Aaron or not

[Stewart P Evans]

The Intentions of James Swanson - July 2000 Update

At the time that I met Jim Swanson in July 2000, Jim stated - "I don't know what prompted him (Jim's father) to tell me 'Your grand father knows all about Jack the Ripper.' Thats all he ever told me."

The last of Donald Swanson's children to die was Alice in 1981. Jim was her executor and in amongst her effects were the Donald Swanson papers and the annotated book. Jim read the report appointing his grandfather to take charge of the Ripper investigations and then turned to Anderson's book and came across his grandfather's pencil written notes, "which disclosed the identity of the Ripper."

"...the weekend section of the Daily Telegraph of Saturday October 3rd 1987 printed a lot of rubbish about Jack the Ripper. As I had proof of Jack's identity I felt it only fair to my grandfather & Anderson to make the facts known. Firstly to get some recognition of the part my grandfather played and secondly that the most senior people at Scotland Yard were on the ball and were completely satisfied they knew his identity and that he had been safely put away. So I got in touch with Charles Nevin of the Daily Telegraph and invited him to come and see my grandfather's papers, which he did."

[Stewart P Evans]

The Intentions of James Swanson

When Jim Swanson approached the Daily Telegraph with the notes his grandfather had made he had two objectives -

1. To get some recognition of the part that his grandfather had played.
2. To put an end to all the fanciful conjecture concerning the killer and so make public the fact that the senior persons in Scotland Yard C.I.D. were satisfied that they knew who the Ripper was and that he had been safely put away.

Jim was quite convinced that Kosminski named by his grandfather was the Ripper. The difference between his grandfather's statement that "he died shortly afterwards" and the results of Martin Fido's research into the Colney Hatch records did not alter Jim's conviction.

After reading Paul Begg's 1988 book, Jim Swanson felt that once the Ripper files were closed and his grandfather had moved on to other important cases his interest in Kosminski would have diminished and would have been only cursory.

Jim also thought there was more behind the identification of the murderer than either his grandfather or Anderson were prepared to disclose and it was not simply a question of one Jew betraying another. Anderson's most positive statement that "he was stating a definitely ascertained fact" led Jim to suspect that there was a pact between senior CID personnel (not those working on the ground locally) and an informant, either discovered in the house to house search or who more likely presented himself to Scotland Yard, the price of his disclosures and the subsequent identification was absolute secrecy. Note also that the identification was not local. The suspect concerned having been taken to the Seaside Home etc.

Jim thought that the informant and identifier was Kosminski's brother. He would have traded his knowledge for secrecy and no prosecution (which would have meant hanging) and knowing that he would be safely detained.

Jim's reasoning, of course, is flawed not least of all because if the informer/identifier was Aaron's brother there would have been no need at all for an identification. But, at least, it shows that Jim was putting some thought to what he had read.

[Stewart P Evans]

Chronology

Just a few notes to add to the chronology of the discovery of Kosminski. Martin Fido discovered Aaron Kosminski in the Colney Hatch Admissions and Discharge book in March 1987 (Register of Admissions (Males) Vol No. 3, Folio 31, and Male Patients Day Book New Series No. 20.

[Stewart P Evans]

Daily Telegraph

For those interested, here is the Daily Telegraph article of 19 October 1987 -

[Stewart P Evans]

Proper Analysis

Are photocopiers the best tools to use when trying to reproduce a document where faithfull rendering of the amount of fading is of paramount importance? Indeed a photograph would be much better. I presume there are still individuals alive who viewed the annotations in 1987? Perhaps we should ask them whether the fading was in an advanced state in 1987.
No you should not keep quite, and yes we all want a true assesment of the annotations, but with respect Stewart you have not provided a true nature of the annotations, you did not view the annotations in 1987, but at a much later date, and rely solely on a photocopy to determine their degree of fading in 1987.
No but his surname is
The authors of the A-Z apparently(see above)
All the best Observer

Obviously photocopiers are not the best form of reproduction when trying to assess the amount of fading that a writing sample has undergone over the years, but that is obvious. However, when a photocopy is all that you have, and you weren't there to see it in 1987, there's not much you can do about that. It would seem that Paul Begg had it photographed in 1987/88 as there are pretty good photographs of the marginalia and annotations in Jack the Ripper The Facts (2004).

