New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Abby Normal]

Back then, Kosminsky was considered by some a strong suspect. That should be obvious-3 top policemen said as much. Today, however, he is a weak suspect. But they all are all weak suspects. Kosminsky is just one of the least weak.

[PaulB]

Back then, Kosminsky was considered by some a strong suspect. That should be obvious-3 top policemen said as much. Today, however, he is a weak suspect. But they all are all weak suspects. Kosminsky is just one of the least weak.

I know what you mean, but he's not a weak suspect. He can't be. We know next to nothing about why he was suspected, so how on earth can we judge whether he's strong or weak? All we can say is how people back then thought of him.

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

Was Abberline at the Head of the Ripper investigation?

best wishjes

Phil

No, he wasn't. Swanson was.

[Hunter]

Actually, this thread is about the article written by Keith Skinner and myself for Ripperologist magazine. The only on-thread discussion in the past 200 or so posts have been made by Lechmere, which is why I'm keen for him to post his thoughts so that they can be answered as best we can.

Yes.
It has nothing to do with the viability of any suspect - including Kozminski. There is another thread for that on these boards. There are plenty of suspect threads on these boards.

Adam, I have a question. I found it intriguing that Swanson's copy of Anderson's book was not, after all, presented to him by Anderson - as many thought - but by someone named Fred. Of course, the article delves into some of the possibilities as to who this Fred might be. That aside, don't you believe that this very important revelation adds even more significance to the thoughts Swanson expressed in his annotations as truly being his thoughts, and not just parroting the ideas of his 'old master.'

[Garry Wroe]

But, of course, one should neither count Kosminski in nor out, because we don't know why he was ever suspected and we can't assess how good the evidence against him was and therefore we can't decide whether it was good or bad evidence.

With respect, Paul, the evidence against Kosminski appears to have been almost entirely circumstantial. Smith’s investigation, conducted contemporaneously with the Seaside Home identification, turned up little or nothing. Macnaghten considered Druitt a stronger candidate than Kosminski. Littlechild was apparently of the belief that Anderson was barking up the wrong tree. Abberline reportedly dismissed the claim that the Ripper had been identified and committed to an asylum. On top of this, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, an individual in the throes of a serious psychotic illness.

Tellingly, Anderson had developed his own a priori conclusions regarding the killer’s ethnicity, area of residence, familial circumstances and psychosexual state. Lo and behold, Kosminski just happened to conform to this profile in every particular. Were one pushed to cite an example of the self-fulfilling prophesy, this would be it. For a better understanding of how such thinking can skew a major police investigation, posters might care to familiarize themselves with the case of Terry Hawkshaw, the Leeds taxi driver who for several years was the prime suspect in the Yorkshire Ripper murders.

Clearly, therefore, there was no tangible evidence against Kosminski. The entire case rested on the Seaside Home identification, which in itself counts for very little given that the empirical research suggests a high probability of misidentification under such circumstances. And if, as many insist, the Seaside Home witness was Lawende, why was no identification forthcoming when the City conducted its own investigation into Kosminski?

On this basis, Paul, I consider the evidence against Kosminski to have been neither good or bad. It was simply nonexistent.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Our opinions differ. You have the right to yours.

best wishes

Phil

Yes, they do differ. That doesn't make your right.

[Monty]

Actually Monty I suggested no such thing - you are one of the arch exponents of the childish remark.

In any event I was not aware that the points I raised had been raised before. Not that I scrutinise every thread on this or other forums. Nor have I been privy to the private conversations of those more intimately involved with the Swanson family.

Ill informed. And admitted.

And why should I be unwilling to name names? Libel? Can you libel the dead?
The attitude that the authenticity of the marginalia cannot be questioned as it might imply dishonesty on the part of some one or a group of people should be regarded as no more than an attempt to silence the questioning of the legitimacy of documents.

Then name names.

There is a difference between questioning and implying dishonesty.

In my opinion the article that is the subject of this thread raised a number of issues that invited clarification.
The denunciations here just demonstrate a weak attitude towards the testing of documents and can be taken as a tacit admition that the marginalia has indeed been accepted too readily.

For the record I think it is likely on the balance of probabilities that the marginalia is genuine - yet that is far from suggesting that there are not legitimate questions which should be addressed.

Contradictory.

The bottom line is that tests were completed and the evidence supports what the Swanson family have maintained all along. Accepted too readily is neither here nor there, the evidence and provinence is entact and the marginalia is sound.

