Possible new interpretation of Swanson marginalia.

[Tecs]

Dear all.

Please accept my apologies if this has already been explored but to my knowledge, nobody has suggested this.

Browsing through the S M and thinking about the witness who refused to give evidence, is it possible that when Swanson wrote that the witness refused to give evidence against the suspect because it would cause the suspect's death, that he was thinking more along the lines of the suspect being a victim of vigilante action?

I know that he writes that the suspect would have been hanged, but, if you were to substitute the word "hanged" for "lynched".......

Is it possible that knowing the feelings that were running high in the district, Swanson was aware that the slightest hint of an individual being the ripper would be enough for locals to get out the rope and lynch/hang the individual?

It could explain the problem of a certified lunatic not being eligible for lawful capital punishment. If he were temporarily in an asylum then if released, vigilante justice may be waiting?

I literally only thought this up ten minutes ago and haven't gone back to any documents so please forgive me if I've overlooked some obvious points as to why it is impossible!

kind regards.

tecs

[Abby Normal]

perhaps Tecs
but everything in the SM points to it being in the context of the police/witness/suspect and legal issues. and this was also at least a couple years removed from the height of the ripper scare so I doubt that's what swanson had in mind.