It's all very well to say 'you have not provided a true nature of the annotations' when I have provided all that I have. I am very happy for a comparison to be made with the 1987 photographs and the book today. I don't think that the photographs I took on my visit to Jim Swanson in July 2000 are the best as the light was too bright. All I can say is that the actual notes that I saw at that time surprised me as to how faint they appeared when they looked pretty clear in the 1987/88 photocopies that I had. I am not trying to read anything sinister into that - I am merely stating it as a fact. I would be very happy for a comparison to be made between the early photographs and the book as it looks today.

As to the name of the suspect Kosminski, I again state, as a fact, that -

1. Anderson gives us no name at all for his Polish Jew suspect.
2. Macnaghten gives us only the surname 'Kosminski' in his memorandum.
3. Swanson gives us only the surname 'Kosminski' in the endpaper notes.

Personally I believe that Anderson's Polish Jew was Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' and, in turn, Macnaghten's Kosminski was almost certainly Aaron Kosminski. But I always prefer sticking with the facts so far as they go. It is also a fact that the Swanson marginalia and annotations were not properly dealt with when found in 1987 and I am not according blame to any individual for that. I find it iincredible that anyone should portray me as the villain of the piece for trying to sort out the anomalies that must be obvious to anyone.

[Chris]

On the chronology, a lot of information was posted here in 2006, by Stewart Evans, Martin Fido and others. Some of the messages were reposted here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=14

These posts say, inter alia, that Jim Swanson initially offered the marginalia to the News of the World, which paid him for the rights but did not use them, owing to a change of "owners or editor". Also that after the publication of Martin Fido's book, Swanson saw a review of it by Colin Wilson and also an article in the Daily Telegraph of 3 October 1987, and then obtained the News of the World's permission for the Telegraph to publish the material instead.

It was published on 19 October by Charles Nevin. In "Ripper Notes Extra", 5 November 2006 (extra.rippernotes.com/?p=38), Alan Sharp quoted a recent article by Nevin in the Independent, which mentioned that the publication in 1987 had been courtesy of the News of the World, "which had decided, wisely, judging by the interest until now, that an unknown Pole, rather than a crazed Prince or a celebrity artist, didn’t do the business".

If all this information is accurate (and obviously one would want to clarify whether Nevin knew about the prior purchase at first hand or only indirectly) it does suggest that the publication rights were sold to the News of the World before the publication of Martin Fido's book.

Fido's book was published, according to amazon.com, in September 1987. There was no change of ownership of the News of the World around 1987 - it has been owned by Rupert Murdoch since 1969. But a new editor was appointed in 1987 - Wendy Henry, the first woman to edit a major British newspaper in recent times. From what I can glean, this appointment had taken place by early July 1987.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Observer,

No but his surname is

...as it is in the Macnaghten Memo. So, nothing new there.

[Observer]

I have made it patently clear that I did not see the annotations until a much later date. This has nothing to do with proper examination, it is to do with clarity and darkness and the difference is patently clear by comparison, they appear a lot darker in the 1987 photocopies than they do now, but obviously a photograph taken in 1987 would be better. When I looked at the writing it was very faded and it would be impossible to say when it was written. I do not pretend to be a document examiner.

Are photocopiers the best tools to use when trying to reproduce a document where faithfull rendering of the amount of fading is of paramount importance? Indeed a photograph would be much better. I presume there are still individuals alive who viewed the annotations in 1987? Perhaps we should ask them whether the fading was in an advanced state in 1987.

I do not hazard a guess as to why they weren't properly examined in 1987, you would have to ask those involved. I certainly cannot give a reason and don't try to. Are you suggesting that what was done in 1987 was OK and there was no need for proper evaluation? The provenance of the book and the discovery of the annotations has to be assessed on the record that has been left. I have merely pointed out matters of concern, which any reasonable person, I would have thought, would agree with. The recent examination has proved the validity of the queries I raised. As I said, perhaps I should have kept quiet and said nothing but I assumed that any interested parties should have the full history and nature of the annotations. The provenance was deemed impeccable by the authors of the A-Z.