Monty

[AdamNeilWood]

Yes.
It has nothing to do with the viability of any suspect - including Kozminski. There is another thread for that on these boards. There are plenty of suspect threads on these boards.

Adam, I have a question. I found it intriguing that Swanson's copy of Anderson's book was not, after all, presented to him by Anderson - as many thought - but by someone named Fred. Of course, the article delves into some of the possibilities as to who this Fred might be. That aside, don't you believe that this very important revelation adds even more significance to the thoughts Swanson expressed in his annotations as truly being his thoughts, and not just parroting the ideas of his 'old master.'

That's a very interesting observation. Swanson's annotations in his books are all factual, either correcting or adding what's on a printed page. As has been mentioned, he wasn't shy about writing when something was incorrect. I find it hard to accept that he'd write something he didn't believe himself, especially as it was unlikely Anderson was going to pop round for tea to discuss the Lighter Side - which he hadn't gifted - as you suggest.

I've no idea why Anderson didn't send a copy of Lighter Side to Swanson. I initially wondered if he didn't bother gifting the book as it had appeared serialised in Blackwood's just before, but my own copy of Lighter Side is inscribed from Anderson to his sister-in-law and dated November 1910. So he did send copies, but why not to Swanson?

Something else which interests me is the timing of the Marginalia. The first set of annotations - those adding to the final sentence on page 138 - were made by DSS presumably just after receiving the book while the rest, including the 'Kosminski was the suspect' line, seem to have been made much later. Judging by the 'shaky hand', this was towards the end of his life. What made him pick up the book to add more comments? Something about the Ripper in the press? Anderson's death?

Best wishes
Adam

[PaulB]

With respect, Paul, the evidence against Kosminski appears to have been almost entirely circumstantial. Smith’s investigation, conducted contemporaneously with the Seaside Home identification, turned up little or nothing. Macnaghten considered Druitt a stronger candidate than Kosminski. Littlechild was apparently of the belief that Anderson was barking up the wrong tree. Abberline reportedly dismissed the claim that the Ripper had been identified and committed to an asylum. On top of this, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, an individual in the throes of a serious psychotic illness.

Tellingly, Anderson had developed his own a priori conclusions regarding the killer’s ethnicity, area of residence, familial circumstances and psychosexual state. Lo and behold, Kosminski just happened to conform to this profile in every particular. Were one pushed to cite an example of the self-fulfilling prophesy, this would be it. For a better understanding of how such thinking can skew a major police investigation, posters might care to familiarize themselves with the case of Terry Hawkshaw, the Leeds taxi driver who for several years was the prime suspect in the Yorkshire Ripper murders.

Clearly, therefore, there was no tangible evidence against Kosminski. The entire case rested on the Seaside Home identification, which in itself counts for very little given that the empirical research suggests a high probability of misidentification under such circumstances. And if, as many insist, the Seaside Home witness was Lawende, why was no identification forthcoming when the City conducted its own investigation into Kosminski?

On this basis, Paul, I consider the evidence against Kosminski to have been neither good or bad. It was simply nonexistent.

Fine. Prove it. And I don't mean that rudely. But the point is that maybe the evidence against "Kosminski" was rubbish, but Macnaghten tells us that there ‘were many circs' that made "Kosminski" 'a strong suspect’ and Anderson and Swanson thought he was Jack the Ripper. Prima facie that doesn't look like a completely empty hand of cards.

Did Anderson have a priori conclusions regarding ethnicity and so forth of the killer? He says that the conclusion we came to was that he was a low-class Polish Jew. That could mean Anderson, or Anderson and others, or just the police (or those police responsible for reaching the conclusion). Tellingly the supposedly arrogant and boastful Anderson does not claim it as his conclusion. And as far as we know it may have been but one of several conclusions the police reached.

And there is no evidence that the whole case against "Kosminski" rested on the eye-witness identification. Maybe it did, but there is no evidence for that. In fact it seems safe to assume that the police had reasons for suspecting "Kosminski" otherwise why would they have gone to the difficulty of taking him to be identified. And there are those 'many circs' mentioned by Macnaghten.

And maybe the evidence against "Kosminski" was non-existent, but that's doubtful. Policemen don't usually think someone is a murderer on the basis of non-existent evidence. That the evidence was crap and they were barking up the wrong tree, I can accept. But not that no evidence existed at all.

[Abby Normal]

I know what you mean, but he's not a weak suspect. He can't be. We know next to nothing about why he was suspected, so how on earth can we judge whether he's strong or weak? All we can say is how people back then thought of him.

Hi Paul
Thanks for the reply. I see what your saying and understand your position . fair enough. I would say though,that because

We know next to nothing about why he was suspected

is actually part of why he would TODAY have to be a weak suspect.

The way I look at it, if we are going to call him any kind of suspect at all today, we have to base it on what we know today. And what we do know (or not)makes him a weak suspect now, IMHO of course.

But again I think today, all the suspects are weak-some are just less weak than others including Kosminsky.

But no doubt he was a strong suspect then to some.

[Abby Normal]

Fine. Prove it. And I don't mean that rudely. But the point is that maybe the evidence against "Kosminski" was rubbish, but Macnaghten tells us that there ‘were many circs' that made "Kosminski" 'a strong suspect’ and Anderson and Swanson thought he was Jack the Ripper. Prima facie that doesn't look like a completely empty hand of cards.

Did Anderson have a priori conclusions regarding ethnicity and so forth of the killer? He says that the conclusion we came to was that he was a low-class Polish Jew. That could mean Anderson, or Anderson and others, or just the police (or those police responsible for reaching the conclusion). Tellingly the supposedly arrogant and boastful Anderson does not claim it as his conclusion. And as far as we know it may have been but one of several conclusions the police reached.

And there is no evidence that the whole case against "Kosminski" rested on the eye-witness identification. Maybe it did, but there is no evidence for that. In fact it seems safe to assume that the police had reasons for suspecting "Kosminski" otherwise why would they have gone to the difficulty of taking him to be identified. And there are those 'many circs' mentioned by Macnaghten.

And maybe the evidence against "Kosminski" was non-existent, but that's doubtful. Policemen don't usually think someone is a murderer on the basis of non-existent evidence. That the evidence was crap and they were barking up the wrong tree, I can accept. But not that no evidence existed at all.

Hi Paul

Did Anderson have a priori conclusions regarding ethnicity and so forth of the killer? He says that the conclusion we came to was that he was a low-class Polish Jew. That could mean Anderson, or Anderson and others, or just the police (or those police responsible for reaching the conclusion). Tellingly the supposedly arrogant and boastful Anderson does not claim it as his conclusion. And as far as we know it may have been but one of several conclusions the police reached.

The royal 'we' perhaps?. Coming from Anderson ; )

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

That is completely irrational, Rob. Chris also recognized this, thankfully. Iīm sorry, but thatīs it. There has never been a case in history where we could ascribe strong suspicion to a suspect without knowing a iota about what it was that got him suspected. And there never will be. It would potentially be a gross miscarriage of justice to do so.

I suspect Mr. Phillips might not agree with your assessment of his position.

And I love all the "gross miscarriage" of justice nonsense. We are kicking around ideas about a suspect named in some police documents. We can't put that genie back in the bottle.

Knifethreaters are potentially strongly homicidal, his sister was a woman, and he may have threatened her over her behaviour visavi other men, perhaps thinking her a slut.

So Errata thinks the knife threat was no big deal, and you think he may have tried to carve her up as a slut. Nobody knows the truth and never will. We're all just projecting, some with a better grounding in reality.

I would also like to think that I am open to other ideas than the one I vote for myself. All I read and take in makes a difference - I just read Gordonīs book on the Thames Torso murders, and to my mind, that book lifts George Chapman up quite a bit as a useful suspect.

Gordon tries to fit Chapman up for the Thames Torsos, the Ripper, and the American Ripper-like crimes. His next book has Chapman as the Son of Sam....

Here's an idea - read Rob House's book !

[Phil Carter]

Yes, they do differ. That doesn't make your right.

Hello Paul,

Quite.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Originally Posted by robhouse

Something has gone wrong there. Those quotations were from Fisherman, not Rob.

[Phil Carter]

No, he wasn't. Swanson was.

Hello Rob,

No.. but he was heavily involved in the investigations on the ground.. passing all info onwards to Swanson, I'd assume.

And when Abberline was working on the case, on the ground, he must have known about the Polish Jew theory.. which he later denounced as rubbish..without a scrap of evidence, I believe.

Now do please explain to me why Swanson would not have involved Abberline in his knowledge? Not exactly a need to know basis thing.. its Jack the flaming Ripper that caused a hell of a lot of trouble to very many!

Plus,the operation cost thousands of pounds in extra police monetary expenses... which assumes that the Home Office would want to be in on the act of knowing all about it and it being wrapped up. Seen any memo's documents to guide us between the two departments..the Met and the HO? I haven't.

best wishes

Phil