Druitt.

[Wickerman]

You also seem to be saying that Swanson claimed in 1895 that his locked-up suspect was dead.

But he did not claim that he had been locked up!

Indeed.
This is the article that concerns Swanson


Pall Mall Gazette, 7 May, 1895.

[Wickerman]

You seem to be saying that Anderson claimed in 1895 that his dead suspect had been locked away.

But he did not claim that he was dead!

Not the year, I think that was 1910, the year of his memoirs, but I'd need to look that up.
Anderson has always been associated with the "incarcerated Jew", theory. So, it seemed you had the names associated with the opposing conclusions.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Indeed.
This is the article that concerns Swanson


Pall Mall Gazette, 7 May, 1895.

Then you agree with me that as of 1895 Swanson had not claimed that his suspect had both been locked up and died?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not the year, I think that was 1910, the year of his memoirs, but I'd need to look that up.
Anderson has always been associated with the "incarcerated Jew", theory. So, it seemed you had the names associated with the opposing conclusions.

Then you agree with me that as of 1895 Anderson had not claimed that his suspect had both been locked up and died?

[Wickerman]

I'm only aware, as of this moment in time, in Swanson claiming in 1895 that the suspect had died, and Anderson's claim in 1910 that he had been locked up.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm only aware, as of this moment in time, in Swanson claiming in 1895 that the suspect had died, and Anderson's claim in 1910 that he had been locked up.

That means you agree with me that it seems that neither Anderson nor Swanson believed in 1895 that their suspect had both been locked up and died.

[Wickerman]

That means you agree with me that it seems that neither Anderson nor Swanson believed in 1895 that their suspect had both been locked up and died.

I'm being cautious because I know Macnaghten also believed the suspect had been locked up in 1889, so all three, Mac, Swanson & Anderson, could have believed the suspect had been locked up prior to 1895.
Only Swanson thought he had also died before 1895.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm being cautious because I know Macnaghten also believed the suspect had been locked up in 1889, so all three, Mac, Swanson & Anderson, could have believed the suspect had been locked up prior to 1895.
Only Swanson thought he had also died before 1895.

Only Swanson thought he had also died before 1895.

Where is the evidence that Swanson believed in 1895 that his suspect had been locked up?

[Wickerman]

Only Swanson thought he had also died before 1895.

Where is the evidence that Swanson believed in 1895 that his suspect had been locked up?

None that I recall reading, except to point out that intelligence normally runs up the chain of command, meaning the detectives inform their superior (Swanson), who in turn informs his (Macnaghten), so what Mac. knows is assumed to have come via Swanson.
It's only an assumption, but it's how the force operates, therefore it is reasonable.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

None that I recall reading, except to point out that intelligence normally runs up the chain of command, meaning the detectives inform their superior (Swanson), who in turn informs his (Macnaghten), so what Mac. knows is assumed to have come via Swanson.
It's only an assumption, but it's how the force operates, therefore it is reasonable.

Are you not assuming that Swanson's suspect in 1895 was Kosminski?

If Macnaghten's information came from Swanson, then why did Macnaghten state that Kosminski was still alive when Swanson supposedly believed him to be dead?

[Wickerman]

Are you not assuming that Swanson's suspect in 1895 was Kosminski?

It's an open question, some have thought he meant Druitt.

If Macnaghten's information came from Swanson, then why did Macnaghten state that Kosminski was still alive when Swanson supposedly believed him to be dead?

Different suspect?

We don't actually know who Swanson suspected, if anyone.
The Marginalia, to my mind, was Swanson identifying Anderson's suspect, not his own suspect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Different suspect?

Of course.

In 1894, Macnaghten and Swanson had different suspects in mind, and Swanson may have been referring to a different suspect in his marginalia from the one he had had in mind in 1894.

[Abby Normal]

It's an open question, some have thought he meant Druitt.



Different suspect?

We don't actually know who Swanson suspected, if anyone.
The Marginalia, to my mind, was Swanson identifying Anderson's suspect, not his own suspect.

hi wick
certainly swanson was agreeing that koz was the ripper. surely the statements by swanson "and he knew he was identified" and "after this, no more murders took place" show that swanson also thought koz was the ripper.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

hi wick
certainly swanson was agreeing that koz was the ripper. surely the statements by swanson "and he knew he was identified" and "after this, no more murders took place" show that swanson also thought koz was the ripper.

I was waiting for Wickerman to reply, but I would add to your observations the fact that Swanson referred to Kosminski as the murderer.

[Wickerman]

I was waiting for Wickerman to reply, but I would add to your observations the fact that Swanson referred to Kosminski as the murderer.

Sorry I didn't realize you were waiting for a response.


Swanson signs off in the Marginalia with - Kosminski was the Suspect - DSS.

I think his use of "murderer" was due to a progression of his train of thought. If you read his note he suggests Kozminski was the "suspect", and the witness testimony would convict him, thereby making the "suspect" into a "murderer".

"..because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged".

Which is no different to me being on a Kozminski thread and referring to him as a murderer (even though I don't think he was), because those I am conversing with think he was.
Just like Swanson knows Anderson thinks he was, Kozminski is Anderson's "suspect", so is also Anderson's "murderer".

You know as well as I do that Swanson had plenty of opportunity to make a definitive statement anywhere about who he thinks the killer was, no such statement exists. Which should suggest to everyone he preferred to keep his opinion to himself, which he apparently did to the end.