New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[c.d.]

Hello Phil,

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Let's take a look at this statement by way of example...Barack Obama is president of the United States. Is there anything in that statement that tells you how I feel about President Obama? Do I like him? Do I hate him? Do I intend to vote for him?

c.d.

[Phil H]

Not answering for Paul, c.d.

Bbut if Swanson was simply ELABORATING what his old chief had said (i.e. adding in details he knew) one would expect the tone to be "completely neutral" would we not? Filling in the detail, without comment, surely and logically ENDORSES the original.

Secondly, as he was evidently writing for his own personal satisfaction (there is no evidence that anyone saw the marginalia in his lifetime or were aware of its existence) he had no need to indicate whether Anderson's belief was correct or incorrect. Why should he. providing the detail and the name would be enough to say he agreed.

I have come to the view, after considerable thought, that in the context of the marginalia, DSS (HAD HE DISAGREED) would have said so in no uncertain terms. But in a separate quote, if corroboration is required, he said more of less specifically that he and Anderson had NO major disagreements.

phil H

[c.d.]

Hello Paul,

What details in the marginalia do you feel indicate agreement with Anderson? To me, the marginalia seems to be a completely neutral statement. He is simply indicating Anderson's belief, not whether that belief is correct or incorrect.

c.d.

[Phil H]

If the witness was Lewande, and the case related to was Eddowes, there would have been no liaison in terms of co-operation with Met or Swanson.

Monty, Swanson was certainly aware of CITY CID is relation to Kosminski, so I'd put money on some liaison having taken place.

Phil C

I don't know why you are so fanatically attached to the (to me absurd) notion that DSS simply repeated Anderson's views having been totally ignorant of them before. The nature of the working relationship between the two men, and DSS's cordial words in relation to Anderson somewhat preclude that.

Had Anderson not habitually annotated his books, I migth have been more prepared to accept that view, but as it was he ddi write in information of which he was aware that explained the printed text. It is clear that that was what happened in the case of the "Ripper-related" marginalia.

If DSS KNEW the details of the Kosminski story off his own bat, he would never have written the mistakes in that he did.

If he didn't KNOW they were mistakes he might - i.e. the death date of Kosminski.

One remembers Jack the Ripper.. all details. Jack the Ripper is unforgetable. In every way.

To make that remark would require mediumistic or psychic abilities. It is entirely possible that while many in SY recognised that there were political and public interests in the case, it might have been perceived as a distraction or annoyance - especially at senior level. From experience, I can say that even today, a publicly prominent case can occupy much time, require much work and be obviously "important" without one accepting that the public is "right" to be obsessed by the issue, the the "facts" the media are promoting are correct or that is is actually the most memorable case one has dealt with. It is entirely possible that that was DSS's view.

That is not to say that as the co-ordinator he would not have been an expert in the detail, understood the way the case played out, and been aware of the conclusions reached. Because we obsess about JtR does not mean they did.

If Kosminski was a big name prior to March 1889, would Abberline have known?

Not in my view, Mike, or necessarily. I have suggested elsewhere that IF Sir RA and DSS were acting outside their rules with a separate investigation, perhaps using the city CID, the Abberline might have been out of the loop on the details. Organisations often do that in my experience, for morale or other reasons (if you ask someone to act instead of your own in-house people it can cause bad feeling, so - at least in less enlightened times - you didn't tell them) - deniability, separation of information etc. It is quite possible that Abberline had never heard of Tumblety, if he was an SB case.

Phil H

[AdamNeilWood]

I was pointing out that if the family believed that DSS knew the identity of Jack the Ripper and if DSS had at any time stated that he would not divulge the name, that self-evidently means that DSS thought he knew who the Ripper was.

Hi Paul,

It's worth remembering here that Jim Swanson's comments in the unused News of the World article aren't the only source that the family were aware that DSS knew the name of the suspect; Mary Berkin, Jim's sister, confirmed this as published in my article. She recalled that after Alice Swanson's funeral...

"[When we were shown the Marginalia it] was the first time that any of us had seen the name of the suspect, written very faintly in pencil! [Jim] must have realised the significance… I don’t think DSS would have broken the Police Code to impart it to anyone, but we, in the family, had all been assured that the culprit was known."

Best wishes
Adam

[PaulB]

Yes, and they can certainly be interpreted in the opposite manner as well. It can easily be interpreted as Swanson merely filling in some gaps as he remembered them, from Anderson's story..hence the mistakes he makes...

