Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Phil Carter]

Donald Swanson's only assured intended audience was himself. He had been in the habit of writing annotations in margins of documents throughout his professional life and continued to do so after retirement. Jack Littlechild did the same thing. Perhaps a rudimentary study of the biographical information of the participants would be beneficial in any quest for the 'truth.'

Hello Hunter,

Any mention of intended audience ion this case is purely speculatory. Whether it is for himself, or even another living person at the time of the writing.. i.e. he could have lent the book to a.n.other and said.. Ive made certain notes throughout the book...take a look"..and been handed it back after use. It could have happened.. we don't know. There is no point in this speculation at all. We cannot make the reason for the writing being there solid gospel, and the use of a logical reason opens up all the reasons for the whole of the writings to be considered illogical as well.

It could be that as I have suggested, that he was actually writing as filling in the details of Anderson's recollections. Not Swanson's own..i.e. that "What Anderson means here is... the person Anderson is referring to... Anderson's story refers to a person whom...." and Swanson could well have been told of an Anderson story by Anderson himself or a.n.other. We don't know. Its all speculation. So whilst those who need this set of writings say again and again "Ahh, but you can't prove it DIDN'T happen that way".. there is nothing to even hint that it did. Therefore, it's factual value is demised considerably.

The point of all this is that the writing in the marginalia and annotations leave far too much room for speculation. There is nothing provable about the whole scenario..nothing at all, and as I have previously written, had Frank Spiering presented this type of explanation for his theory, it would have been dismissed out of hand as unprovable and worthless without any possible way of confirming any of the facts. Ditto Stephen Knight. Ditto Cornwell. I refer to the infamous Abberline diary attempt and handwriting con with Abberline's signature. G.F.Abberline.... I ESPECIALLY refer to McCormick's Dr Dutton diaries... now deemed to be a part of McCormick's fertile imagination. And how long was McCormick's book considered one of the "greats" of Ripper literature? But when there is nothing to prove the existence of any such writings........hmm..just like we can't prove the existence of any ID parade ever having taken place at a Seaside Home for policemen. Just like we can'r prove any person being transposted from anywhere, nor delievered back after any unprovable ID...by an unknown witness.

Just because it is presented by a relative of D.S.Swanson doesn't make it any more reliable in it's content. The intention to make money from it as well as the stated intention of upping Swanson's role and name in the Ripper Case and upping the police role of total control leaves a lot to be desired.

If Jim Swanson had just said.. "Look. Ive just found this.. I don't have any need for promotion nor do I have belief in it's truthfulness or not"..then I would have been far more inclined to believe in it. Once going to a newspaper and raking in some cah is one thing... twice.. is tantamount to intention beyond that of just telling the world the truth. Just my opinion.

Some wont like it. But there is way too much wrong with this "evidence" for me personally to consider it as anything more than a curiosity. No insult to any member of the Swanson family intended. It's a wrong-un.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Marginal Muddle?

To Phil C

For what its worth I think the Swasnon Marginalis is 100% kosher, but I agree with you that it may provide repetition rather than confirmation.

As in, it is a severe limitation of this [late] primary source that it could so easily be Swanson recording Anderson's more detailed opinion-explanation-amplification which the former may have asked about because he was not sure whom the suspect or witness actually were? Anderson recalled the name, 'Kosminski' but not the witness.

This theory would explain why no other police figure know about the positive identification -- an impossibility -- but we do not have two senior police figures with fading, faulty and self-serving memories, just one.

One who, furthermore, can be shown in other examples to confuse bits and pieces, eg. the murder scene pipes, Tory and Liberal Home Secretaries, other cases.

[Phil Carter]

To Phil C

For what its worth I think the Swasnon Marginalis is 100% kosher, but I agree with you that it may provide repetition rather than confirmation.

As in, it is a severe limitation of this [late] primary source that it could so easily be Swanson recording Anderson's more detailed opinion-explanation-amplification which the former may have asked about because he was not sure whom the suspect or witness actually were? Anderson recalled the name, 'Kosminski' but not the witness.

This theory would explain why no other police figure know about the positive identification -- an impossibility -- but we do not have two senior police figures with fading, faulty and self-serving memories, just one.

One who, furthermore, can be shown in other examples to confuse bits and pieces, eg. the murder scene pipes, Tory and Liberal Home Secretaries, other cases.

Hello Jonathan,

Or it could just be that Swanson is showing us all that Anderson's fairytale, is exactly that... an undetailed and unprovable bit of Anderson's fertile anti-jewish imagination. Another one of Anderson's "moral guilt" jobs with a story to help sell his book.

best wishes

Phil

[S.Brett]

Hi Jonathan!

But if Swanson asked (Cox and Sagar) what has become of "Kosminski" then, he could have found out that "Kosminski" was sent to an infirmary and (later but not immediately) to an asylum. And (necessarily) not that "Kosminski" has died.