No you should not keep quite, and yes we all want a true assesment of the annotations, but with respect Stewart you have not provided a true nature of the annotations, you did not view the annotations in 1987, but at a much later date, and rely solely on a photocopy to determine their degree of fading in 1987.

Regarding the forenames aspect, the first name of Kosminski is given nowhere.

No but his surname is

Who exactly claims the Swanson marginalia and end notes have "impeccable provenance?

The authors of the A-Z apparently(see above)

All the best Observer

[Natalie Severn]

Who exactly claims the Swanson marginalia and end notes have "impeccable provenance?

[robhouse]

Hello Scott, Rob, and Chris,

I don't think I ever looked through these records you are discussing. But if somebody does look at them (again), dont forget to look for Aaron Abrahams also.

Rob H

my freind?

Absolutely, Jeff !!!

That is, unless you show up at the next conference wearing claret & blue.

Then, there will be real trouble !!!

Chelsea Aggro
Chelsea Aggro
Hello; Hello

Chelsea used to be pretty good at that sort of thing. Not anymore !!!

Not since the football took over !!!


Colin

[Jeff Leahy]

Now you are putting words into my mouth !!!

I do not presume to know when, or by whom these notes were written. Swanson died in 1924; some 63-to-64 years before the Marginalia surfaced. We do not know the identities of every person that may have had access to Swanson's personal copy of Anderson's book, during this time-frame.
[/QUOTE]

Hi Colin

No you are wrong (my freind?)

If you are going to try and claim that the Marginalia is fake...

You are going to have to understand the time frames when anybody could have known about the Kosminski time frame..

And then forged that 'End note' into the book...

Obviously I have gone over this in detail again and agian..

And its provenance would appear true..

Perhaps we could ask Stewart to help?

In terms of the Marginalia time frames? After all it is only jim Swanson who could have forged the marginalia..

Money does not 'Realistically appear a motive..

How much time would Jim Swanson have had..to fake the marginalia?

Yours Jeff Playing Devils Advocate

[Jeff Leahy]

shebang is a massive Red Herring.

Objection referee?...obusive langage

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry

Fading only occurs during exposure to sunlight...as it had clearly nevre been opened by Swanson's Daughter..then regularly examined by 'YOU' guys the fading is only to be expected.
RE: Why did they not?
The benefit of hindsite is a marvelous thing.

Sorry for raising valid concerns, next time I shall keep quiet about everything I see, perhaps you would like to do some first-hand research yourself - we'd get a proper job done then.

[Stewart P Evans]

Proper Evaluation

How do you know that, and what do you mean by main fading? Not long ago you were berating the fact that the home office official had only made his analysis from looking at photo copies, now photo copies seem to be acceptable. When did you see the book? What was your initial impression of the faded annotation, that it had been written in the distant past, or that it was of a recent origin?
I don't know, but it's plain to see from the above that you seem to think the reason they were not tested boils down to the fact that they were considered dodgy, when in fact it could well be that the opposite is the case, i.e. their provenance was considered impeccable.
From Macnaghtens memoranda
"have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:"
"The statement, too, that Cutbush 'spent a portion of the day in making rough drawings"
"it is said that a light overcoat was among the things found in Cutbush's house,"
Macnaghten only mentioned his full name at the begining of the memoranda, thereafter referring to him as Cutbush.

I have made it patently clear that I did not see the annotations until a much later date. This has nothing to do with proper examination, it is to do with clarity and darkness and the difference is patently clear by comparison, they appear a lot darker in the 1987 photocopies than they do now, but obviously a photograph taken in 1987 would be better. When I looked at the writing it was very faded and it would be impossible to say when it was written. I do not pretend to be a document examiner.

I do not hazard a guess as to why they weren't properly examined in 1987, you would have to ask those involved. I certainly cannot give a reason and don't try to. Are you suggesting that what was done in 1987 was OK and there was no need for proper evaluation? The provenance of the book and the discovery of the annotations has to be assessed on the record that has been left. I have merely pointed out matters of concern, which any reasonable person, I would have thought, would agree with. The recent examination has proved the validity of the queries I raised. As I said, perhaps I should have kept quiet and said nothing but I assumed that any interested parties should have the full history and nature of the annotations. The provenance was deemed impeccable by the authors of the A-Z.

Regarding the forenames aspect, the first name of Kosminski is given nowhere.