As said, it is not the way I interpret it and I was merely making the point that I did not want my words construed to give that impression.

As the officer who had had operational charge of the investigation it is likely that he would have been consulted and probably involved from an early stage, and some of the details he gives suggest first-hand knowledge.

Whether he accepted the story or not..if he is merely just repeating the known story bits as he heard them, he doesn't have to accept or not. He is just filling in the gaps of the story, without personal opinion. "Kosminski was the suspect" doesnt HAVE to be Swanson's personal view..it could just be DSS writing the name of Anderson's suspect.

As I observed, Swanson doesn't intimate any disagreement with what Anderson wrote or with Anderson's conclusion, and some details in the marginalia indicate agreement. Prima facie Swanson is giving tacit support to what Anderson wrote. It is possible that he utterly disagreed with what Anderson wrote, but lots of things are possible and we need supportive argument before accepting one of them over the most likely and probable. The probability is that as one time head of the investigation and arguably overall the best informed, Swanson would almost certainly have been involved. That conclusion is reasonable and rational. Against it you have - what?

No, I don't suggest that, as written above. No I don't therefore believe him to be gullible either. He doesn't have to swallow anything. He may just be adding details as he was told..without opinion.

Swanson may have been filling in a few details of what Anderson had told him, and it may be that we shouldn't infer agreement or disagreement. On the other hand, this was arguably one of the most important cases of his career and I don't think it is reasonable to suppose that he would have noted this information without any comment whatsoever if he didn't agree with it. Would you have done?

I have said this on another thread.. It has been said that Jim Swanson himself was convinced that DSS thought Kosminski to be the killer.(I believe that Chris posted this, apologies if not..)
If, as we are told, DSS didn't talk shop, refused to name the Ripper to his family, how in heavens name would Jim Swanson know that DSS meant Kosminski when DSS, according to Jim Swanson, didn't talk of the name of the Ripper to his family, used the "wild horses" statement to emphasise it, wasn't around when DSS wrote it and no other written communication exists to prove that Jim Swanson KNEW DSS was talking of the Ripper called Kosminski? (A letter to JS from DSS mentioning it for example)..

The answer is, respectfully, that Jim Swanson cannot possibly know what DSS meant because he never talked of the killer to him.

That's a slightly different argument. I was pointing out that if the family believed that DSS knew the identity of Jack the Ripper and if DSS had at any time stated that he would not divulge the name, that self-evidently means that DSS thought he knew who the Ripper was. What you are saying is that Jim may have known that DSS knew the Ripper's identity and assumed following the discovery of the marginalia that DSS had "Kosminski" in mind. Fair enough. The point is that Jim would have made a natural and reasonable assumption.

As to the last point... I believe the family DID honestly believe that DSS knew the name of the killer. I cannot see at this moment in time, any reason to believe that DSS himself was proposing that Kosminski was that man. I believe he just wrote Anderson's suspect in the book.

I believe that IF DSS knew the name of the true killer or killers, he kept it to himself.

As said, fair enough. However, I can't see a single reason why you are likely to be correct. Here we have Anderson stating that his suspect was Jack the Ripper, we have Swanson identifying "Kosminski" as Anderson's suspect, and we have Macnaghten saying that there were good reasons why "Kosminski" was suspected. And we have Swanson adding details to what Anderson had written, but not intimating in the slightest that he disagreed with him or thought the Ripper to be someone else entirely. Swanson need have done no more than write "No" against Anderson's tale. He didn't have to elucidate or give a name or write anything more.

It is something that without further evidence, cannot be cleared up with any certainty. Doubt remains, not least because of the quality of the original story teller, and his evidences, which in the book are lacking exactly that... evidence...Anderson.. who is known to clearly embellished things in that very same book. He is also known to promote "moral guilt"... without a trial. He is also full of an arrogance that is very contentious.

Well, you're assuming that Anderson was the original story teller. As Phil H has pointed out, Swanson could be the original storyteller and Anderson have been reporting what he was told. Or that both were present, or that neither were. Maybe they are both citing someone else. And no matter how Anderson papered over the cracks in his career or played up the part he played in events, there's a big difference between that and claiming the the identity of Jack the Ripper was known when everyone - policemen, journalists, politicians - knew it wasn't.

