Tweet
Hello all,
Getting back for a moment to the initial question of the thread if I may...I am left with a very odd feeling about this.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot possibly imagine that Swanson, in the position he was, as involved as he was in the 'Ripper' scene, would not have such a heavily suspected "suspect", (and the indication in the marginalia IS that he was heavily suspected)...would not refer to this man's full name. I cannot think of any reason why any policeman who wouldn't refer to a full name.
Secondly. who in heaven's name was this 'Kosminski' anyway? We never see his name in the book in any other place, and now we have a name thrown at us as if we should know all about him. Only those savvy with the memoranda would actually know of the name. If he'd said 'the suspect's name was PAV' for example... ok. But Kosminski? We don't even have a first name here. But this is apparently an important suspect..suspected of being Jack the blooming Ripper!
The argument could be made that Swanson could have forgotten it, but I think that's unlikely. We are talking JACK THE RIPPER here. No one, I suggest, would forget the whole name and every blooming detail attached to it. Especially not the top man at the centre of all the paperwork.
If that was the Ripper, Swanson would remember every detail. Anyone would in that position.
Deliberately NOT writing the first name perhaps? Unlikely. There would be no reason if only he was reading the notes made and it wasn't intended for others eyes.
We do not know when the writing was made. Although in some editions of the A-Z the authors write that it occurred in or around 1910..which would be when the book was published (1910). So we can say 1910-1924, if Donald Swanson wrote the marginalia AND the end paper annotations, that is. To this untrained eye, there are differences between the two sets of handwriting.. but that's neither here nor there.
These,and many many other things that have been noted by many others that make me doubt..just too much, that all here is as is seen. There is too much that is simply wrong. And the last line in the endpaper.. 'Kosminski was the suspect', is the complete opposite oif the previous references to the suspect. "The suspect was"..etc.
best wishes
Phil
Getting back for a moment to the initial question of the thread if I may...I am left with a very odd feeling about this.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot possibly imagine that Swanson, in the position he was, as involved as he was in the 'Ripper' scene, would not have such a heavily suspected "suspect", (and the indication in the marginalia IS that he was heavily suspected)...would not refer to this man's full name. I cannot think of any reason why any policeman who wouldn't refer to a full name.
Secondly. who in heaven's name was this 'Kosminski' anyway? We never see his name in the book in any other place, and now we have a name thrown at us as if we should know all about him. Only those savvy with the memoranda would actually know of the name. If he'd said 'the suspect's name was PAV' for example... ok. But Kosminski? We don't even have a first name here. But this is apparently an important suspect..suspected of being Jack the blooming Ripper!
The argument could be made that Swanson could have forgotten it, but I think that's unlikely. We are talking JACK THE RIPPER here. No one, I suggest, would forget the whole name and every blooming detail attached to it. Especially not the top man at the centre of all the paperwork.
If that was the Ripper, Swanson would remember every detail. Anyone would in that position.
Deliberately NOT writing the first name perhaps? Unlikely. There would be no reason if only he was reading the notes made and it wasn't intended for others eyes.
We do not know when the writing was made. Although in some editions of the A-Z the authors write that it occurred in or around 1910..which would be when the book was published (1910). So we can say 1910-1924, if Donald Swanson wrote the marginalia AND the end paper annotations, that is. To this untrained eye, there are differences between the two sets of handwriting.. but that's neither here nor there.
These,and many many other things that have been noted by many others that make me doubt..just too much, that all here is as is seen. There is too much that is simply wrong. And the last line in the endpaper.. 'Kosminski was the suspect', is the complete opposite oif the previous references to the suspect. "The suspect was"..etc.
best wishes
Phil
)
Comment