New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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