But Swanson himself could have found a crazy Jew. A man, who had passed away (meanwhile). A man similiar to "Kosminski". And this man (David Cohen) had been never again released and died. However, Henry Cox´s (and Robert Sagar´s) suspect could have been managed at home between infirmary and asylum and not have died.

Cox and Sagar: Identification at the Seaside Home- Observation-Infirmary- Observation- Asylum...

Swanson: Identification by a Jewish witness- Identification at the Seaside Home- Observation City CID- Infirmary- Asylum- Death of the Suspect.

But who (or what) could have been similar to the man called "Kosminski"?

[Jonathan H]

To S. Brett

Yes. that's possible.

But let me offer you this for consideration.

Joseph Lawende, a Jewish witness, was used to assess Tom Sadler as the Ripper, and this is the 'confrontation' being misremembered by Anderson and Swanson (or the latter is quietly repeating the former's muddled opinion -- never to be shown to anybody, not even his family).

Lawende had seen a Gentile sailor and Sadler was a Gentile sailor.

Disappointingly this Jewish witness witness said 'no', just a few days after Aaron Kosminski went into permanent incarceration in an asylum -- which is when Anderson first said the 'confrontation' took place (in the 1910 magazine version).

That's too big a coincidence for Stewart P. Evans and Don Rumbelow, and for me too.

But if a fading, yet egocentric memory substitutes and eliminates Tom Sadler for 'Kosminski' then there is nagging loose end for the deteriorating nuerons: sailor: dressed like a sailor. A gentile sailor at that.

So, the mind shuffles the deck and out comes 'Seaside Home' as the [unlikely] location of the 'confrontation' arguably taking care of that loose end.

Feb-March 1891

- Aaron Kosminski permanently incarcerated.
- Jewish witness says no
- Jack the Seaman suspect not charged.

Becomes:

Late 1888-early 1889?

- Seaside Home location.
- Jewish witness says yes and then no.
- Suspect 'Kosminski' not charged and permanently incarcerated.

[Trevor Marriott]

The one thing you cannot accuse Cris of is rose tinted specs.

Its clear why he wrote it.

Monty

Yes he has obviously been reading beggs book of 1000 explanations as to why the marginalia in part or whole was written by Swanson

[Trevor Marriott]

To S. Brett

Yes. that's possible.

But let me offer you this for consideration.

Joseph Lawende, a Jewish witness, was used to assess Tom Sadler as the Ripper, and this is the 'confrontation' being misremembered by Anderson and Swanson (or the latter is quietly repeating the former's muddled opinion -- never to be shown to anybody, not even his family).

Lawende had seen a Gentile sailor and Sadler was a Gentile sailor.

Disappointingly this Jewish witness witness said 'no', just a few days after Aaron Kosminski went into permanent incarceration in an asylum -- which is when Anderson first said the 'confrontation' took place (in the 1910 magazine version).

That's too big a coincidence for Stewart P. Evans and Don Rumbelow, and for me too.

But if a fading, yet egocentric memory substitutes and eliminates Tom Sadler for 'Kosminski' then there is nagging loose end for the deteriorating nuerons: sailor: dressed like a sailor. A gentile sailor at that.

So, the mind shuffles the deck and out comes 'Seaside Home' as the [unlikely] location of the 'confrontation' arguably taking care of that loose end.

Feb-March 1891

- Aaron Kosminski permanently incarcerated.
- Jewish witness says no
- Jack the Seaman suspect not charged.

Becomes:

Late 1888-early 1889?

- Seaside Home location.
- Jewish witness says yes and then no.
- Suspect 'Kosminski' not charged and permanently incarcerated.

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Yet none of the officers with nothing to gain and no hidden agendas who say the police didnt not have a clue appear to have ben quite normal with all of this faculties in later years with no memory impairments.

Its simply another cop out excuse the same as is the one whereby the missing,lost or stolen files keeps being used, and I think more and more people are now starting to believe that be the case.

[mklhawley]

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Yet none of the officers with nothing to gain and no hidden agendas who say the police didnt not have a clue appear to have ben quite normal with all of this faculties in later years with no memory impairments.

Its simply another cop out excuse the same as is the one whereby the missing,lost or stolen files keeps being used, and I think more and more people are now starting to believe that be the case.

Like Littlechild.

[PaulB]

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Really? How interesting. Who, precisely, has said that either man suffered from a neurological disorder which affected their memory?

[S.Brett]

To Jonathan (Thanks for your answer)

Lawende stated (according to Swanson/MET):

"...appearance of a sailor."

Lawende? stated (according to Major Smith/City Police):

"...dressed in something like navy serge"

Yes, Lawende was probably the witness, who was called several times.

