Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Tom_Wescott]

I would also like to congratulate Garry Wroe on post 308. It was very well-reasoned and well-presented. That's not to say I agree with it (yet), but it's worthy of consideration. I recall a post regarding the Mitre Square witnesses, authored by Garry, a year or so ago, that really resonated with me as well. More so, in fact.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

Many thanks, Tom. Most kind. I've set up a thread in the Suspects section should you care to contribute.

[C. F. Leon]

Hi, I’m a chaste newbie, so be nice!
Just a thought, but with regards to the fact that Swanson didn’t provide Koz’s first name in his Marginalia…Perhaps he felt it unnecessary? In other words, perhaps Koz was such a well know suspect, and so well know to the police, that he deemed “Kosminski” to be sufficient? If indeed he was the “prime suspect”, this would seem logical. After all, when we talk about Elvis Presley, to sometimes simply say “Presley”, same with “Kennedy”, or “Lennon”? The first name can seem superfluous?
Considering the swathes of paperwork including suspect dossiers that are missing/destroyed, it may not be implausible to consider that he was far more well known to the contemporary Peelers than he is to us?
Just a thought….

Actually, the question should be: why WOULD Swanson use Kosminski's given name at all? He was not writing a biography or a cover letter to a resume. Anyone who he ever expected to see the note would know who "Kosminski" was.

Short answer to the question: Swanson did not use K's first name for EXACTLY the SAME reason that you (and I) did not use his or Swanson's given names. We and our audience both know who we are talking about.

BTW: Your use of "Kennedy" is a poor example, since BOTH JFK and RFK are historically important for roughly the same period, and sometimes it IS vital to distinguish between them.

[Trevor Marriott]

Swanson 1893

It has been suggested by a poster on JTR Forums that the control samples I used for comparison purposes were possibly forged.

To put the record straight they are genuine and from official police records.

I do not have a problem with posting them for all to see I have no hidden agenda as has also been suggested.

[Bridewell]

Sightings & Movements of Criminals

Hi Trevor,

Hope the trip to France was enjoyable and worthwhile. The content of the report itself is interesting as it documents Swanson's own understanding of 19th century 'best practise' with regard to the handling of informants.

I don't know that it was standard practise across the country, but in Notts in the 1930's (& probably earlier) there existed a "Sightings & Movements of Criminals" book. I know this because, when I worked Resident Rural for a couple of years, in the 1980's I found one in my office with entries going back that far! One individual seen (and obviously not liked by the officer) was described thus: "Walks with a slouching gait. Very boasting". A sighting of a known individual documented in such a book could prove invaluable in the context of the Whitechapel Murders, and I wouldn't mind betting that there are a few examples of such books gathering dust in remote corners of old police stations.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

Pre Advokate days, however the Victorian Police seem to have kept to something similar.

Monty