[mklhawley]

Abberline was taken off of the case in March 1888. The investigation continued long after that.

Don't you mean March 1889? His next big case was the Cleveland Street Scandal.

If Kosminski was a big name prior to March 1889, would Abberline have known?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

It is possible you know you separate out the private knowledge of Anderson and Swanson and the political and private actions of Scotland Yard.

As I have suggested in other posts, Anderson and Swanson appear to have satisfied themselves, at least, that Kosminski was the murderer. They could not bring a prosecution.

Hello Phil H,

It is also therefore possible, by the same token of consideration, that you separate out the private knowledge of Anderson and Swanson FROM each other.

In other words, what Swanson wrote was more details, poorly remembered I might add, what Anderson told him, or what DSS was told of..Anderson's story.

I am convinced of one thing.

If DSS KNEW the details of the Kosminski story off his own bat, he would never have written the mistakes in that he did. One remembers Jack the Ripper.. all details. Jack the Ripper is unforgetable. In every way.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

Hello Phil,
What I actually wrote and what you may be paraphrasing is: "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."

Fair enough, Accepted in full.

Just for clarification, I am not saying that Swanson was simply repeating and adding details to a story told to him by Anderson, the reliability of that story therefore resting on Anderson. I am simply saying that Swanson added details to the account Anderson provided in The Lighter Side... For all I know those details could be from his own first-hand experience of the event Anderson was writing about, and some details he provides can certainly be interpreted to suggesting that they were.

Yes, and they can certainly be interpreted in the opposite manner as well. It can easily be interpreted as Swanson merely filling in some gaps as he remembered them, from Anderson's story..hence the mistakes he makes...

What you have to ask yourself is whether or not Swanson would have accepted without question a tale about the identification of "Kosminski", even if that tale was told him by Anderson? Would you accept a story which flew in the face of what you and all your colleagues believed to be the case, and on top of which did not conform to what you understood to be sensible police procedure?

Whether he accepted the story or not..if he is merely just repeating the known story bits as he heard them, he doesn't have to accept or not. He is just filling in the gaps of the story, without personal opinion. "Kosminski was the suspect" doesnt HAVE to be Swanson's personal view..it could just be DSS writing the name of Anderson's suspect.

That's what you seem to be suggesting that Swanson did. And maybe he did. But was he really so gullible? Would he really have accepted a **** and bull story hook, line and sinker, without questioning the source at all. Without asking so much as who else was there. Without getting their perspective?

No, I don't suggest that, as written above. No I don't therefore believe him to be gullible either. He doesn't have to swallow anything. He may just be adding details as he was told..without opinion.

I am not prepared to accept that, not without good evidence of his gullibility.

Neither would I be, had I thought that. But I don't.

One small point regarding Jim Swanson, if his claim that Swanson refused to divulge the name of Jack the Ripper is true, if Swanson ever said anything remotely like wild horses never dragging the name from his lips, doesn't that mean he knew or thought he knew the identity of the murderer? Doesn't it mean that the family believed he knew the identity of Jack the Ripper? I mean, why on earth would the family think he wouldn't divulge the name of the Ripper if they didn't think he actually knew it?

I have said this on another thread.. It has been said that Jim Swanson himself was convinced that DSS thought Kosminski to be the killer.(I believe that Chris posted this, apologies if not..)
If, as we are told, DSS didn't talk shop, refused to name the Ripper to his family, how in heavens name would Jim Swanson know that DSS meant Kosminski when DSS, according to Jim Swanson, didn't talk of the name of the Ripper to his family, used the "wild horses" statement to emphasise it, wasn't around when DSS wrote it and no other written communication exists to prove that Jim Swanson KNEW DSS was talking of the Ripper called Kosminski? (A letter to JS from DSS mentioning it for example)..

The answer is, respectfully, that Jim Swanson cannot possibly know what DSS meant because he never talked of the killer to him.

As to the last point... I believe the family DID honestly believe that DSS knew the name of the killer. I cannot see at this moment in time, any reason to believe that DSS himself was proposing that Kosminski was that man. I believe he just wrote Anderson's suspect in the book.

I believe that IF DSS knew the name of the true killer or killers, he kept it to himself.


It is something that without further evidence, cannot be cleared up with any certainty. Doubt remains, not least because of the quality of the original story teller, and his evidences, which in the book are lacking exactly that... evidence...Anderson.. who is known to clearly embellished things in that very same book. He is also known to promote "moral guilt"... without a trial. He is also full of an arrogance that is very contentious.

Thanks for the reply Paul. Appreciated.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Well let me ask what should be a very obvious question. If Swanson absolutely refused to reveal the Ripper's identity, why would he tell his family that he knew who it was in the first place? Is it possible that he made some sort of comment to that effect and they took it completely out of context?

This sounds like BS to me.

c.d.

We don't know that Swanson absolutely refused to reveal the Ripper's identity, we have a statement by his grandson, who was a child when Swanson was alive, who claims that he did so. And he may well have categorically refused to discuss the case with children, maybe even with women who were not immediate family. We should not assume that he didn't discuss the case with his wife and other trusted grown ups in the family.

[c.d.]

Well let me ask what should be a very obvious question. If Swanson absolutely refused to reveal the Ripper's identity, why would he tell his family that he knew who it was in the first place? Is it possible that he made some sort of comment to that effect and they took it completely out of context?

This sounds like BS to me.

c.d.

[Chris]

And yes, it would have been Swanson who would have coordinated operations with City CID and any ID procedures... not Anderson, not Macnaghten, Monro, Prince Eddy or the guard at Buckingham Palace.

You provided some useful references to City/Met liaison in a previous discussion:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=240749&postcount=146

[Monty]

After all, someone had to liaise with City CID. I don't see that as being Anderson alone

If the witness was Lewande, and the case related to was Eddowes, there would have been no liaison in terms of co-operation with Met or Swanson.

Liaison in terms of notification yes.

Monty

[Hunter]

[B]But logically, Swanson would have been more "hands on" than Anderson. hence, IMHO, it is much more likely that Anderson got his story from DSS and edited for publication. Swanson put back in the details that he knew.
For Anderson to have known and DSS not known, we have to assume a whole new range of agents for Sir A to work through. After all, someone had to liaise with City CID. I don't see that as being Anderson alone.

Yes...

Swanson was in operational charge of the investigation long after December 1888. One only has to look at the surviving communications involving the Pinchin Street Torso murder, the interview with Forbes Winslow, other suspect theories that were presented to Swanson, the Coles murder investigation, and the last Ripper letter in 1896... all communications relating to this series of murders still sent through Swanson's desk.

And yes, it would have been Swanson who would have coordinated operations with City CID and any ID procedures... not Anderson, not Macnaghten, Monro, Prince Eddy or the guard at Buckingham Palace. Despite the anomalies that exist in all of these men's later writings, that is the way the investigative procedure was conducted. Anderson would have received his information from operational sources within the CID, except on rare occasions where there may be conflict ( such as the Rose Mylett case) when he might get his hands dirty for a few hours.

One note on Abberline--since he has been mentioned here from time to time--and it has been stated that he should have known some of these details as well. Abberline was taken off of the case in March 1888. The investigation continued long after that. He may have still rubbed elbows with fellow officers involved with the case, but he would not have been involved with any ongoing activities after that point, nor been presented with any files pertaining to them.

[Jonathan H]

Was it all Sadler?

To Rob

Fair enough. You might be right.

It's just that you seem to go through the same kind of filling-in-the-blanks as I and others do -- eg. those who provisionally judge that the limitations outweigh the values of these critical, late primary sources -- I think proving that these are ambiguous sources capable of competing interpretations.

For example, the story which Griffiths relates about Anderson in 1895, is remarkably similar to how he will write about the Polish Jew suspect in 1898, and we know that comes from Mac's 'Aberconway' document. In which the suspect is sectioned soon after Kelly.

Did Anderson not know the Major was going to write that? Perhaps he did not. Did he read it thinking well that's wrong?!

Something else I want to bring up.

That 'Western Mail' article from early 1892. I'm sorry I can't be more specific. It is very late here and I have just got home.

The one in which an un-named police official debunks Farquharson -- by name -- because the real murderer is still under surveillance.

Yet due to the surveillance the suspect has been unable to murder.

Notice how similar this all is to the story told in the Marginalia, such as it is.

We identified him, we could not arrest him thanks to a treacherous Jew, but we watched him and he could not kill again. Then he was sectioned and died.

I think this suspect being watched in early 1892 was Sadler, and that Swanson and/or Anderson is again misremembering this suspect -- who had been 'confronted' by a Jewish witness but they could not get him.