Tom Sadler/ Frances Coles:

´"Probably the only trustworthy description of the assassin", having seen him with a woman at the corner of the passage leading from Duke Street to Mitre Square on the night of Eddowes's murder.´

William Grant Granger/ Alice Graham:

"A story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7 May 1895, which reported that Grainger had been unhesitatingly identified by the one person whom the police believe saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found."

1891: Seaman Sadler + Lawende= Seaside Home?
1895: Granger + Lawende= "unhesitatingly identified"?

Anderson:

"...I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"

Anderson mixed up "Kosminski" with the cases of Sadler a n d Granger?

By the way:

Anderson:

"Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum."

Macnaghten about "Kosminski":

"He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889."

Swanson:

"...and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead."

They believed... believe he still is detained... believed that he died in an asylum... believed... a man who is now dead... they believe in 1889, in 1891, in 1895...

They believed... but they did not know what the City Police knew...

[Trevor Marriott]

Really? How interesting. Who, precisely, has said that either man suffered from a neurological disorder which affected their memory?

That is what you were suggesting when we were discussing the handwriting,

[Trevor Marriott]

Like Littlechild.

Even someone with a fading memory couldnt have got so many things wrong .

But we will leave the topic of Tumblety to another day !!!!

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Trevor,

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Let me help you out here, Trev.

The poster claiming Anderson and Swanson suffered brain cramps is Jonathan Hainsworth, a confirmed Druittist. In his version those two were simply addled nitwits being spoonfed mush by that eversharp cookie Melville Macnaghten.

(Jonathan I know you're sound asleep Down Under, but when you awake, please take no offense)

Roy

ps yes thank you Cadet Brett

[Trevor Marriott]

Good morning Trevor,



Let me help you out here, Trev.

The poster claiming Anderson and Swanson suffered brain cramps is Jonathan Hainsworth, a confirmed Druittist. In his version those two were simply addled nitwits being spoonfed mush by that eversharp cookie Melville Macnaghten.

(Jonathan I know you're sound asleep Down Under, but when you awake, please take no offense)

Roy

ps yes thank you Cadet Brett

Roy
Thank you
But I think I made my point in the first instance

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

The original question was why no mention of the first name "Aaron" in the marginalia and or end page annotations.

We actually don't know. All is speculative.
To even suggest that D.S.Swanson KNEW the first name is speculative. Why? Because we do not know that Swanson had ever dealt with or come across, one "Aaron Kosminski". We have no evidence that he had ever seen the name nor known of it, as there is no official documentary police evidence in existence to tell us that Swanson saw the name. The only possible document is the MacNagthen Memoranda, which, although dated 1894, is not officially stamped, and seems to be private notes written on headed police paper, showing especially many errors of fact, and dated long after Swanson was at the "epicentre" of the enquiries. It's reliability has been questioned on this basis as well as others. (Do please excuse and bear with me Jonathan)

The Swanson marginalia and end page annotations present their own problems of proof as well. (as have been listed in previous posts and threads)
So given all of the above problems, together with the fact that we do not know why Swanson made the notes in the first place, the reasoning surrounding why "Aaron" isn't mentioned in them because a rather futile exercise in speculation. We cannot assume, either way, in any way.

I have a feeling the only reason some comment on here is in order to keep a game going. I have a feeling some...well... they know full well that the question of the Swanson marginalia is dubious, and that at best other interests lie at the nature of the continuation of argument.

Because I believe that some people here are worried what would happen if Kosminski, the suspect, is put to bed once and for all. And if that house of cards came down, what of Druitt? What of Tumblety?
What indeed would happen to Ripperology if these 3 "suspects" disappeared off the radar?

Would the life blood of Ripperology be taken away? Would it affect the books, films, tv programmes? Would it have any effect on conferences? Ripper tours? Would it, in actual fact, strangulate the essence of this genre?

In my opinion, no. It would actually do the one thing that I happen agree with a certain writer on here, for different reasons about. It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed. It is needed because the Kosminski/Tumblety/Druitt lines are all dried up and stale. Even Jonathan's excellent reasoning (thanks for bearing with me Jonathan) for Druitt's inclusion has a limit that cannot be proven nor even expanded upon without more documentary evidence from somewhere.

The deleting of the famous three from the Ripperological suspect list may even cause the truth to be found. Because it hasn't been found so far and on the basis of the material we have been speculating about until now, nothing at present will present the truth either.

"Aaron" Kosminski is somewhat of a misnomer. A bit like Druitt being a "doctor". A bit like Tumblety being arrested under suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. A bit like "Jack the Ripper" didn't exist before a newspaperman invented his name. A bit like all the top policemen having differing views on the subject, without any real uniformity.

"Aaron" wasn't in the marginalia/end paper because it wasn't written in it.
Whoever wrote either piece, whenever or however. That, as a certain writer once said, is "The bloody truth".
Just my opinion.


best wishes

Phil