certainly got my wheels spinning. Rob House and others, such has Chris, have lived with Koz, the marginalia, etc. day and night for a long time, while many of the rest of us have pursued other areas of research, and are therefore not as well-versed in this particular area, so I can appreciate how our posts might seem 'stupid' to Rob. Most posts on Berner Street threads seem stupid to me.

Now that I've had time to process the new information, I've reached my own personal conclusion on the matter. On the one hand, we have family folklore, and on the other we have the marginalia. If there's a contradiction between the two, is it really hard to decide which to go with? I personally don't think so. And as Chris pointed out to me, there's ample evidence in the marginalia to conclude that Donald Swanson did view Kozminski as a viable suspect. This being the case, I don't see it as possible that he knew beyond any doubt that someone else was the Ripper. Therefore, if pressed, I would put forth the opinion that Swanson saw Kozminski as a viable suspect, but was not as convinced of his guilt as Anderson claimed to be.

Anyway, that's where I'm at right now. But I'm not married to it, so I can't wait to see what more there is to learn.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott