Trying to make sense of the Swanson Marginalia

[Darryl Kenyon]

I wanted to move my views and possibilities on Swanson and what he wrote in his private notes to a new thread. So here goes.

The most contentious issue is the Seaside home ID. I personally do not believe the ID took place in Brighton but it is a possibility. Brighton at the time had a large Jewish population and if Lawende was the witness, not forgetting he was a commercial traveler, he could have been stuck in Brighton and the police may have had to have moved quickly IE They could only hold Kosminski for, say 48 hrs without anymore evidence forthcoming.

For what it is worth I think consideration should be made that Seaside home should have read Seaman's home . I note that there was a Sailors home in Well st [now Ensign St], and the nearby Destitute Sailors' Asylum which was on the next street , Dock St. Both close to Lemen street police station and Tenter st which , I believe was Lawende's address in 1891, plus only a few minutes from Greenfield street where possibly Kosminski resided in 1891. Which is when I suspect the ID took place
Bearing in mind that Lawende [ if Lawende was the witness ], said that the man he sighted had the appearance of a sailor. What better place to put a mentally unstable suspect who may have been a sailor in front of a witness than an asylum for sailors. Now I believe not everybody or indeed probably most people who resided there suffered from mental illness but it still gives the ID an air of credibility to it if there ever was a court case. In fact Lawende could have been confronted with a few seamen, one at a time but it was Kosminski he recognised. .
Although I have no proof of this and just a few suggestions it is tempting. A suspect who had the appearance of a sailor but wasn't, yet picked out by a witness at a Sailors home after perhaps looking at a few other seamen beforehand. Even if Lawende says he wasn't positive and reminded the Police that he only had a cursory glance at the murderer it might have hardened the thoughts of Anderson and maybe Swanson that Kosminski was their man. Particularly after he said Sadler wasn't the man not long after, even though he could be seen as a reasonable suspect. He could even have been used at the Sadler ID to test his veracity. Pick out Sadler as well and the case against Kosminski gets watered down, but he didn't.

One of the more controversial aspects regarding the marginalia is Swansons statement that "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London". Not forgetting Swanson wrote this around twenty years after the events he is describing, twice Peter Sutcliffe went eleven months between murders. Suppose he was put on an ID after a gap of ten months just before one of the eleven month gap murders. Would one of the heads of the ripper task force in remenisces twenty years later have said the murders stopped because of good old fashioned police work which led to him being put on an ID parade [ regardless of the gap ] ?
I think it is a possibility and I suspect Swanson wanted the police to take credit for the cessation of the murders even if the ID was two years later.

Regarding the ID Swanson writes that Kosminski knew he was identified and Anderson says the witness identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him.
A possible explanation.

Witness " Yes that's him " or taps him on the shoulder
Kosminski throws expletives towards witness in Yiddish
Witness then knows he is a fellow Jew. That's not to say that's why I believe the witness backed down, I personally believe he thought twice about it .
"Am I 100% convinced after all this time ?"
For instance . But certain members of the police force [ rightly or wrongly ] may have thought/ or was reported differently.

In relation to Kosminski being returned to his brother in laws house,
A suspect cannot be held on to forever. If they haven't the evidence to charge said suspect, and my belief is without a positive ID which would be sworn to in court the police didn't have enough evidence to charge Kosminski, they have to let him go. And if they cannot hold on to him the very least the police do [ then and now ] is put the suspect under surveillance . As the police seemed to have done with Kosminski [ City CID ].
There hasn't been enough evidence [ thus far ] , to charge Bruckner [ the prime suspect ] with the abduction and probable murder of Madeline Mcann. If he wasn't in prison would they have have been able to hold him all this time, since he became a suspect without charging him ? I doubt it. But keeping some kind of surveillance on him though until they manage [ if they ever did ] to gather more evidence is a fair assumption. I imagine something similar happened with Kosminski, so his family thought it advisable/or agreed to place him in a workhouse where [ I believe ], a certificate for admission to an asylum could be obtained.

Pertaining to the surveillance, I wonder if the City police not seeming to be able to stop Kosminski entering the workhouse and then the asylum , where it would be very unlikely he would ever be charged , even if new evidence were found, brought some form of conflict between Anderson and Henry Smith. Which mighty have carried on down the years and what they wrote ?
Anderson may have wanted to try every trick in the book [ such as the French police possess ] to stop Kosminski getting away, where Smith may have thought the evidence just wasn't there. So the City CID didn't stop him/or couldn't from entering the workhouse.
Again I have no proof of this , just a suggestion.

Much has been made regarding Kosminski being sent to the workhouse with his hands tied behind his back , according to Swanson . But if we look at Hyam Hyams something similar happened. In December 88 he was taken to the Whitechapel workhouse infirmary suffering delusions. Released in January 89 He was readmitted in April 89 then sent to Colney Hatch under restraint only to be released in August 89.
We simply do not know why Kosminski had his hands tied behind his back , perhaps he was threatening his sister again with a knife ?

Swanson believing Kosminski died in the asylum is a problem. I have ruminated on the idea that it was the City police's jurisdiction to keep tabs on him since they were the ones watching Kosminski at his brother in laws house. Maybe Jacob Cohen [ who I think lived in City territory ] was some form of go between .
Tracks might have been lost on Kosminski when he transferred to Leavesden in 1894. What is known is that Swanson believed him dead in 1895. In the Colney hatch register it says Date of discharge removal or death 19/04/94.
Could Swanson have thought it was death ?

For what it is worth I am not a fan of Anderson. He comes across as being pompous, overbearing and always right in his general comments.
But the fact is if you believe the Marginalia to be genuine it must be what Swanson thought, or remembered.
That does not mean he was right of course. History has taught us that the prime suspect isn't always the killer and of course other police officers disagreed on his conclusions.
But He did have access to all the documents and was central to the investigation.

My personal belief is that Kosminski was a suspect and that over time Swanson's and as a knock on, so to speak, Anderson's [ when possibly discussing the case together ] suspicions hardened [ when no other man became a prime suspect,or charged so to speak ] to the fact they had their man all along.

Just a few thoughts and suggestions

Regards Darryl

[Sam Flynn]

Oddly enough, I was pondering the marginalia last night, so I may as well bring it up here...

For those who have actually seen Swanson's copy of Anderson's book, are there any other "marginalia", or just the JTR-related ones?

I think I raised this before many years ago, but I can't remember getting an answer.

[JeffHamm]

Oddly enough, I was pondering the marginalia last night, so I may as well bring it up here...

For those who have actually seen Swanson's copy of Anderson's book, are there any other "marginalia", or just the JTR-related ones?

I think I raised this before many years ago, but I can't remember getting an answer.

Hi Sam,

I can't recall anyone mentioning other marginalia in the Anderson book specifically, but I do recall seeing it said that Swanson made notes and such in many of the books in his library. Unfortunately, other than it being in a discussion here on Casebook somewhere, I can't be more specific than that. It would be interesting, though, to look at other examples of his marginalia notes as examining them may help to understand Swanson's reasons for making such comments in general.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I wanted to move my views and possibilities on Swanson and what he wrote in his private notes to a new thread. So here goes.

The most contentious issue is the Seaside home ID. I personally do not believe the ID took place in Brighton but it is a possibility. Brighton at the time had a large Jewish population and if Lawende was the witness, not forgetting he was a commercial traveler, he could have been stuck in Brighton and the police may have had to have moved quickly IE They could only hold Kosminski for, say 48 hrs without anymore evidence forthcoming.

For what it is worth I think consideration should be made that Seaside home should have read Seaman's home . I note that there was a Sailors home in Well st [now Ensign St], and the nearby Destitute Sailors' Asylum which was on the next street , Dock St. Both close to Lemen street police station and Tenter st which , I believe was Lawende's address in 1891, plus only a few minutes from Greenfield street where possibly Kosminski resided in 1891. Which is when I suspect the ID took place
Bearing in mind that Lawende [ if Lawende was the witness ], said that the man he sighted had the appearance of a sailor. What better place to put a mentally unstable suspect who may have been a sailor in front of a witness than an asylum for sailors. Now I believe not everybody or indeed probably most people who resided there suffered from mental illness but it still gives the ID an air of credibility to it if there ever was a court case. In fact Lawende could have been confronted with a few seamen, one at a time but it was Kosminski he recognised. .
Although I have no proof of this and just a few suggestions it is tempting. A suspect who had the appearance of a sailor but wasn't, yet picked out by a witness at a Sailors home after perhaps looking at a few other seamen beforehand. Even if Lawende says he wasn't positive and reminded the Police that he only had a cursory glance at the murderer it might have hardened the thoughts of Anderson and maybe Swanson that Kosminski was their man. Particularly after he said Sadler wasn't the man not long after, even though he could be seen as a reasonable suspect. He could even have been used at the Sadler ID to test his veracity. Pick out Sadler as well and the case against Kosminski gets watered down, but he didn't.

One of the more controversial aspects regarding the marginalia is Swansons statement that "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London". Not forgetting Swanson wrote this around twenty years after the events he is describing, twice Peter Sutcliffe went eleven months between murders. Suppose he was put on an ID after a gap of ten months just before one of the eleven month gap murders. Would one of the heads of the ripper task force in remenisces twenty years later have said the murders stopped because of good old fashioned police work which led to him being put on an ID parade [ regardless of the gap ] ?
I think it is a possibility and I suspect Swanson wanted the police to take credit for the cessation of the murders even if the ID was two years later.

Regarding the ID Swanson writes that Kosminski knew he was identified and Anderson says the witness identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him.
A possible explanation.

Witness " Yes that's him " or taps him on the shoulder
Kosminski throws expletives towards witness in Yiddish
Witness then knows he is a fellow Jew. That's not to say that's why I believe the witness backed down, I personally believe he thought twice about it .
"Am I 100% convinced after all this time ?"
For instance . But certain members of the police force [ rightly or wrongly ] may have thought/ or was reported differently.

In relation to Kosminski being returned to his brother in laws house,
A suspect cannot be held on to forever. If they haven't the evidence to charge said suspect, and my belief is without a positive ID which would be sworn to in court the police didn't have enough evidence to charge Kosminski, they have to let him go. And if they cannot hold on to him the very least the police do [ then and now ] is put the suspect under surveillance . As the police seemed to have done with Kosminski [ City CID ].
There hasn't been enough evidence [ thus far ] , to charge Bruckner [ the prime suspect ] with the abduction and probable murder of Madeline Mcann. If he wasn't in prison would they have have been able to hold him all this time, since he became a suspect without charging him ? I doubt it. But keeping some kind of surveillance on him though until they manage [ if they ever did ] to gather more evidence is a fair assumption. I imagine something similar happened with Kosminski, so his family thought it advisable/or agreed to place him in a workhouse where [ I believe ], a certificate for admission to an asylum could be obtained.

Pertaining to the surveillance, I wonder if the City police not seeming to be able to stop Kosminski entering the workhouse and then the asylum , where it would be very unlikely he would ever be charged , even if new evidence were found, brought some form of conflict between Anderson and Henry Smith. Which mighty have carried on down the years and what they wrote ?
Anderson may have wanted to try every trick in the book [ such as the French police possess ] to stop Kosminski getting away, where Smith may have thought the evidence just wasn't there. So the City CID didn't stop him/or couldn't from entering the workhouse.
Again I have no proof of this , just a suggestion.

Much has been made regarding Kosminski being sent to the workhouse with his hands tied behind his back , according to Swanson . But if we look at Hyam Hyams something similar happened. In December 88 he was taken to the Whitechapel workhouse infirmary suffering delusions. Released in January 89 He was readmitted in April 89 then sent to Colney Hatch under restraint only to be released in August 89.
We simply do not know why Kosminski had his hands tied behind his back , perhaps he was threatening his sister again with a knife ?

Swanson believing Kosminski died in the asylum is a problem. I have ruminated on the idea that it was the City police's jurisdiction to keep tabs on him since they were the ones watching Kosminski at his brother in laws house. Maybe Jacob Cohen [ who I think lived in City territory ] was some form of go between .
Tracks might have been lost on Kosminski when he transferred to Leavesden in 1894. What is known is that Swanson believed him dead in 1895. In the Colney hatch register it says Date of discharge removal or death 19/04/94.
Could Swanson have thought it was death ?

For what it is worth I am not a fan of Anderson. He comes across as being pompous, overbearing and always right in his general comments.
But the fact is if you believe the Marginalia to be genuine it must be what Swanson thought, or remembered.
That does not mean he was right of course. History has taught us that the prime suspect isn't always the killer and of course other police officers disagreed on his conclusions.
But He did have access to all the documents and was central to the investigation.

My personal belief is that Kosminski was a suspect and that over time Swanson's and as a knock on, so to speak, Anderson's [ when possibly discussing the case together ] suspicions hardened [ when no other man became a prime suspect,or charged so to speak ] to the fact they had their man all along.

Just a few thoughts and suggestions

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

I think the idea that the "Seaside Home" might refer to the "Sailor's Home" has been floated before, perhaps by you? That idea always seemed to me to be a very good possibility and one that would place the event in a far more likely location compared to Brighton.

Also, there's something about the way things are presented about the witness refusing to confirm their identification, and the reason behind it, that to me comes across as a bit of bias creeping in. I could see something like the witness indicating that the person "could" be who they saw, but they were not positive enough to swear to it. The fact the suspect was Jewish may have had nothing to do with that as far as the witness was concerned, but the frustration of such a "close but not definitive" identification by a witness who resisted any pressure to be more confident could very well spill over into making assumptions as to their reasons (i.e. well, we know their both Jewish, and the Jews don't trust the police and will protect their own, etc..., allows Anderson and the police an "out" - it wasn't us, we found him, but it was the witness who thwarted our efforts, so sour grapes type thinking).

I tend to believe some sort of identification was attempted, and barring some conflation of identifications we do know about (Pizer and Sadler, let's say, one Jewish and at their relative's home, the other not identified by a witness for a crime that was, at least initially, thought linked to the C5), the idea that it was at the sailor's home and simply not as positive an ID as it is presented to be seems to me to be more likely the case than how it is literally presented.

Of course, my speculations on this could very well be way off the mark, and I don't hold the above views with strong conviction, but I do think that what we have is a sort of distorted view of what happened rather than a complete fabrication. The latter I think at this point at least is unjustified.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

... Lawende was the witness, not forgetting he was a commercial traveler, he could have been stuck in Brighton and the police may have had to have moved quickly

In that case, why did the police not bring Lawende to London?

Would that not have been easier than moving a serial killer - something Swanson himself wrote was difficult?


IE They could only hold Kosminski for, say 48 hrs without anymore evidence forthcoming.

If they could hold Kosminski for 48 hours, why did they let him go instead?


Bearing in mind that Lawende [ if Lawende was the witness ], said that the man he sighted had the appearance of a sailor. What better place to put a mentally unstable suspect who may have been a sailor in front of a witness than an asylum for sailors.

Where is the evidence that Kosminski had the appearance of a sailor?

We have photos of his siblings, who did not have the appearance of sailors nor the fair hair the suspect had.


In fact Lawende could have been confronted with a few seamen, one at a time but it was Kosminski he recognised. .

He could not.

It could not have been an identity parade.

Anderson had it taking place in an asylum and wrote that it was a confrontation.

He did not mention any seamen either - and nor did Swanson.


Regarding the ID Swanson writes that Kosminski knew he was identified and Anderson says the witness identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him.

A possible explanation.

Witness " Yes that's him " or taps him on the shoulder
Kosminski throws expletives towards witness in Yiddish
Witness then knows he is a fellow Jew.

Anderson wrote:

'I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.'

He wrote that he learned that the suspect was Jewish, not that the suspect identified his religion to him.

It is, I suggest, significant that Anderson would not elaborate, as he would have had considerable difficulty in coming up with an explanation.


In relation to Kosminski being returned to his brother in laws house,.. A suspect cannot be held on to forever. If they haven't the evidence to charge said suspect... they have to let him go.

They had enough evidence to arrest him if he had not yet been arrested, or hold onto him for a while if he was already under arrest.


Anderson may have wanted to try every trick in the book [ such as the French police possess ] to stop Kosminski getting away...

... except arrest him, charge him, or keep him under arrest for a while longer while trying to build a case against him?

Instead, Anderson is completely in the hands of the Jews.


We simply do not know why Kosminski had his hands tied behind his back , perhaps he was threatening his sister again with a knife ?

Correction: we simply do not know THAT Kosminski had his hands tied behind his back.

You are doing the very thing I myself have been routinely and incorrectly accused of doing: stating an assumption as a fact.

What Swanson wrote is not evidence.


Swanson believing Kosminski died in the asylum is a problem.

It is more than a problem.

It gives away the fact that he was not recollecting events.

He was recollecting a tale.


What is known is that Swanson believed him [Kosminski] dead in 1895.

That is not known.

We know that Swanson thought the murderer was dead in 1895.

You are assuming he meant Kosminski.

[Sam Flynn]

I can't recall anyone mentioning other marginalia in the Anderson book specifically, but I do recall seeing it said that Swanson made notes and such in many of the books in his library. Unfortunately, other than it being in a discussion here on Casebook somewhere, I can't be more specific than that. It would be interesting, though, to look at other examples of his marginalia notes as examining them may help to understand Swanson's reasons for making such comments in general.

Thanks, Jeff, and I agree. It would be useful to know of any other "marginalia" DSS left for posterity.

[rjpalmer]

Thanks, Jeff, and I agree. It would be useful to know of any other "marginalia" DSS left for posterity.

I’ve been assured that these were his private jottings and not “left for posterity.” Or do you mean unintentionally left for posterity? :-)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’ve been assured that these were his private jottings and not “left for posterity.” Or do you mean unintentionally left for posterity? :-)

There is no such thing as private self-congratulation, Roger!

[Sam Flynn]

I’ve been assured that these were his private jottings and not “left for posterity.” Or do you mean unintentionally left for posterity? :-)

The latter, RJ

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl,

I think the idea that the "Seaside Home" might refer to the "Sailor's Home" has been floated before, perhaps by you? That idea always seemed to me to be a very good possibility and one that would place the event in a far more likely location compared to Brighton.

Also, there's something about the way things are presented about the witness refusing to confirm their identification, and the reason behind it, that to me comes across as a bit of bias creeping in. I could see something like the witness indicating that the person "could" be who they saw, but they were not positive enough to swear to it. The fact the suspect was Jewish may have had nothing to do with that as far as the witness was concerned, but the frustration of such a "close but not definitive" identification by a witness who resisted any pressure to be more confident could very well spill over into making assumptions as to their reasons (i.e. well, we know their both Jewish, and the Jews don't trust the police and will protect their own, etc..., allows Anderson and the police an "out" - it wasn't us, we found him, but it was the witness who thwarted our efforts, so sour grapes type thinking).

I tend to believe some sort of identification was attempted, and barring some conflation of identifications we do know about (Pizer and Sadler, let's say, one Jewish and at their relative's home, the other not identified by a witness for a crime that was, at least initially, thought linked to the C5), the idea that it was at the sailor's home and simply not as positive an ID as it is presented to be seems to me to be more likely the case than how it is literally presented.

Of course, my speculations on this could very well be way off the mark, and I don't hold the above views with strong conviction, but I do think that what we have is a sort of distorted view of what happened rather than a complete fabrication. The latter I think at this point at least is unjustified.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

You are correct Jeff I have mentioned the Seaman's homes before as a possible location for the ID to have taken place.

I am in agreement with you that some form of ID was attempted [ wish we knew exactly what and where ], but as much with the case it is open to interpretation.
I also concur with your take on the ID and why the witness refused to testify . Kosminski probably looked like the man seen, but definite was a stretch too far , particularly after the time gap leaving the police frustrated and searching for answers . In the A6 murder case the victim Valerie Storie on the first ID parade she attended where the first suspect Peter Alphon was present, she picked out an wholly innocent man . Afterwards Valerie said that she felt pressured into picking someone , even though straight after she let it be known she wasn't certain she had picked out the right person . Suppose she had picked Alphon out would he have been charged ? Instead of Hanratty further down the line.
Could something similar have happened with the witness ?


Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Concerning other annotations written by Swanson . Ripperologist 128 has an interesting article by Adam Wood and Keith Skinner. I believe there is at least one other annotation in pencil of Swanson's over Anderson's reminisces, [ in the book Criminals and Crime ].

Regards Darryl

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

You are correct Jeff I have mentioned the Seaman's homes before as a possible location for the ID to have taken place.

I am in agreement with you that some form of ID was attempted [ wish we knew exactly what and where ], but as much with the case it is open to interpretation.
I also concur with your take on the ID and why the witness refused to testify . Kosminski probably looked like the man seen, but definite was a stretch too far , particularly after the time gap leaving the police frustrated and searching for answers . In the A6 murder case the victim Valerie Storie on the first ID parade she attended where the first suspect Peter Alphon was present, she picked out an wholly innocent man . Afterwards Valerie said that she felt pressured into picking someone , even though straight after she let it be known she wasn't certain she had picked out the right person . Suppose she had picked Alphon out would he have been charged ? Instead of Hanratty further down the line.
Could something similar have happened with the witness ?


Regards Darryl

I have no doubt that something similar could have happened. I mean, we know today that is bad practice and yet it still happens, so back in 1888, it was probably routine based on the idea that you had to "encourage" a reluctant witness to boost their confidence. And the frustration the police would be under, given they had little else but witnesses as a source of evidence, well, what else would they do but try and get something from them? To me, the whole explanation for why the witness wouldn't swear to the identification just reaks of frustration, which is why I think it is probably not what the witness actually said but is what the police assumed, if that makes sense?

- Jeff

[c.d.]

There is no such thing as private self-congratulation, Roger!

Just solitary vices.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I was referring to Swanson's congratulating himself on having caught the Whitechapel Murderer and prevented him from committing any more murders.

There is no point in congratulating oneself unless in the expectation that someone else will know about it.

[GBinOz]

Even if Lawende says he wasn't positive and reminded the Police that he only had a cursory glance at the murderer it might have hardened the thoughts of Anderson and maybe Swanson that Kosminski was their man. Particularly after he said Sadler wasn't the man not long after, even though he could be seen as a reasonable suspect. He could even have been used at the Sadler ID to test his veracity. Pick out Sadler as well and the case against Kosminski gets watered down, but he didn't.

Hi Darryl,

If Anderson and Swanson though that Kosminski was their man, and that Kosminski knew he had been identified, they prejudiced their contention by having Lawende look at Sadler, who he didn't identify, and Grainger, who he did identify.

Cheers, George